Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Hillary to Palin: Congrats!!

Hillary Clinton is back. And this time, it’s personal.

At least that’s the subtext of a statement just released by the Clinton press office:

We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.

If there were any lingering doubts as to the enthusiasm with which Hillary and Bill Clinton would campaign for Barack Obama—even after "That makes two of us"—let this put them to rest. Clinton is right, Sarah Palin’s nomination is historic. But what would be even more historic is if she won. And that just can’t be allowed.

Hillary has only started publicly describing her candidacy in historic terms since it ended. Fans were overjoyed to hear her speak about the legacy of women’s rights—and her role in it—in her concession speech in June. But even then, many of them weren’t comfortable with the idea of just any woman shattering the glass ceiling in which she had put "18 million cracks." It had to be Hillary.

Sarah Palin’s nomination therefore isn’t a threat to Barack Obama—Hillary voters won’t flock to her for the same reasons they showed discomfort with Kathleen Sebelius. (Not to mention Palin’s pro-life beliefs and the rest of her conservative record.) Rather, she poses a threat to Hillary’s legacy. Palin has a good story but a thin résumé. She considers herself a feminist but hasn’t become a national symbol of feminism like Clinton. After Hillary’s loss and Obama’s decision not to consider her for veep, Palin in the White House would be the final insult. And, for Clinton, unacceptable.

Why Do Losers Make Great Speakers?

By Derek Thompson 

Al Gore’s speech last night in Denver was the opposite of his failed 2000 presidential campaign—funny, fresh, even a little inspiring. John Kerry’s speech the night before was quotable and downright side-splitting compared with his wooden self in 2004. And Hillary Clinton’s speech on Tuesday? The sometimes chilly candidate was praised for crushing at the convention center.

Why do we love speeches by candidates who lost? Do we lower the bar out of pity? Or do they really jump higher?

It probably has more to do with the bar. Presidential candidates have to be unflappable but human, talented but humble, transcendent but relatable. But if you lost an election, there’s no such requirement. That’s why Hillary got to talk about the "sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits." Al Gore mocked his own narrow loss. Even Kerry snuck in a line about McCain "being for it before he was against" certain policies.

But self-deprecation isn’t why their speeches succeeded. It’s because they transcended the criticisms that dogged them throughout their campaigns. Hillary seemed more emotive and put her legacy in the context of women’s rights and civil rights. Kerry looked comfortable and aggressive, though he was neither in 2004. And Gore flashed the same hip wonkiness he’s rocked for years—that is, the years after 2000.

If there’s a lesson here, it’s not that losing makes you charismatic. It’s that running for president makes you stiff. Message control is paramount to modern campaigns, but it’s also a candidate’s straitjacket hemmed in by voter interests, poll-tested buzz words, and obligatory nods to patriotism and family. In 2004, Kerry played the military card with painful stiltedness, saluting the audience, "reporting for duty," and yammering about Old Glory. In 2008, Kerry played the consummate Obama advocate, mixing direct attacks on John McCain with flairs of humor that electrified the convention center.

Sen. Clinton slouched off the shackles of candidacy even faster. Often criticized for her coldness on the stump, she gave a generous concession speech in June that drew raves. In Denver, she summed up a central issue—the moral smallness of Hillary-first Democrats like PUMA—better than anyone "I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me?" she asked. "Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids?" It was the perfect question, balancing common sense with sentimentality. If she had learned to master that combo eight months ago, Thursday might have represented a different Democratic first.

Hillary Puts Barack Over the Top

Sen. Hillary Clinton stepped to the microphone during the roll-call vote at the Democratic Convention and made a motion that Sen. Barack Obama be selected by acclamation as the party's presidential nominee. Watch what happened next.

Hillary's Speech: The Twitter Edition

From where the press sits inside the Pepsi Center, here at the Democratic Convention, reporters have a clear view of a teleprompter facing the speaker from across the hall. Watching it gets addictive, keeping track of when the speaker wanders off-script, misses a word, or gets thrown off by applause not accounted for in the text.

