According To Clinton Camp, 2,025 Is “A Phony Number”

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Florida, Hillary, Michigan, Pledged Delegates

The 2,025 number has been THE finish line since the beginning of the campaign. Not until the Clinton camp started to see their imminent demise did they start to make the argument that the “real” number is actually 2,209…which would include delegates from Florida and Michigan.

From Politico:

The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates—a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, insists the winner will need 2,209 to cinch the nomination—a tally that includes Florida and Michigan.

“We don’t accept 2,025. It is not the real number because that does not include Florida and Michigan,” said Howard Wolfson, one of Clinton’s two chief strategists. “It’s a phony number.”

Wolfson said they intend to contest the DNC’s 2,025 number “every day,” as well as any declaration of victory made by Obama based upon that number, because it does not include Florida and Michigan.

I would have a different opinion of the value of their argument if she had said this from day one; that Michigan and Florida needed to be seated. That doesn’t mean I’d necessarily agree with it, but if she had said it before Iowa, I would have at least believed that she wasn’t trying to change the rules midstream. But she didn’t, and this latest ploy is beyond shameful.

In other words, theirs is turning into a phony campaign built on phony arguments delivered from phony partisans who will do or say anything to win.


This entry was posted on Thursday, May 8th, 2008 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Florida, Hillary, Michigan, Pledged Delegates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

6 Responses to “According To Clinton Camp, 2,025 Is “A Phony Number””

  1. TheMiddle Says:

    I really expected them to go with the, “Barack could die,” line. But the very fact that you knew they’d say something like this is exactly why I could never vote for her. They’ve done this since the moment it became apparent they likely weren’t going to win. You know, back in February when Obama reeled off the big win streak in states that ‘didn’t matter.’ Because they weren’t big enough – and because caucus states votes don’t count since they aren’t real enough.

    Give me a break! I’m not even surprised, its become the MO of this campaign, whenever you expect them to become more logical as the facts grow more and more overwhelming, the more belligerent they get. Hats off to her, for her ‘tenacity,’ though it isn’t hard to think of other far less flattering words to call what her campaign is doing.

  2. AfricanPride Says:

    Yes RULES are RULES. But the SAME DNC RULES allow for a re-vote to reinstate stripped delegates at a later date. Delegate counting is not permitted BEFORE certain scheduled primaries but totally acceptable through re-votes thereafter. Even if FL and MI Dem leaders broke the RULES, why is Obama punishing and disenfranchising VOTERS who are totally innocent VICTIMS in this? Moreover, as Dr Dean said, the RULES only apply to the DELEGATE COUNT but say nothing about discarding THE POPULAR VOTE COUNT. It is CERTAIN that DNC RULES were broken, but REALITY and ACTUALITY remains that 1.2 Million voters cast their ballots for Clinton and nothing can change that fact.

    The Constitution permits all citizens including DISENFRANCHISED VOTERS to redress their grievances. But a proposed remedy to re-vote in June was rejected by Obama while ignoring/breaking DNC RULES that allow re-votes. So Clinton has every right to renege on the deal not to count FL and MI delegates. By refusing to admit that extra 1.2 Million voters were against him, Obama is like knowingly measuring with a ruler that bears faulty markings, and using it anyway because it’s the most convenient for Obama. The Supreme Court took 217 FL votes from Gore and Bush won. How can Obama throw away 2 Million voters from FL/MI and expect to win come November?

  3. Rich Says:

    I was totally agreeing with you right up to the 2000 election comment.

    I respect your opinion, but the 2000 reference is totally without merit. Nobody “took 217 votes from Gore”….he never had them in the first place, nor did he ever have them – not even after any of the recounts.

    In fact, even “unofficial” recounts that were done AFTER the matter was settled by SCOTUS were not in Gore’s favor.

    It was Gore who tried to steal the election, just like Clinton is trying to do now. I wonder who taught who how to do that?!?

    The Florida debacle would not have happened if Gore would’ve won his home state of Tennessee in 2000, where he was a Senator and Representative for about 16 years before he became VP. GWB cleaned his clock in TN – I take solice in that fact. If the people who he represented for nearly 2 decades and who knew him best did not support him as a presidential candidate, I’m comfortable with him not getting the job.

  4. Rich Says:

    Besides, Florida only has 27 electoral votes, not 271. (I admit, I had to look that one up.) LOL.

  5. MTB Says:

    AfricanPride:
    Obama is not blocking any voter recount. History lesson…The DNC made the consequences of changing the primary dates clear BEFORE the Michigan and Florida primaries. Everyone who voted knew what was happening, and ALL the delegates agreed to remove their names fro the Michigan ballot. The fact that Clinton’s name was left on the ballot indicates that her campaign was planning to backdoor the primary or that her campaign is so poorly managed that such a simple task got overlooked. Now for the civics lesson……the US Constitution lays out the boundaries of the federal government’s behavior. Political parties are nowhere covered in the Constitution. They are private entities that can choose their candidates by any means. Until very recently, the general population never had a say in who the candidates for the parties were. None of us have any rights with regard to how any political party chooses its candidates. Parties are not a branch, division or entity of the Federal government.

  6. AfricanPride Says:

    Sorry to let you know that even if the DNC is a private entity it is still liable under the Constitution among other things to affect EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. I made it very clear that voters have the right to redress their grievances. One can easily challenge the authority of the DNC over its use of discriminatory practices in scheduling primaries. The DNC lets South Carolina and Nevada go early because of the high percentage of Blacks and Latinos in those states respectively. Even New Hampshire switched its date from 3rd to 2nd and was not penalized like FL and MI. Such conduct violates the equal protection rights of the citizens of the rest of the states and is in violation of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination (including reverse discrimination). Yes the DNC can use any method to select nominees, but if they evoke State primary voting laws they are bound by the Voting Rights Act. RULES are RULES but any UNFAIR RULE can be challenged in court.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: