More on Clinton Donors Versus Dean
Some more details of the heated exchange between Howard Dean and Clinton supporters during last evening's Obama-Clinton donor summit on Fifth Avenue, from yet another attendee:
After Dean's initial remarks, Bernard Bergreen, a Hillary bundler, rose and said that Dean's address left out any discussion of Michigan and Florida, which was the critical bone of contention between the two campaigns.
Dean said that in his view, the question could be settled only after the primaries had finished in June, and after the superdelegates had made their decision.
At that point Clinton campaign finance chair Hassan Nemazee spoke up. He said Dean's response sounded to him as if the DNC chairman were "essentially trying to kick the can down the road" and that the chairman was not exhibiting the type of leadership one would expect. Nemazee said that since the campaigns obviously could not reach a solution on their own before June, Dean's argument amounted to passing the buck.
Dean then responded, heatedly, that in his experience, those who sought the intervention of party leadership were motivated by their own particular agendas. And that was not the sort of leadership he intended to provide.
Nemazee answered that he had in no way insinuated that Dean should bring about a particular outcome, and was only calling for the chairman to take a more active role in exercising leadership. Nemazee said it needed to happen before the primaries, not after.
He also said, according to the attendee, that he found Dean's tone accusatory and "pejorative."
Nemazee left shortly after the exchange.
UPDATE: Here’s how one attendee, a Dean sympathizer, reconstructed Dean’s riposte to Nemazee: “You've been blunt with me, now let me blunt with you: people say they want leadership if it favors their argument and their candidate. You can't change the rules right now to do what you want without it seeming unfair to the other side."
Dean’s point, the attendee said, was that the most important thing for the party was that the loser feel that he or she had lost fairly, so that when it came time to rally around the nominee, the loser's donors would have no reservations about helping fund the campaign and the DNC.
After his response, Dean received applause -- primarily, one would suspect, from the Obama supporters in the room.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
'An error in judgment'Posted: Friday, April 04, 2008 1:19 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton
From NBC's John Boxley
As mentioned earlier today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn -- in his role as chief executive of Buston-Marsteller -- met with Colombia's ambassador to discuss a free trade deal, which Clinton actually opposes.
Penn just released this statement: "The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it. The senator's well known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed."
*** UPDATE *** Change to Win, a federation of labor unions (like SEIU and the Teamsters), that has endorsed Obama, is calling for Hillary Clinton to fire her chief strategist, Mark Penn. "We have questioned Penn's role in the Clinton campaign in the past for his representation of union busting employers like Cintas,"
'An error in judgment'Posted: Friday, April 04, 2008 1:19 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton
From NBC's John Boxley
As mentioned earlier today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn -- in his role as chief executive of Buston-Marsteller -- met with Colombia's ambassador to discuss a free trade deal, which Clinton actually opposes.
*** UPDATE *** Change to Win, a federation of labor unions (like SEIU and the Teamsters), that has endorsed Obama, is calling for Hillary Clinton to fire her chief strategist, Mark Penn. "We have questioned Penn's role in the Clinton campaign in the past for his representation of union busting employers like Cintas,"
Dean is indeed "kicking the can down the road" by ensuring that the votes of Michigan and Florida Democrats count for NOTHING, two entire states' of Democratic primary voters disenfrancised because of a spitting contest between the states' Democratic Parties and the national.
Dean will seat the representatives after all the other states have voted AND after all the "super delegates" have declared, meaning that a Florida and Michigan seating is strictly for show and can have NO effect on the process. This shabby treatment of Democrats by their own leadership will come back to bite the Party in November, I have no doubt.
It is obvious he is more concerned about backing a Candidate than taking issue with voters and intends to disenfranchise MI/FL. Lots of Democrats have vowed to leave the party should he disenfranchise these two states. I am one of a family of three that will be leaving the Democratic Party if these delegates are not seated by June 7th. I live in TX.
What's obvious is that the Clinton Supporters want to pressure Dean to make a decision that favors their candidate. Michigan and Florida knew the rules. The HRC Campaign knew the rules. Now that they have squandered their substantial lead in the polls as the presumptive Democratic nominee, they want to change the rules. Unfair!
Too bad frauds like Sherrie Pal and other Clinton supporters weren't interested in making a fuss before Michigan and Florida state governments voted to change their primary dates. They knew what the DNC response would be before hand.
What is obvious is that the republicans are the ones who VOTED to move these primaries, and the dem party in two very critical november states are now being selectively punished - punished for something they could not control.
The Republicans are effing with the Democratic process and laughing all the way to the Obama attack ads.
C'mon people. Wake up. The democrats didn't do this in the states. The republicans did. And other states did it too, but we're only punishing the ones we desperately need to win in november? How does this make sense to anyone but a freaking republican??
Breaking the party rules and getting punished for it is hardly disenfranchisement. FL and MI knew the rules. In fact, part of the reason they broke the rules was to help Hillary in the first place, who they wrongly assumed would have a big money lead and be able to put away the nomination early with help from primaries in a few bigger states where no one was paying close attention rather than Iowa and New Hampshire.
I can understand the anger but I think it would be wise to take a long range view before you decide not to support the Dems in the fall. Ever hear of the expression "cut off your nose to spite your face"? Who do you want choosing the next Supreme Court Justices--the next President will no doubt make some appointments. Who war and economic policies would you like to see implemented?
what Howard Dean and the DNC, Donna Brazile, are failing to understand is this is beyond the two campaigns...this is beyond what Obama and Hillary want...this is about the voters and their voting rights...
the voting rights of the citizens are more important than any RULES the DNC made up...the voters should not be punished for circumstances that are out of their control...
this is a dangerous precedent for the Democratic party to set...your state could be next...and next time it could be your vote!
if they do not want to honor the two existing primaries then allow the voters to have their opportunity to vote in a revote and participate in the Democratic primaries...otherwise the Republican votes in Fl and Mi were counted, but the Democratic Party has denied the Democratic voters of their vote in this most exciting, important and historic democratic primary...
...and not only has the DNC denied the Democrats in Fl and Mi their voting rights, the DNC has also denied the voters in those two states of all the excitement of the rallys, the town halls, and the chance to meet the candidates...
the democratic citizens of Fl and Mi have been cut off from the Democratic process...they may as well live in Cuba with this treatment from the Democratic Party...
The DNC has no idea the fire they are playing with to placate the Obama camp which is stopping the revotes...
The Democratic party will pay dearly in the GE for being short sighted now...
I know what I am speaking about. I live in Florida, the voters are furious...they will either stay home and so many are so angry they are in the process of becoming McCain Democrats...
Why should they be loyal to the DNC and donate money and time to them or work for them in the General Election, when the DNC does not respect them enought to allow them to vote and ensure that it will be counted before a nominee is selected so their vote will have value...
The DNC has been warned but their arrogance is blinding them...get ready for a very big and loud wake up call from average voters like me...
remember...this is not about Obama and Hillary...this is about the soul of the Democratic Party...one person, one vote...and they all get counted...if we cannot believe that, the Democratic Party isn't worth the effort...
The Democratic Party I know believed in the rights of the voters when we went to the Supreme Court to fight for them in 2000
...suddenly over two million votes in Florida can just be dismissed because one candidate doesn't want to do a revote...Shame on the DNC...
And exactly how is doing nothing and saying after everyone else has already decided and it is done, then Florida and Michigan can vote.....that amounts to saying we will hold the revotes sometime next year when we have time. Howard Dean is the worst leader of the DNC in history.....he is so afraid of being criticized he is paralysed and useless. He needs to be replaced by a pro-active leader. He has stalled and flim-flammed for weeks....I am disgusted and it is this lack of leadership that will lose the dems millions of members.....between Dean and Obama's refusal to lose a state vote, so he just refuses to allow any solution......the dems are proving all the things republicans say about them are true. No spine, no leadership =no votes for dems. It seems to me Dean is supporting Obama by just standing there with his finger in his nose saying "Gee whiz, folks, I just can't help, I can't decide, I have no opinion" It sounds to me like he is saying "I am for Obama so wil just stand around doing nothing so he can disenfranchise 2 huge states that we NEED to win in Nov just to help my candidate, Obama"....that's what I hear when he talks and it is obvious now. DEAN IS AN OBAMA SUPPORTER, OTHERWISE HE WOULD ACT TO BE A LEADER OF THE PARTY, IT IS OBVIOUS HE IS DOING NOTHING, JUST TO HELP OBAMA. OBAMA IS THE PROBLEM.
BO supporters are the biggest hypocrites around. Since when has the democratic party been for sexism and disenfranchising voters. I know since Obama became the defacto leader of the "new" democratic party -- the neo-libs. Well, it's going to be a very small party with African Americans, teenagers and the liberal elite...because most of us typically white, hard working, Jewish, Latino, Asian, veterans, you know, the rest of us, aren't going anywhere near the neo-lib party. We stand for every vote counting. We stand against racism and sexism no matter who is delivering it and who is the victim of it. We are patriotic and try not to denigrate the office of the presidency be deriding the leaders of our party. We love America.
The 2 million plus people that voted in the Democratic primaries in MI and FL didn't break any rules and should not, in America, be punished with the loss of their voices. If the Democratic Party persists in this rules-are-rules crap, I'll opt out as will many, many others. We'll never, ever vote for BO either.
Howard Dean was inexperienced and badly bungled the job.
Neither of our media-anointed "history-making" front-runners has enough experience OR enough likeability.
It's a crying shame to this John Edwards supporter that the best of the bunch was forced out by the big donors.
We all lose in this scenario.
Yeah, we're all going to leave the party, if we don't get our way. We're gonna cry and whine and moan and take our marbles and go home, so John McCain can win by 30,000,000 votes. We've even got a deadline now, so mark your DNC calendars and brace yourselves for this impending mass defection... NOT!
What a load of horse manure. Get over it, people. We have serious work to do. If your tender sensibilities are more important to you than the critical agenda we need to address, which I seriously doubt, then we'll just have to get it done without you. But my guess is, you'll do a lot of growing up before November, and you'll be back.
I was idiotic, just like you, back in the late sixties. I pouted and bitched and stuck my nose in the air, and Richard Nixon won the White House. I sat it out, in favor of having a snit fit. The bus drove off without me, while I yelled, "You're going to miss me when I'm gone...!"
Forgive me, if I refuse to believe that you're all as stupid as I was.
Disenfranchise? Both states knowingly broke the rules, and it was the elected leaders in these two states that should be blamed. In reality, it was these culpable individuals that unleashed the term "disenfranchise" from the very beginning, looking to deflect the reprimanding they deserved for their irresponsible leadership. Beyond these simple facts, political parties are private organizations and therefore cannot "disenfranchise" anyone. They have a right to decide how their nominee is chosen and are not obligated to conduct a primary or caucus anywhere. The states violated the rules and it would obviously be unfair to either candidate and their supporters to seat the delegates as currently constituted. However, since seating them as such would be beneficial to Sen. Clinton, she and her supporters have done an about-face from the original agreement that the voting in those states would be at most symbolic (although, the fact that many voters in these states were aware of the futility of their voting probably played a huge role in the outcome, not to mention the fact that all candidates agreed not to campaign in either).
It appears that a few of you have made a judgment without having bothered to learn the facts; even my 16 yr. old knows better than that!
Not only were the decisions to hold the primaries in both FL & MI made by Republicans (who controlled the process in both states), but the DNC had rules in place (since 2006) in such an event, whereby the dems in states had to make a proper effort to follow their schedule. In both Michigan and Florida, those efforts were made. The DNC then chose to set the bar higher -- AFTER the fact, but only for Michigan and Florida. The DNC showed leniency to three other states who changed their primary dates -- New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina -- seating all their delegates. Their "tough love" treatment was reserved for Michigan and Florida.
The DNC has totally screwed up here, not the party chiefs in Michigan and Florida, and most certainly not the voters. If the RNC, who have allotted 50% of the earned delegates as opposed to our 0%, is seen to be more fair and democratic, as they have been so far, where do you think these votes will go in November?
Dean and the DNC didn't anticipate a race this long or this tight. They need to bite the bullet, admit they didn't see this coming, and count the votes from FL and MI or hold those elections again. To hell with the rules. They can amend them later.
You cannot ignore 2 million voters and escape unscathed. Nor should you expect to.
If Dean and Pelosi were not so deeply and obviously in the bag for BO, they would see that. As it is, they appear to be willing to tick off half the Democratic Party base in their headlong rush to annoint Obama's feet with the oil of obsequiousness.
Apart from anything else, the irony of the Democratic Party fighting to deny voters their say...? It is nauseating.
You are obviously a Clinton supporter - I think that abundantly clear.
What is FAIR is that the rules were known early on - the Clinton camp should have protested THEN. If they had, they wouldn't look like crybabies now. By the way, I'd say the same thing if the Obama camp had pulled this stunt.
Why HAVE rules if a petulant campaign group is just going to try to tromp them? If these rules are not observed, when will Democrats EVER again believe their party's position on a situation? Like a toddler, just whine & cry & "mommy" will eventually give in...
There is a VERY public statement by Hillary saying she knew the results weren't going to count. Of course, it was before she started falling behind. HOW do you explain that (not the falling behind?)
We Democrats have chafed at the tricks pulled by the GOP to our detrement for years. Yes, it's time to change some rules; but if Hillary was upset, she should have read the rules & protested earlier. Just as she should have read the "supporting" documentation before voting to authorize Bush's war in Iraq. Seems there's a pattern here with Hillary protesting her side AFTER she forgot to do her homework. Do I want this role model as my president - I'm afraid not.
I used to be a HUGE Hillary & Bill fan - supported them through Bill's pecadillos, believing it was a private matter - to MUCH scorn here in Texas. But they've lost me.
THAT should tell you more than if some petulant people leave our party because the STATED & PUBLIC rules are being followed.
You are obviously a Clinton supporter - I think that abundantly clear.
What is FAIR is that the rules were known early on - the Clinton camp should have protested THEN. If they had, they wouldn't look like crybabies now. By the way, I'd say the same thing if the Obama camp had pulled this stunt.
Why HAVE rules if a petulant campaign group is just going to try to tromp them? If these rules are not observed, when will Democrats EVER again believe their party's position on a situation? Like a toddler, just whine & cry & "mommy" will eventually give in...
There is a VERY public statement by Hillary saying she knew the results weren't going to count. Of course, it was before she started falling behind. HOW do you explain that (not the falling behind?)
We Democrats have chafed at the tricks pulled by the GOP to our detrement for years. Yes, it's time to change some rules; but if Hillary was upset, she should have read the rules & protested earlier. Just as she should have read the "supporting" documentation before voting to authorize Bush's war in Iraq. Seems there's a pattern here with Hillary protesting her side AFTER she forgot to do her homework. Do I want this role model as my president - I'm afraid not.
I used to be a HUGE Hillary & Bill fan - supported them through Bill's pecadillos, believing it was a private matter - to MUCH scorn here in Texas. But they've lost me.
THAT should tell you more than if some petulant people leave our party because the STATED & PUBLIC rules are being followed.
While it is possible to disenfranchise a voter in the national election, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT possible to do so in a primary/caucus in the way several individuals have chosen to argue. A political party is a private group. Can we all understand that? Nobody is making you a democrat. The nomination process is completed among those who are members of the party. You can choose to leave the party on the grounds you stated (or any grounds for that matter), but it certainly doesn't make it a valid reason. In fact, it is borderline infantile to abandon your affiliation for such an inconsequential reason, especially considering the fact that we don't even know what the voting would produce. None of the candidates had an opportunity to campaign in these states, and there was an agreement that they would not count. As I said before, blame the state leaders for their misguidance and hypocritical rhetoric.
Dean is a failure.
Being a leader does not mean being a petty headmaster who punishes those who breaks the rules.
Being a leader means solving problems. It means making EVERYONE feel like they have a stake in the process. It means applying principle in a prioritized, ethical and strategic manner with an even hand - and clearly the principle of enfranchising voters and keeping all 50 states in the process is a higher priority than kissing up to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Dean has botched this terribly and has lost my confidence. If he does not get this in hand, and soon, expect there to be a not-insignificant popular exodus from an incompetently run party - particularly in Michigan and Florida.
While attempting to make your remarks unbiased, you have done just the opposite. You sound very biased in your grouping every group together except African Americans, even though there are several who support Clinton. I am not one of them simply because of this attitude you have displayed is what I have seen in others who support her. This is very disturbing to those of us who believed we were all "Americans" regardless of our ethnic origin. You have made the case of not voting for a fellow American because of what? This is what divides this country people like you who speak without regard of the impact of your words, or maybe you do know their impact.
"A political party is a private group. Can we all understand that? Nobody is making you a democrat."
- and that attitude, regardless of any other debate of process, is a perfectly smug invitation for more voters in Michigan and Florida to leave the party, which by your characterization is not only incompetent but arrogant. Your position is absurdly self-marginalizing; it's about as sure of success as Dean's 2003 presidential run. Viva la failure, eh?
LET ME GUESS..... A Hilary supporter?
(its just a wild guess... that's all)
I believe that the only campaign that has been in Florida working towards a solution and eventual seating of the delegates is the Obama campaign. So by your last sentence it appears that you are "calling out" Sen. Clinton on this issue.
If "rules are rules" the Michigan and Florida delegates should not be seated at all. If the votes don't have a voice in picking the Democratic Party nominee then why seat their delegates after the fact? Just let 48 states and a couple territories pick, we can live with another illegitimate president, can't we?
I say that all delegates from all states should refuse to be seated until Michigan and Florida delegates are seated.
MI and FLA (I live in MI) shouldn't count. We knew they wouldn't so didn't vote and our state is not re-voting, so there are no valid votes to count. Fla has the same problem. If you count the votes there are what about the voters who believed their vote wouldn't count so they didn't vote. Not counting any votes is the only way to be fair to voters. We are democrats and we will vote for the democratic nominee in November and our votes will count then. The Clinton folks are mostly the ones upset about this, because it's to their benefit to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Dean thinks he is doing Obama a favor but he really is not. He is simply guaranteeing the party a defeat in November if Obama is the nominee and you can make book on it. In that case you can practice saying President McCain afer the republican machine gets through with him. This is not some rock video boys and girls it is reality.
What is of interest to me is for the Hillary supporters to come up with an idea that is fair to all of the candidates. What those supporters are asking is that we disadvantage one candidate so that their candidate can win. Now, how fair is that?
Hillary has been saying this same thing, knowing that she can get people all worked up over this and hating on Obama over something that he actually had nothing to do with.
Hillary did not care about those votes from Michigan and Florida until she was behind, and now all of a sudden, she cares about the voters, because she needs the votes. To me, this would be insulting to me as a voter in either Florida or Michigan.
That attitude is meant to signify that there is no such thing as disenfranchisment in a nomination process. If you would pay attention to the context (which apparently might be a stretch for you), you might be able to comprehend that. I do not speak for the party, as I am not registered as a democrat. I am simply stating the facts as they relate to the issue of supposed disenfranchisement. The true demonstration of incompetence and arrogance took place when your state (I'll assume you're a resident of one of the two, not that it matters), decided to knowingly break party rules and expect to tiptoe their way back into the fold. Your entire rant displays far more arrogance than anything I've yet said, and unless you can engage in a civilized debate without resorting to personal jabs, you would do well for yourself to keep your senseless mutterings to yourself; a situation wherein you might learn to recognize that nobody gives a damn about your potential defection from the party. Enjoy your tantrum.