• Home
  • Blogs
  • From The Road
From The Road
February 17, 2008 12:01 PM

Clinton Campaign Gearing Up For Convention Showdown

Posted by Fernando Suarez

(CBS)
From CBS News' Fernando Suarez:

MILWAUKEE -- At this stage in the campaign, all eyes are fixed on Wisconsin on Tuesday, followed by Texas and Ohio on Mar. 4. But behind the scenes, the Hillary Clinton campaign is gearing up for what could be a nasty fight over the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August.

The current delegate count shows Clinton and Barack Obama in a relative dead heat, with Obama slightly ahead. But what the Clinton campaign hopes will happen is that delegates from Florida and Michigan - two states she won but whose delegates are not counted because these states moved up their primary dates without the blessing of the DNC - will actually get seated.

A source close to the Clinton campaign tells CBS News “Ultimately, it comes down to these last remaining states, superdelegates and what happens in Florida and Michigan,” the source added, “I think that is still the untold story.”

Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe countered the Clinton campaign's delegate strategy, saying, "The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say or do anything to win tactics that could undermine Democrats’ ability to win the general election.”

During a conference call with reporters on Saturday, Harold Ickes a longtime advisor to the Clintons said, “Both of those states are critically important…over 1.6 million voted (in Florida).”

Ickes recognized the importance of Ohio and Texas but said “This nominating process is long from over ... We’re going to win this nomination.” When asked if that meant they were prepared to go all the way to the convention, Ickes said “the answer is yes, we’re going to the convention.”

The Clinton campaign feels that if they hold on throughout the primaries until the convention, odds are that the Democratic Party will choose to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates.

“We are the party that constantly fights voter disenfranchisement. We are also the party that is hungry for a win and we understand how important these two states are in the general election," the Clinton campaign source said.

“An empty Florida and Michigan section at the convention would hurt our chances in the general election,” the source added.

And the Clinton source argues if that happens, and Obama is the nominee, "it would be pretty devastating to his chances in the general election without Florida and Michigan.”
Tags:
Hillary Clintion ,
Barack Obama ,
Convention
Topics:
Hillary Clinton
Share:
Digg
Yahoo! Buzz
Mixx
Latest in From The Road
“From the Road” to the Curb: Pulling Over and Looking Back at Campaign ‘08
Palin Reveals 2012 Plans: Kindergarten For Son
Obama: Extremely Gifted And Also Very Lucky
Add a Comment See all 25 Comments
by hillaryis44 February 17, 2008 2:12 PM PST
Hillary is gearing up for a showdown? I am so relieved to hear that. I thought she was gearing up to steal the nomination at the convention. We can all rest easy now.
Reply to this comment
by democracyrul February 17, 2008 2:29 PM PST
I am a registered Democrat. I am so pissed off about Hillary''s talk about trying to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention. Play by the rules for goodness sakes, oh, I just realized that those are her rules...to cheat and lie and mislead and imply and... Please tell her spokesperson that it is up to the remaining states...then whichever candidate has the most ELECTED delegates should get the support of ALL the super delegates and that person will be the nominee...no need to any fights. That will be democracy in the democratic party. Otherwise please rename it at the convention to the CLINTON party.
Reply to this comment
by valjean7 February 17, 2008 2:35 PM PST
Obama and Clinton have damaged each other to the point where neither could unite the party and win the election. If the Dems are serious about capturing the White House the delegates, Supers and non-Supers, need to recogniz
e that and select someone not fatally injured even at the start. The Democrat voters who have essentially been restricted to their options need also to recognize that reality and agree to move on to someone who would have a chance at winning. Demanding delegates stick to candidates selected before the mayhem is non-productive and will assure more years under a GOP administration. Who would that be? Gore? Bloomberg? A persuaded Powell could likely be unbeatable, I think. Early drop outs from being short of funds but not experience or abilities? If rank and file Democrats want to win the White House they need to look at the reality. O and C have done a far better job than the GOP ever could in cementing in everyone''s mind that neither is capable of winning let alone governing.
Reply to this comment
by hillaryis44 February 17, 2008 2:51 PM PST
The Billary Clintons are the democratic party''s Frankenstein. When the Billaries used gutter politics against the republicans democrats applauded, teaching them it was okay to do that. What about ethical lapses? Whether it was Cattle Futures, Whitewater, the Rose Law Firm, Travelgate, or Monica Lewinsky, the democratic rank and file rallied support and reinforced the idea that they would always be forgiven.

Now the Billary Clintons openly plot to subvert the will of the people using MI, FL and Superdelegates. Why? Because unthinking voters of the past have taught them that they can get away with anything. Unfortunately, the entire country will reap what the thoughtless have sown . . . all hail President John McCain, because that is what the Billaries are going to deliver.
Reply to this comment
by dothemath3 February 17, 2008 2:52 PM PST
Everyone who is so concerned about disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters should get to work on some kind of a re-vote.

If disenfranchising voters were really the concern of Ickes and other Clinton supporters, wouldn''t they be concerned about the voters who could not vote for the candidate of their choice in Michigan because Clinton was the only front-runner on the ballot? Wouldn''t they be concerned about the Florida and Michigan voters who stayed home or did not cast a presidential vote because they were told it would not count?
Reply to this comment
by kinnycut-2009 February 17, 2008 3:28 PM PST
Hillary hasn''t won a majority of states, or pledged delegates. If she doesn''t have the lead in pledged delegates at the time of the convention then she shouldn''t become the nominee. Her campaigns attempt to change the rules and include the Florida, and Michigan delegates in the middle of a game that she is thus far losing is like dealing from the bottom of the deck, or pulling a card from your sleeve in a hand of poker. It is cheating plan and simple. The Democratic Party made those idiotic rules, and they should have to live by them. The Super Delegate rule could cost Obama the nomination any way because the selfish idiots put no mechanism in place to force themselves to vote in one direction if both candidates came to the convention with only a majority of delegates, but not enough to secure the nomination. The Super Delegates, and the public should be paying close attention to the fact that Hillary''s campaign has took a turn from trying to win the nomination to trying to manipulate her way to the nomination. This alone should make anyone with a brain in their head not want to vote for team Clinton.
Reply to this comment
by edaddison1 February 17, 2008 3:42 PM PST
There is a lag in the polls. What has gone on the past 2 days should be Hillary''s demise -- she has angerred Amercican voters and lost any trust she may have had among many. However, it may take hindsight weeks from now to see that.
Reply to this comment
by valjean7 February 17, 2008 3:42 PM PST
The Democrat convention should look for a compromise candidate since Obama and Clinton have done such a successful a hatchet job on each other, cementing in everyone''s mind why they shouldn''t be president...and probably destroying the chance for either to win the general election. Too many saying "If "X" is the nominee I''ll vote for McCain. Supers, non-Supers and the voters themselves should consider looking again and selecting someone not fatally bloodied even before the gate is opened. It''s in their best interests if they hope to win the White House. Who would you choose? Think on it. Do you want to follow the Bush doctrine of "My way or no way"?
Reply to this comment
by sencooley February 17, 2008 4:27 PM PST
If the Democratic convention becomes contentious, as expected, it will generate real news. Presumably the networks would want to cover it continuously, unlike their coverage of recent conventions, which was limited to one hour per night.

Problem is, the GOP convention will probably be drama-free. It will also be news-free assuming that McCain picks a running mate a month in advance. Question: will CBS News feel pressure to give equal coverage to the GOP convention, even though it''s not as newsworthy? How will the major news organizations treat this?
Reply to this comment
by bluebell123-2009 February 17, 2008 5:05 PM PST
By the time the convention comes along, the damage done to the Democratic party may be irreversible, but that doesn''t seem to matter one bit to Mrs. Clinton or her supporters! All that seems to matter to her and her supporters is to win at ANY cost. If she succeeds in seating the FL and MI delegates and wins with those and superdelegates alone, many of those overwhelming numbers of Democrats that came to the polls (in record numbers) will stay home come election day. She will be virtually handing the Presidency over to McCain. She is completely unelectable, wake up and smell the coffee Clinton people!
Reply to this comment
by valjean7 February 17, 2008 6:26 PM PST
BlueBell123. And that''s exactly why the Dems. Supers, non-Supers and the voters as well need to step back and realize how much BOTH O and C have injured each other and the prospects of either uniting the party to win the general election. Even those who have already voted should recognize they need to choose an alternative candidate who might be able to bring the stay-at-home Dems unhappy with either of the current sluggers back to the ballot. It''s either that or FOUR MORE YEARS OF GOP control of the White House and unless there is a veto proof Dem majority in congress, FOUR MORE YEARS of a GOP minority/Presidential veto duo ruling the out put of Congress. Who would you choose to help the Dems win? Gore? Bloomberg? A persuaded Powell? That would be interesting. Early very well qualified but under funded drop outs? It''s time for the Democrats to get off the Bushlike "My way or no way" kick and look to the general election and their chances to succeed.
Reply to this comment
by screwclinton February 17, 2008 6:31 PM PST
I recently changed my support from Hillary to Obama; even though, I had been blogging for her for several months.

Me and my family used to be the biggest fans of Bill Clinton. Everyone in my community can''t stand to see Bill on TV anymore. I%u2019m not sure if its his older age or maybe the lack of sleep lately, but I truly believe his lost his mind. He makes no sense anymore, cares about nothing other than attempting to get his wife elected, plucks words right out of the air while stating nothing, and now even goes against the voices of mass voters...

Bill Clinton is really not he same person I USED to respect and admire!

This country needs straight shooters. Vote for anybody but the Clinton Fabricators....Obama first, if not, then McCain!
Reply to this comment
by CyrienMcCallister February 17, 2008 6:32 PM PST
Senator Obama''s camp wants it BOTH ways, they want to disenfranshise the Florida & Michigan voters AND they want the Superdelagates to vote the way the popular vote went. Those two issues are linked with the same argument: Fairness in Democracy. If The Obama camp is trully democratic the will realize that you can''t pick and chose who''s voices you hear. Hello... Mr. Obama: Michigan and Florida VOTED! If the Superdelagets vote the way they want to and not be FORCED to vote the way of the popular vote, than one Florida and Michigan can be safely ignored. Otherwise: YOU can''t have your cake and eat it too. America loves a Winner not a Whinner!
Reply to this comment
by CyrienMcCallister February 17, 2008 6:39 PM PST
Senator Obama''s camp wants it BOTH ways, they want to disenfranshise the Florida & Michigan voters AND they want the Superdelagates to vote the way the popular vote went. Those two issues are linked with the same argument: Fairness in Democracy. If The Obama camp is trully democratic the will realize that you can''t pick and chose who''s voices you hear. Hello... Mr. Obama: Michigan and Florida VOTED! If the Superdelagets vote the way they want to and not be FORCED to vote the way of the popular vote, than one Florida and Michigan can be safely ignored. Otherwise: YOU can''t have your cake and eat it too. America loves a Winner not a Whinner!
Reply to this comment
by jeffke1 February 17, 2008 6:57 PM PST
Obama is all smoke and mirrors and fluff. He has nothing more to offer than any other Democrat, while having practically no experience in national or executive politics. He is, as Hillary notes, all talk. He also will not be able to accomplish anything as president because he is far too liberal. He is not centrist at all. He has a few positions that are essentially Repubican, but none that are middle. He will be shot down as a tax and spender, weak on international affairs, weak on terrorism, weak on the economy, and a typical old-school Democrat. If he gets the nomination, McCain will easily win the general election, because as people get to know Obama, they will find they really don''t like him very much at all. If Hillary got the nomination, people would find they like her more and more, and she would defeat McCain fairly easily. Nominating Obama is the worst mistake the Democratic party will ever have made.
Reply to this comment
by valjean7 February 17, 2008 7:00 PM PST
Screwclinton. Obviously, the Dem party is your choice. If the ballot included a NO column, which it should for honesty sake, and the highest net yes wins you could vote no against the greater of evils, helping you party win, while telling your party''s candidate they won but not with your support. They would get the message. Just change the names. The voter should be able to vote as they feel, not as the politicians insist they do, indicating support only, with a yes, no negatives indicating "NO" support allowed. The primary is the time to vote for or against the person. The general election is the time to vote for the party. If your party is not in office you have no voice.
Reply to this comment
by valjean7 February 17, 2008 7:02 PM PST
Screwclinton. Obviously, the Dem party is your choice. If the ballot included a NO column, which it should for honesty sake, and the highest net yes wins you could vote no against the greater of evils, helping you party win, while telling your party''s candidate they won but not with your support. They would get the message. Just change the names. The voter should be able to vote as they feel, not as the politicians insist they do, indicating support only, with a yes, no negatives indicating "NO" support allowed. The primary is the time to vote for or against the person. The general election is the time to vote for the party. If your party is not in office you have no voice. I always wonder how many commenting are really shills commenting from an office of the one they are promoting.
Reply to this comment
by valjean7 February 17, 2008 7:03 PM PST
