Clinton Suggests Possible Credentials Committee Fight

Apparently, we’re in store for a good old fashioned credentials fight. Hillary Clinton said the following in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren yesterday:

VAN SUSTEREN: And if he says, no, I won’t do it, that leaves Michigan and Florida out. And does that leave you out?

CLINTON: No. Not at all, because we are going to make sure those votes get counted, one way or another.

VAN SUSTEREN: How?

CLINTON: Well, you know, you can always go to the convention. That is what credential fights are for. You know, let’s have the Democratic Party go on record against seating the Michigan and Florida delegations three months before the general election? I don’t think that will happen. I think they will be seated. So that is where we are headed if we don’t get this worked out.

The credentials committee consists of 186 people. 25 of these people are, and already have been, chosen by the DNC Chairman - Howard Dean. The remaining 161 (144 without Florida and Michigan) members are chosen by state parties (each state gets a certain number of delegates proportional to its size). A credentials battle will certainly affect the general atmosphere of the convention as it will certainly be nasty. The last credentials battle of any significance took place in 1964 with the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (sure there were others since then, but I don’t consider them significant).

Conventional wisdom contends that a credentials dispute would be disastrous for the Democratic party. Indeed, it would certainly lead to increased tensions within the party and lots of bad press. However, I refuse to accept that it would be as bad for the party as most in the mainstream press believe. Unfortunately, many of their predictions tend to become self fulfilling prophecies. Sure, if the credentials dispute is reported in the worst possible way, without any real analysis, then the results for the party just may be as disastrous as they predict. Months ago, before everyone was talking about this credentialing issue, JW and I were complaining about the many possible negative effects for the Democratic Party. Now, I suggest people try and calm down just a bit. Reasons why people should calm down are discussed later in this post. But first, something else that Sen. Clinton said in the interview is worth mentioning:

VAN SUSTEREN: What about the pledged delegates right now? Are they likely — do you have any position on them sort of moving over in one direction or the other?

CLINTON: Well, you know, delegates are free to exercise their judgment, all delegates, whether you are from a caucus or you are from a primary or your so-called appointed delegate.

This is a very fluid race. And I see it changing every day. You know, I feel very good about the campaign in Pennsylvania. I have got great support from the governor to the mayors of, you know, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and so many people.

I was thrilled to have Congressman Murtha come out and endorse me this last week. I feel really good about this next big contest. And Pennsylvania is another state where the road to Pennsylvania Avenue leads through the state of Pennsylvania.

So I’m going to run a very vigorous campaign there and get positioned to be able to win in the fall.

Alright, this continued discussion about pledged delegates not really being pledged could likely end up hurting Sen. Clinton in the long run.

First, it’s one thing to have surrogates like Harold Ickes making this argument, but it’s totally different when the candidate starts making them. It gets more attention. It seems more possible. And, it allows for criticism directly of her as opposed to her campaign.

Secondly, it seems as though Sen. Clinton is offering a solution to the delegate problem. Couldn’t she be giving some of her pledged delegates the go ahead to support Obama? I mean, if pledged delegates don’t really need to vote the way that they are pledged to, then couldn’t some of these delegates out of their own personal political reasons, for party unity or because they are upset with Clinton support Obama in the first round of votes? Do I think this is massively likely? No, I don’t. I also don’t think this “pledged delegates” aren’t really pledged offers Clinton any real political or practical benefits.

Now, if this goes to a credentials fight over the Florida and Michigan delegations, how can the political consequences be mitigated? Well, clearly Sen. Clinton wants Florida and Michigan’s delegations to be seated. Assuming Obama maintains (or increases) his lead in pledged delegates going into the convention, what’s stopping him from just agreeing to have the delegations seated? He’d have the numbers to take Clinton’s gain from Florida, and some type of arrangement would have to be worked out with Michigan, whereby he gets some. It seems to me if Obama agreed to that, it would not only demonstrate leadership and place him in the good graces of the party, but would also marginalize Clinton by demonstrating that even with Florida and Michigan, she still didn’t catch him. [Please note that this suggestion is a somewhat truncated argument from a larger post about Obama that I am currently working on, so before forming a strong opinion on it, I suggest waiting for the flushed out version.]