In changing his tune on whether delegates from Michigan and Florida should be able to vote their preferences at the Democratic National Convention based on the results of those states' primaries, Harold Ickes has gone from DNC hack to Hillary Clinton flack.
Yesterday, Associated Press reporter Hope Yen gave Ickes an open microphone to "explain" himself, and showed no skepticism regarding Ickes's hopefully conflicting positions (bolds are mine):
Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass.
In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised - before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions.
Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting. Clinton won the primary vote in Michigan and Florida, and now she wants those votes to count.
"There's been no change," Ickes said. "I was not acting as an agent of Mrs. Clinton. We had promulgated rules and those rules said the timing provision ... provides for certain sanctions, automatic sanctions as a matter of fact, if a state such as Michigan or Florida violates those timing provisions."
When is a change not a change? I guess it's when Harold Ickes says it's not a change.
Can anyone imagine Karl Rove pulling stunts like this without press skepticism? I didn't think so.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
they knew that there were
February 17, 2008 - 20:47 ET by motherbeltThey knew that there were states that wanted to hold earlier primaries. They made the rule to discourage that. If they were so worried about "disenfranchising" voters, they should not have made the rule in the first place.
It's that simple.
Or was it just an empty threat that they never had any intention of following through on?
This has been
February 17, 2008 - 20:59 ET by bigtimerThis has been infuriating...I have inserted a couple of links since yesterday about this story regarding Ickes and the plan the Clinton Machine has for taking the lead...
Lanny 'Cry-Baby Davis' as I have called him since he became a mouth-piece for the Clinton brigade helped create the Superdelegate BS for the dems back in the eighties....
Plus the other plan for attack is to lie about the Michigan/Florida primary agreement they agreed to when it comes to the DNC ect.
Listen to these sleazy jokers now...talk about back-stabbing low-life...
Oh wait...they're doing it to their own party...a civil-war sure to ensue.
Yeah, bigtimer. Ain't it
February 17, 2008 - 21:40 ET by Scout FinchYeah, bigtimer. Ain't it a bitch when the rules you help create turn around and bite you in the behind?
I know, Harold. You were against counting those delegates before you were for them. I totally get it.
"Hoist on their own
February 18, 2008 - 08:10 ET by motherbelt"Hoist on their own petard........"
And OK, Her Royal Clintoness didn't exactly "campaign" in Florida, because of the pledge, but she did attend fundraisers....under a "fundraising loophole"....that's what the Miami Herald called it..(gotta love that Clinton "parsing").
Here's what "Debbie" commented, under the MH story:
Least [sic] she will seat our delegates while Obama says we don't count [Obama coesn't care enough about us to cheat!]
So see, she really cares about the voters......
You think Ickes and his ilkies (or maybe "Ickies"?) can't gin up some "Count every delegate!!!" protests for HRC to make speeches about "disenfranchisement"????
Oh, yeah, bring on the popcorn!! After all the hand-rubbing glee over the internal wars in the GOP, the Democrats now have their own impending disaster on their hands.
Yea, Karma's b**ch!
The Republican side
February 18, 2008 - 08:18 ET by sarcasmoSays they intend to seat only 1/2 the FL delegates, but that's unlikely to matter. The fact that the Democrat convention might inadvertently be interesting (despite the hard work of party bosses to keep both parties' conventions as scripted & dull as possible) could be an advantage for the donkey side. Now that the Romney endorsement has happened, I'm desperately trying to imagine something -- anything -- interesting happening at the Republican Convention, but I'm coming up with nothing...
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
→ True sarc
February 18, 2008 - 08:30 ET by Cool ArrowNot nearly as interesting as watching the Dems dumping on the very State they claim Republicans cheated in 2000. Or watching the Dems as they try to put Obama in the back of the bus.
It's something cultural, too...
February 18, 2008 - 09:56 ET by sarcasmoMy expectation at political conventions has been to not-know who will be the candidate until the end. Formerly being a large-L Libertarian had very few advantages, but one of them was unscripted conventions. These conventions are universally interesting enough & funny-enough to showcase the immense value of C-Span compared to pre-chewed media sources. There's a reason I disdain/critique media-types of all sorts but at the same time would go far out of my way just to shake Brian Lamb's hand. The lack of the usual blatant media bias against libertarian ideas goes beyond "refreshing" in C-Span's case all the way to "shocking."
Others' political convention expectations probably center around something like a rock concert or a good rousing speech, since they're used to knowing well in advance who their parties will nominate. Historically, this was not always the case, yet somehow America survived. Dull conventions are one of many things both "major" parties might want to change about themselves for their own good intellectually, if not politically...
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Damned if they do...
February 17, 2008 - 21:55 ET by Parker1227...and damned if they don't.
If they don't find a way to represent Florida and Michigan, they will anger a whole lot of people, some of whom will take it out on them in the main election.
If they do change their rules to make special exceptions for these two large states, then the genie is out of the bottle for all states to conduct primaries as they please from now on.
This is a win,win, win situation:
1. It is unfair to not share the privilege of holding early primaries between all of the states. So now someone might actually do something about this.
2. After 8 years of listening to Al Gore (and acolytes) lie to everyone about how the 2000 election was "stolen" through the evil Republican disenfranchisement of the Florida vote, it is too sweet watching the the DNC being forced by its own rules to actually do this to its own people.
3. If they cave in to pressure, and count the rebel state votes - then they will likely put the Democratic Convention into deadlock between Obama and Hillary (pour drink, cook popcorn, and put your feet up, 'cause this would be some world-class entertainment).
Parker... Exactly... Bee
February 17, 2008 - 22:09 ET by bigtimerParker...
Exactly...
Been waiting most of my adult life for this...who knew it would be with the Clinton team...doesn't get better than that...
Like I have said before, I am looking forward to this...got my popcorn at the ready...couch nearby and a cold one in the fridge' when the time comes...talk about delicious...all eyes on Colorado.
Right, bt, and it's going
February 18, 2008 - 09:32 ET by motherbeltRight, bt, and it's going to be "epic." LOL
One thing I do agree with the DNC on, tho, is that a line has to be drawn somewhere (and actually enforced). If not, this "we want to be first" will get out of hand, and states will be setting primaries or caucuses the day after November election day.
If Clinton wasn't trailing...
February 17, 2008 - 21:59 ET by ThisnThatI guarantee you that Icky-poo would not have changed his mind if Clinton were in the lead and Obama had won FL and MI.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Of course not, TnT....you
February 18, 2008 - 08:09 ET by motherbeltOf course not, TnT....you have to remember: to the Clintons, "rules are just tools......" (quoting myself, LOL!)
Loyal Clintonites like Ickes
February 17, 2008 - 22:12 ET by zhombreLoyal Clintonites like Ickes are capable of wearing as many different hats and holding as many contrary positions simultaneously as needed to advance the interests of their patrons. I'm confident, if Ickes worked at it, he could be in two places at once too. Physicists should stop observing subatomic particles and start watching Ickes. They would learn a great deal about the mysterious nature of matter.
LMAO! sigh........Too bad
February 18, 2008 - 09:19 ET by Scout FinchLMAO!
sigh........Too bad it's so true.
This makes Hillary looks so
February 17, 2008 - 22:46 ET by mostlymoderateThis makes Hillary looks so ridiculous. My gosh!
mm... I hope the
February 17, 2008 - 22:47 ET by bigtimermm...
I hope the same.
Obama and his wife scare me more than what we already know about the Clintoons.
For me, it is sad what we have come to...but it is what it is I suppose.
Yup. I changed that post a
February 17, 2008 - 22:49 ET by mostlymoderateYup. I changed that post a little bit because I didn't think it made sense :0). Glad you read it before I changed it!!
mm... What the heck
February 17, 2008 - 22:50 ET by bigtimermm...
What the heck happened to your original post I answered to?
Unfortunately, it let me
February 17, 2008 - 22:52 ET by mostlymoderateUnfortunately, it let me change it because I didn't think anyone had replied. It wasn't supposed to do that :(
Here is the ORIGINAL:
Don't get me wrong, I am very afraid of having Barack Obama as a U.S.
President, considering the fact that we really know nothing about the
man. I really despise H. Clinton too. I also think what Hillary is
doing in regards to Florida is completely unheard of and unfair to
Obama.
Unfortunately, I believe McCain can beat Hillary but I don't think he can beat Obama.
Bottom line? I don't want McCain but I would rather have him than
Hillary or Obama so let's hope Hillary wins the Democratic Primaries :)
mm... You had me
February 17, 2008 - 22:54 ET by bigtimermm...
You had me bewildered...now I am cracking up laughing because I know what happened..first off I am glad to know what you did because I thought I was going nuts for a second...lol...second off, your first post made perfect logical sense...
Stick with your first instincts....dang ya' anyway...rofl...
HAHA!!! How funny. Yeah,
February 17, 2008 - 22:56 ET by mostlymoderateHAHA!!! How funny. Yeah, I need to be more of a "writer" and less of an "editor" I guess. I always think I am just rambling (kinda like now, I know, I will save anyone from the free jab)
mm... ROFLMAO...enough
February 17, 2008 - 22:58 ET by bigtimermm...
ROFLMAO...enough already!
Hang in there...you're doing fine.
MM...have you seen the
February 18, 2008 - 00:04 ET by motherbeltMM...have you seen the (Verizon?) commercial with the guy trying to leave a message for the woman he went out with the night before? He gets all flustered, and says "helloooooooo" and talks about sweating, and does an Irish "Top o' the mornin' to ya!" and asks "am I talking too fast?" and on and on....it's hilarious.
Well, relax; you're not anywhere near that bad!! LOL!
bt's right...go with your first instinct. You're posts are just fine!