Screwclinton. Obviously, the Dem party is your choice. If the ballot included a NO column, which it should for honesty sake, and the highest net yes wins you could vote no against the greater of evils, helping you party win, while telling your party''s candidate they won but not with your support. They would get the message. Just change the names. The voter should be able to vote as they feel, not as the politicians insist they do, indicating support only, with a yes, no negatives indicating "NO" support allowed. The primary is the time to vote for or against the person. The general election is the time to vote for the party. If your party is not in office you have no voice. I always wonder how many commenting are really shills commenting from an office of the one they are promoting.
Reply to this comment
by valjean7 February 17, 2008 7:04 PM PST
Screwclinton. Obviously, the Dem party is your choice. If the ballot included a NO column, which it should for honesty sake, and the highest net yes wins you could vote no against the greater of evils, helping you party win, while telling your party''s candidate they won but not with your support. They would get the message. Just change the names. The voter should be able to vote as they feel, not as the politicians insist they do, indicating support only, with a yes, no negatives indicating "NO" support allowed. The primary is the time to vote for or against the person. The general election is the time to vote for the party. If your party is not in office you have no voice. I always wonder how many commenting are really shills commenting from an office of the one they are promoting.
Reply to this comment
by jeffke1 February 17, 2008 7:05 PM PST
O-bomb-a. What a catastrophe. If people think Obama is a straight shooter, they are sorely deluded. He''s a wimp and a liar. Just wait until people learn who he really is. What a gamble the Democrats are taking with this guy, who they know absolutely nothing about, except that he''s black and anti-war, and went to Harvard Law. Other than that, no one knows anything about him, even himself, since he has no experience. What an absolute catastrophe. The Democrats deserve to lose the election if O-bomb-a is nominated. And they will, big time.
Reply to this comment
by jeffke1 February 17, 2008 7:10 PM PST
Obama is all smoke and mirrors and fluff. He has nothing more to offer than any other Democrat, while having practically no experience in national or executive politics. He is, as Hillary notes, all talk. He also will not be able to accomplish anything as president because he is far too liberal. He is not centrist at all. He has a few positions that are essentially Repubican, but none that are middle. He will be shot down as a tax and spender, weak on international affairs, weak on terrorism, weak on the economy, and a typical old-school Democrat. If he gets the nomination, McCain will easily win the general election, because as people get to know Obama, they will find they really don''''t like him very much at all. If Hillary got the nomination, people would find they like her more and more, and she would defeat McCain fairly easily. Nominating Obama is the worst mistake the Democratic party will ever have made.
Reply to this comment
by hillsangels1 February 17, 2008 8:26 PM PST
Dear screw clinton,
I have seen you post that very same comment at several other blogs today. You either need to get a little more original with your lies or quit lying altogether because I don''t believe for a minute that you ever really supported Sen. Clinton. Your anger and hatred is not characteristic of any of her supporters, former or present. We tend to be much more mature and polite. But yes, I do believe that you are indeed typical of what the Obama supporters are like.
Reply to this comment
by valjean7 February 18, 2008 1:39 AM PST
O & C have trashed each other the ability of either to unite the party and wage a successful campaign. The Supers, non-Supers and even those who have already voted need to step back and consider choosing a compromise candidate at the convention who could have a chance to carry the day. Who? Many qualify, even some who dropped out early from lack of funds but not experience and ability. Wouldn''t it be interesting to persuade Powell to come aboard? Gore? Bloomberg? The current sluggers have done a job on cementing their faults in the voters eye far better than the GOP could have done. They have pretty much made toast of each other.
Reply to this comment
by wutuloadu February 19, 2008 3:41 AM PST
"These women are all trash. No one will believe them."
Reply to this comment
by wutuloadu February 19, 2008 3:46 AM PST
"Bill, now be sure to point Juanita out."
Reply to this comment
See all 25 Comments

About From The Road

Description for From the Road

  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented