Hillary and Bill: shadow boxing and changing the rules

Hillary Clinton: Changing The Rules On Florida And Michigan Delegates?

January 26th, 2008 by Joe Gandelman



First, there was former President Bill Clinton, upsetting some Democratic bigwigs who fear his unprecedented massive and aggressive presence in Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign could hurt party unity and chase away some voters. Now, here’s Hillary Clinton challenging the DNC, making what some consider a thinly-veiled pitch to get votes in Florida where Democrats agreed not to campaign — and possibly turn the Democratic convention into a bitterly divisive event.

The now clichéd comment referring to Vietnam combat is “to save a village you have to destroy it.” Have the Clintons decided to substitute the word “party” for “village?”

Perhaps…but perhaps not. In the end, it was likely that the delegates would be seated anyway.

But the keys to this controversy are (1) Hillary Clinton is willing to get ahead of the game and not play by the existing rules but set her own rules, (2) she is a skillful, adept and highly nimble political game player, (3) she is accentuating polarization within the Democratic Party itself on this issue… and is clearly ready to do whatever it takes to win the nomination.

A new raging controversy about Mrs. Clinton’s about-face over delegate seatings doesn’t bode well if it’s a close delegate count and these delegates win it for her (she is already ahead in Super Delegates so it may not come to that). But this also doesn’t signal a shift from the Bush/Karl Rove years of polarization and bitter partisan mobilization politics into a new era of national unity where consensus and reconciliation are perceived as virtues, rather than signs of wussy weakness.

The long respected political mantra “do whatever it takes” to win seems to be the overriding theme in this, boiled down best by Marc Ambinder:


This is essentially an about-face from her earlier position.


How could that POSSIBLY influence the votes of Florida Democrats?

And here’s part of the comment Barack Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe:


And that is now the Democrats’ dilemma:

(1) If the final delegate count is close (probably unlikely since Clinton is way ahead in the vital Super Delegates) and she wins the nomination this way there is no question a certain number of Democrats will stay home at the polls. Democrats and Republicans have both lost elections due to angry party members not voting. Would Obama’s youthful voter contingent go out of their way to vote for Clinton who “did what it took” to take it away from their candidate?

(2) The Democrats have long complained that they have been out-gunned in The Ruthlessness Department since the entrance of the late (in)famous Republican operative Lee Atwater under the first President George Bush. But the exception was in 1992 when Bill Clinton won with his famous “War Room” and a campaign outfitted to match or surpass the GOP ruthlessness machine.

If the idea is winning at all costs, will the Demmies in the end prefer to hold their noses and go with the person deemed tough enough to do anything to win? Or will they opt for Obama’s more mannerly approach and argument about the need not just to defeat and make political foes submit but to expand the Democrats’ winning coalition and decrease national polarization?
(Prediction: In the end, they’ll go for victory…) Hillary Clinton’s statement is HERE.

Here’s how it plays in the media via the AP. Note that they see the political vote-getting angle to this. She’s not “campaigning” but she’s “campaigning.”

It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘campaigning” is:


American Prospect’s Ezra Klein writes:


Adds Josh Marshall:


more