Following the teleprompter also makes the speech itself sound tinny and disjointed. The smaller screen only carries a couple of lines, making speeches seem like an endless series of Twitter posts by Democratic speechwriters—crowd pleasers strung together by hurried points on policy.

To simulate that effect, here is Hillary Clinton’s speech from last night, chopped down to just the major applause lines. Judge for yourself: Is the final effect all that different?

Subtext

Early Saturday morning, the 3 a.m. phone call finally came. But it wasn’t a phone call. It was a text message.

It’s hard to imagine that the method and timing of Barack Obama’s vice presidential announcement wasn’t, in some small way, a reference to Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 a.m.” ad. Of the 24 hours they had to choose from, they had to pick 3 a.m. Eastern Time, the most famous hour of this presidential cycle?

Maybe it’s just a coincidence. The message blasted out soon after word leaked via the AP that Joe Biden was Obama’s vice presidential pick. Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama, denied any connection with the Clinton ad. “No—that’s an absurd assumption,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Still, the 3 a.m. connection is too good to ignore. Maybe it’s trying to suggest Joe Biden is prepared for that 3 a.m. call, should the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff accidentally dial the wrong extension. Maybe it’s meant to remind everyone that the Obama campaign never sleeps. Or maybe the campaign wanted to help simulate the presidential experience for supporters. So this is what it’s like to be president!

Either way, somewhere Mark Penn is smiling.

Is a War Room Really a Room?

Democratic strategist and former Kerry communications director Stephanie Cutter has joined the Obama campaign.* Her responsibilities include heading up a "war room" for Michelle Obama. A campaign’s "war room" typically refers to its rapid response team. But is it really a room?

Yes, usually. Modern presidential campaigns almost always designate office space for strategists and press teams to communicate quickly and easily. It’s a place for first responders to monitor the news, write up press releases, talk to reporters, and communicate directly instead of over the phone or email.

Of course, war rooms have been around as long as war itself. Churchill built a reinforced bunker beneath his London offices for Cabinet members to convene during the Blitz of 1940. Stanley Kubrick immortalized the term in Dr. Strangelove with the line, "Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here. This is the war room!" But it wasn’t until Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign that the phrase entered wide usage in a presidential campaign context. It helped Clinton cultivate his image as a fighter on the trail and then in the White House, where he set up "war rooms" for cutting government waste and health care reform. "We are going to work constantly, day and night, until we have a health care plan ready," Clinton promised in 1993.

Even as rapid response relies more and more on BlackBerrys and cell phones, the campaigns still maintain a physical space for strategy grand and not-so-grand. Hillary Clinton’s campaign had a room set aside for the rapid response team, which they called the "war room." Obama’s press operation sits together in a large room at the Chicago headquarters. A McCain spokesman characterized the Republican nominee’s war room as "a room that monitors all the media on a minute by minute basis."

Some people are particularly attached to the notion of war room as physical place. "I get hired by so many corporate clients who want a room with clocks and maps and everything," says Chris Lehane, a former spokesman for Al Gore who now heads a public-relations firm. "When you try to explain to them it’s just a concept and not a physical embodiment, they don’t want to hear it."

*Correction: This post originally stated that Patti Solis Doyle would be heading up the war room for Michelle Obama.  

The Primary’s Seven Best Real-Life Campaign Metaphors

Every four years, campaign reporters dust off the old metaphor kit. Some phrases reappear—the "horse race," the "coronation," the "salvos" and "barbs" and "verbal hand grenades" being "fired" and "traded" and "lobbed." Other riffs are specific to a particular election, like this year’s endless Rocky analogies or the analysis of Clinton’s "Tonya Harding option."

But the best campaign metaphors are often provided in real time by life itself. Here’s a rundown of the season’s best.

