Cecil Rejects Barney's Deadline

Guy Cecil, Hillary's national field director

I ran into Guy Cecil, Clinton's openly gay national field director, in her Philly HQ and asked him what he thought of the comments of Barney Frank (a Clinton supporter) earlier this week that the Democratic candidate who is trailing by June 3rd, should drop out of the race.

"It depends on what trailing means," Cecil said. "I think there is a reasonably likely possibility that either one of us could end up with the popular vote and that regardless of where the pledged delegate count is, it may not reflect what the overall popular vote of the election is. That’s something that I think will be considered."

Cecil reiterated the campaign's position that superdelegates are called upon to make an individual assessment as to who they think the best candidate is.

He suggested that the race is still fluid too fluid to call and then brought up Michigan and Florida. "Democrats should never ever be about disenfranchising voters and regardless of the rules and processes, the fact is that 2.5 million people voted in these states," he said. "I’m a native Floridian and it was the single largest turnout in primary history in the state of Florida -- almost 1.8 million." Disenfranchising voters, he added, was not "the right thing to do" nor was it a smart move for the Democratic Party.

"What we have said all along is we want all the votes to be counted, and there is a process in place, and the process may end June 3rd, it may end July 1st and rather than setting an arbitrary deadline, I think it will become clear at some point in the campaign that it’s time  for the apparent nominee to be in and for the other person to be out.  But I don’t think we’re comfortable saying here’s the date," he said.

Asked whether it would play out before the convention, Cecil responded, "Well, I think that’s the most likely scenario, but I don’t know that that’s going to be the case. Look, there’s a lot of focus on the campaigns going back and forth and what does this do to the nominee? The greatest thing that could have ever happened to our party is a spirited contest in which 100s of thousands of new people are registering to vote as Democrats, hundreds of thousand of new people are coming out to vote ... those are all good things. So I think it’s been a good thing just looking at it from a party perspective, and I do believe, when the nominee is selected -- and we are hoping and expecting it to be Hillary -- that the party’s going to come together."

As for Rep. Frank, he said, "While we’re more than happy and thrilled to have Congressman’s Frank’s support -- and he’s been great in helping us -- we should not set an arbitrary deadline for when the nominee should or should not be determined."

I think it's safe to say Barney's comments weren't vetted by the campaign.

Comments

[Dave Garrity]

The very idea that Clinton staff are still talking about her votes in two unsanctioned primaries is disgusting. Even more so considering that all the other candidates didn't even appear on those ballots. Changing the rules after the fact is un-American, anti-democratic, and will lead to more anti-Hillary sentiment WITHIN our Democratic Party base than the R's could ever mobilize.

Just suggesting that it would be appropriate for super delegates overturn Obama's lead is destructive. And if it were to happen, it would alienate and embitter the incredible numbers of new young voters Obama has managed to excite.

This is a sign to me that Clinton's campaign has become so diseased and toxic that it might be time to euthanize it before it destroys our Party.

Mr. Cecil and everybody else in the Clinton campaign need to start thinking about the effects of their ever more desperate scenarios on people who aren't obsessed with Hillary winning.

[Will]

Thanks Dave for the charming commentary: disgusting, un-American, destructive, diseased, toxic, euthanize, obsessed. Maybe when you've stopped name calling and have learned the art of adult conversation, we can get to actual policy debate. Until then, don't worry. No one expects you to recognize the most skilled, accomplished, and knowledgeable democrats of our time.
Be sure to turn on MSNBC for the latetest shallow insults. There may be something there you can use.
http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

[Dave Garrity]

Will

It is easy to target my words, what about the issues I raised?

Nowhere did I criticize Hillary Clinton. I attacked the various scenarios and rationales being floated by members of her campaign. I stand by my words as well as my message.

I don't know how anyone can claim it would be fair to change the rules after the fact and count the votes in the Florida and Michigan primaries. If Hillary hadn't won those races (largely unopposed), I don't think her campaign would be talking about them now.

All the candidates PLEDGED not to participate or campaign in those primaries, and many of their names weren't even on the ballot. The idea that the Clinton campaign would seek to certify them now--AND claim they are upholding the rights of voters-- IS disgusting.

On the other hand the same campaign never stops suggesting that it would be just fine for the super delegates to ignore the majority of delegates won in primaries or caucuses. Huh?

The campaign's stated willingness to manipulate the system ANY way they can if it will get Hillary the nomination is obvious to all and offensive to many.

It seems that the potential for disaffection of huge numbers of new voters by such actions never gets addressed. Who cares if it turns off new voters and alienates them from our party?? I care and I am not alone.

My comments were not about qualifications or abilities, I acknowledge Sen. Clinton's skill, knowledge &
accomplishments-- I just don't agree with her positions, past or present.

Hillary's claims to be our strongest ally are contradicted by her opposition to repealing ALL of DOMA. And frankly, I want to see a radical change in how our federal govt does business. Instead of rejecting that system, Sen. Clinton extols her abilities to operate within it as an essential prerequisite for the presidency.

I don't want a return to centrist politics. It's about time our party starts listening to its progressives and mounts an aggressive drive for change. We have cowered in the face of
Republicans too long.

[Michael Harwood]

Hi Dave - I think you've missed Will's point - the issue is not with your opinions/perspective but rather with the tone and tenor of your commentary.

The negativity you've used in your first post ("disgusting, un-American, destructive, diseased, toxic, euthanize, obsessed") turns off the reader and you've lost your audience. Surely there is a more engaging way to state your positions.

As for the super delegates - the whole system of "super delegates" was created to address just such a potential situation as what we're experiencing now - how to decided a close campaign. Super delegates are made up of party leaders who carry more weight in the Democratic Party than the average voter and they are allowed to vote for whomever they think will best represent the Democrats in the general election - it's not based on primary results. Just as in the Michigan/Florida primary pledges, the rules governing super delegates were also agreed to by all of the candidates so you can't argue both ways.

One more thing - I'm not so certain that Obama is a stronger ally to L/G/B/T community than Hillary and I have not heard him say that repealing ALL of DOMA is at the top of his agenda.

[Aaron]

"It depends on what 'trailing' means" sounds a whole lot like:

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

[Dr. Murray Trillionaire]

People are too focused on the wrong issues: who will get us out of Iraq, who will improve the economy? Here's the question that you should be asking: Who would the French hate to see as our president? Who would annoy them the most? They love the Clintons and would love to see a president [McCain] that was born while France was still a colonial power. Barack's the man. And they're going to have a hard time pronouncing his name.

[Pani]

Out of the two, Hillary Clinton has spoken more about gay issues than Barack Obama. Yes, he does mention gay, straight, white, black in his speeches but he is very vague. Hillary Clinton, as of late believes of that everything should be fair, even marriage. On the other hand, Barack Obama said he does not support gay marriage (College Tour with Chris Matthews on MSNBC--his plant media) because of his religious bias. When he said that he couldnt support gay marriages because of his religion, I was turned off because again, religion is used to play a part in a natural part of life. So, it was hard for me to swallow. We must understand that it will take time for us to get our voices heard, but we must chose the right candidate. I will not tell you who you should chose, but I am telling you that you need to take responsibility if your candidate does not, in the end, do anything for gay rights and not point the finger to someone or some other party/group. Stand by your vote and man/woman up to it. There should be no shame.

[Liam]

I hate to even say this but- this is a primary not the general election. You are not going to see the republican machine- the white party indeed, in action. White racist usa, esp the south will come out in groves, to defeat a black man. Every republican I know wants him to run. Hill is a major threat to them- she is their #1 target. I wish this was not true but as a white man, I hear what you dont when everyone is is out of the room. As a gay man I know they are also talking about me when Im not there.
We need 8 yrs of democratic white house in avery bad way. That the kind of decession the sups make. Our party needs to win. Yes they are neck and neck But if it were your money they were playing with what would you do- give it to the upstart and pray-no. youd give it to the proven and reap the benifits. They need to be on the ticket together, he needs the experence as vp. They have excited too many people to use one without the other it is unthinkable. We need to win not hope, we need to plan not wish, we need to be tough not just talk.
.

[Will]

First off, Dave, spitting venom at Clinton staffers and abstract, disembodied actions is a rhetorical trick you probably learned from Obama himself. Everyone knows who you're insulting.
Second, I think it's clear now that Dean, Brazille, and Obama colluded in electoral fraud when they granted waivers to some States but not MI and FL, where Hillary won big, and when Obama took his name off the MI ballot.
And I don't consider you any more progessive than Hillary supporters. The difference is you accept Obama's shallow rhetoric; race, age, and gender baiting; and empty resume; And we do not.
http://a-civilife.blogspot.com