Clinton outlines DNC appeal

While Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has elected to send two well-known Democrats to speak on his behalf at Saturday’s pivotal meeting, his rival has opted for more obscure names.

But she has armed them with a plan.

{mosads}Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) campaign announced Friday that former Michigan Gov. Jim Blanchard and Florida state Sen. Arthenia Joyner will represent her in what has become one of the more critical moments of the nomination battle.

Her campaign prepared a four-point argument aimed at producing a best-case scenario and bolstering Clinton’s argument with the remaining undecided superdelegates.

Clinton’s campaign released a letter that general counsel Lyn Utrecht sent to the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC). It’s the campaign’s way of countering a letter from the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) legal team earlier in the week that would, if adhered to by the 30 RBC members, fatally wound Clinton’s chance at a comeback.

The goal of Saturday’s RBC meeting is to decide the fate of Florida and Michigan’s delegations. The states had their delegates stripped as a penalty for moving up their primary dates in violation of the committee-approved schedule.

Clinton won both states and has pushed hard to seat the delegates as they would have been awarded by the original primary results.

The DNC argues that the RBC is not in a position to award a full slate of delegates to either state, a rule that would seriously harm Clinton’s chances at an already improbable comeback.

In his letter, Utretcht makes the case that contrary to the DNC’s legal findings, the RBC does have the authority to restore the full delegations of both states.

Because both states made an effort to hold a revote, Utrecht wrote, they have “taken provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to bring the state into compliance with the DNC’s Delegate Selection Rules.” In doing so, the RBC would then be in a position to “forgive violations.”

Utrecht also takes issue with the Michigan solution that would seat “uncommitted” delegates as Obama delegates. The Clinton campaign argues that forcing uncommitted delegates into one category arbitrarily would be unfair and would cost Clinton delegates.

“The voters may have been truly uncommitted or they may have supported (former candidates) Joe Biden, John Edwards or Bill Richardson,” Utrecht wrote. “The RBC has no authority or factual basis upon which to supplant the judgment of these voters.”

The third argument appears to be worst-case damage control for Clinton, but is what many think the most probable resolution Saturday. The DNC lawyers made the case that the RBC is only in a position to seat half of the delegations.

The lawyers left it up to the committee members to decide how to do that. They could only allow half the number of delegates or they could allow all the delegates but give them all half a vote.

The Clinton campaign, hinging most of its hopes on being able to claim a popular-vote lead after the last nominating contests next Tuesday, is pushing for the latter option.

More delegates equals more representation, and that could lend a degree of legitimacy to Clinton’s argument that the more than 2 million voters in Florida and Michigan that supported her should be included in the overall popular-vote total.

Obama, who withdrew his name from the Michigan ballot, has fought this tooth-and-nail, questioning the fairness of both contests since his name was not on the ballot in one state and no candidate campaigned in either.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and ex-Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.), former campaign manager for Edwards, are set to represent Obama on Saturday.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe has said repeatedly that the race is for delegates. What’s more, he argues, the popular-vote totals do not include the number of caucus-goers that have caucused for Obama. The Illinois senator holds a tremendous advantage over Clinton in caucus states, but vote totals are not kept.

Utrecht used a pragmatic argument in defending the Clinton campaign’s position of seating full delegations and giving them half votes, noting that there would be a painstaking process for the states to decide which delegates were seated at the conventions and which had to stay home.
 
Finally, Utrecht makes the case that the RBC shouldn’t punt on the issue. If the RBC has not acted by 56 days out from the convention, then jurisdiction for the issue moves to the convention’s credentials committee.

While that might seem to be a better path for Clinton to get what she wants, it also opens up the very real possibility of a brokered convention, and most Democrats are already apprehensive about the length of the nomination battle thus far.
 
“Millions of voters in Florida and Michigan have waited patiently for more than four months to know whether their votes will count and whether they will play a meaningful role in determining who will be the Democratic nominee,” Utrecht writes. “It is time to resolve this pivotal matter.”

Saturday afternoon will show if the committee agrees with Utrecht.