7. Mike Huckabee’s emergency landing. On Feb. 7, Mike Huckabee’s press plane made an emergency landing so harrowing that one reporter thought the aircraft might flip upside down. Once they were on the ground, a co-pilot left "visibly shaken." A week later, Huck’s van ran out of gas. Twice. A month later, so did his campaign.

6. Obama’s waffle. At a Scranton, Pa., diner, Barack Obama bristled at a reporter’s question about Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas: "Why can’t I just eat my waffle?" The response quickly became shorthand for Obama’s occasional bouts of prickliness. When reporters ribbed him about it later, he was unamused.

5. John Edwards’ breakdown. The last thing a stalling campaign needs is for its bus actually to stall out—especially in the middle of a 36-hour, cross-state "Marathon for the Middle Class" bus tour. But that’s exactly what happened to John Edwards the day before the Iowa caucus. His staff pleaded with reporters not to write up the low-hanging metaphor. They couldn’t resist.

4. Clinton’s inferno. In mid-April, just when Clinton was stoking the embers for a big comeback in Pennsylvania, her office in Terre Haute, Ind., burned to the ground. Investigators ruled out arson. A month later, she just barely eked out a victory in the must-win Hoosier State. But by then her campaign was all but engulfed.

3. Obama’s 37. When Obama first bowled a 37 at the Pleasant Valley Recreation Center in Altoona, Pa., he laughed it off: "I was terrible." But soon the score became a symbol of his aloofness from hard-working Americans. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough called the senator’s performance "dainty." Never mind that he hadn’t bowled all the frames himself. Suddenly he was the latte-sipping, arugula-munching, flag-pin-shunning elitist who rolls gutter balls. Clinton rubbed it in by challenging Obama to a "bowl-off" on April Fools' Day.

2. Clinton headquarters reduced to rubble. Back in February, the Clinton camp moved its home base from a fancy K Street pad in Washington, D.C., to a medicine cabinet of a building in Arlington, Va. The original digs were slated for demolition to make room for new condos. Hard to get more symbolic than wrecking balls.

1. Eight Belles’ last race. Two days before the Kentucky Derby, Clinton urged supporters to put their money on Eight Belles, the only filly competing. But on the day of the race, the girl horse placed second behind an inexperienced yet favored young colt named, of all things, Big Brown. Eight Belles crossed the finish line, but only after breaking both front ankles. She had to be euthanized on the track. Critics blamed the rough terrain. Big Brown went on to win the Preakness but inexplicably faltered in the final contest, the Belmont Stakes. Trainers are still scratching their heads. Instead, the winner was a horse named Da’ Tara—although, let’s be honest, it might as well be called Grizzled Old Veteran.

Suspending vs. Withdrawing

Hillary Clinton will suspend her campaign Saturday. But what does it mean to “suspend” your operation rather than drop out?

The question comes up every four years, and the answer remains largely the same: It lets the candidate hold on to his or her delegates. In 2000, Slate’s Ted Rose explained:

The two national parties set the rules for the selection and responsibilities of their delegates. (All states have their own laws regarding delegates, but in recent decades the U.S. Supreme Court has struck them down, ruling that the parties can set the policies.) Democrats dictate their policy from the top down: All delegates are pledged, but not bound, to reflect the conscience of the candidate they were chosen to represent.

For Clinton, “suspending” allows her to keep adding to her delegate totals. Some caucus states still haven’t held their state conventions. (Iowa’s is June 17.) By “suspending” rather than dropping out, Clinton can continue picking up delegates who might not be named yet.

It also lets her keep her promises to delegates she picked to attend the Democratic National Convention in August. If she dropped out entirely, she would keep her district-level delegates but lose control over statewide delegates. By suspending, she keeps both.

That doesn’t mean she’ll wield much power at the convention. Any decision made about the party platform or rules still requires a majority vote, which means Obama’s in charge. But Clinton’s delegates could still try to influence decisions. “If some of her supporters were greatly exercised about one particular issue and it was important to her political future that she extract a concession on the platform,” then she could exert some pressure, explained William Mayer of Northeastern University. But that’s unlikely to happen. Once you endorse the nominee, you’re effectively telling your delegates to support him or her on all counts.

Some people think it also helps Clinton continue to raise funds to pay off her more than $20 million in debt. But the FEC’s Bob Biersack said it makes no difference. “The word suspend doesn’t have any campaign-finance implications,” he said. “Even if she said she’s withdrawing from the race, she could continue to raise money to pay off her debts no matter what.” If she had opted for public financing, then suspending vs. withdrawing would matter, since you can’t take matching funds for money raised after you drop out. But this year, only John Edwards chose to take public funds.

"Hillary Deathwatch" Odds: 0 Percent

Hillary Clinton has finally announced that she will drop out—but not till Saturday. Thus Clinton departs as she campaigned, dragging it out to the last possible moment. After more than two months of daily odds-making, we sink Clinton to her final resting place of 0 percent. So it goes.

The last 36 hours felt like something out of the DSM-IV. Faced with defeat Tuesday night, Clinton gave a defiant speech with no recognition that Obama had locked up the nomination. Fans encouraged her to fight on. Late Tuesday, Clinton staffers were still spinning against the wind. Hillaryland went from professional campaign operation to alternate reality in which conventions are contested, skeletons emerge from closets, and superdelegates experience group epiphanies based on vague electability arguments.

But after Clinton held a conference call with top supporters Wednesday afternoon, things wrapped up quickly. That evening, Clinton announced she would "express her support for Barack Obama and party unity" this weekend. John McCain called Obama to congratulate him. The spin machine rested. ...

Read more at the Hillary Deathwatch.

The AIPAC Factor

Barack Obama is speaking right now before a roomful of Jewish leaders at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference, and Hillary Clinton’s up next.

Clinton isn’t expected to concede today, but imagine the favor she’d be doing Obama by stepping aside and pledging her full confidence in him in front of a group whose support Obama has struggled to win over. Remember how Mitt Romney dropped out at the Conservative Political Action Conference, two days after a slew of losses on Super Tuesday? He praised John McCain's policies in his withdrawal speech, knowing it would help McCain to be lauded in front of conservative skeptics.

Clinton will eventually be forced to unify, and unify hard. That means rounding up voters with whom she performed better than Obama. Some have proposed that Clinton hold a big rally and call it “Women Voters for Obama.” She might also massage relations between Obama and her Hispanic supporters. A productive first step would be backing him in front of the Jewish community.

Update 11:32 a.m.: And praise him she does:

"Let me be clear: I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake here. It has been an honor to contest these primaries with him," she said. "I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."

"I know that Senator Obama shares my view," she said, that America must remain a staunch Israeli ally, "our stance non-negotiable" and that "the United States stands with Israel now and forever.

(via Ben Smith)

Last Word on the Popular Vote (Hopefully)

With Montana and South Dakota reporting, Clinton netted 3,000 votes tonight, according to Real Clear Politics. That hardly changes her argument that she’s winning the popular vote. You still have to count Michigan to make that case.

But you might have noticed that her overall number went from “17 million” a couple of days ago to “18 million” today. That bounce came from Puerto Rico, which bumped her up from 17.4 million (counting Michigan) to 17.7 million. Round that bad boy up!

Update 12:59 a.m.: A reader points out that the numbers aren't all in just yet. I'll update the item when they are.

Update 8:51 a.m.: As expected, new numbers. Obama nets about 9,000 votes from the two states' totals. And now Clinton actually breaks 18 million, if you count Michigan and the caucus states that didn't officially report popular votes.

"Denver! Denver!"

Tonight is the second time I’ve heard Clinton supporters chant, “Denver! Denver!”—the first being last Saturday outside (and inside) the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in Washington, D.C.

It’s no secret that Clinton supporters are less eager to vote for Obama in the general election than vice versa. (Only 59 percent of Clinton supporters in Montana said they would vote for Obama in November; in South Dakota, it was 61 percent.) But their apparent willingness to take the contest to the convention—which history shows is tantamount to throwing the general election—is a little startling. At this rate, a vote on the convention floor wouldn't do anything for Clinton besides possibly winning her a few more delegates in Michigan. By then, every political force in the Democratic universe will be pushing to calcify Obama's status as the nominee.

Maybe it's just the strongest way of standing up for your candidate. But the “Denver” chant is also a warning of the strife that awaits Democrats if Clinton doesn’t apply the Band-Aid soon—or even if she does.

Obama’s Stroke of Luck

As we think back to What Went Wrong with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, it’s worth keeping in mind that whatever Barack Obama’s strengths as a candidate, however powerful his oratory, however tight his operation, he really lucked out this time.

Several factors outside of Obama’s control ended up working in his favor.

Michigan and Florida moved up their primaries. If these two states had counted, Clinton would likely have won both, giving her three of the first five contests. Momentum hasn’t been a major factor in this race, but two more big wins would have seriously dulled Obama’s mo’ going into Super Tuesday. They also would have cut into Obama’s pledged delegate lead, state lead, etc. Had the primary still dragged on into June, Clinton’s argument that she’s winning the popular vote—which now requires that you count Michigan, where Obama wasn’t on the ballot—would be a lot more compelling.

Proportional primaries. As Clinton loves to point out, she would be winning under the Republican winner-take-all primary rules. (Huckabee says the same thing about Democratic rules.) Sure, the candidates would have run different campaigns if the Democrats had a different system. But given that demographics equals destiny in this election, it’s hard to see Obama winning big states like California (where Clinton wooed Hispanics), New York (her adopted home state), and Pennsylvania (where those “working-class whites” proved loyal). Add in Florida, and she would been a lock.

The quirky calendar. Clinton’s fatal flaw, according to the first draft of history, was expecting to have the nomination wrapped by Feb. 5. Had there not been a rush of states to hold their primaries early, she wouldn’t have had the comforting yet illusory firewall of Super Tuesday. Likewise, Obama benefited hugely from the string of friendly states where Clinton chose not to compete. Not all of them were guaranteed wins (Wisconsin, for example), and he certainly outgamed Clinton. But the looong period between Feb. 5 and March 4 showered Obama a string of 11 victories that put Clinton on the defensive and generated the closest thing to momentum we’ve seen in this cycle.

Clinton’s Iraq war vote. Candidates always try to heighten contrast with their opponents. But Obama was lucky that both Edwards and Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2002—and that Clinton refused to apologize for her vote. Once it became clear that McCain would be the GOP nominee, Obama’s opposition to the war started to look like a powerful weapon in the general.

Two words: John Edwards. Without Edwards, Iowa would not have been Iowa. Obama might still have won, but he never would have trounced Clinton the way he did, 38 percent to her 29 percent. That win catapulted him from long shot to long shot with a chance. Later, Edwards grilled Clinton for taking money from lobbyists in much harsher terms than Obama ever did. It’s impossible to say how Edwards voters would have swung in Iowa and South Carolina, but his presence indisputably drew attention away from Clinton.

None of this is to discount Obama's extraordinary organization, fundraising apparatus, and political abilities. But it's worth noting how circumstances helped make his nomination possible.

Bonus: Slate's Jeff Greenfield argues that Clinton would have won in the bygone era of contested conventions.

"Hillary Deathwatch" Odds: 0.1 Percent

Campaigning yesterday in Milbank, S.D., Bill Clinton effectively declared the race over, saying, "[T]his may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind." Clinton's advance team was told its work was done. Her schedule remains empty after Tuesday night. Even if she doesn't bid farewell tonight, Clinton and everyone around her know her chances are a near-nothing of 0.1 percent. (It would be zero, but she still hasn't dropped out.) She is asymptotically dead.

So today is less about what than how. How Obama is going to roll out the necessary delegates to reach the "magic number" of 2,118. How (and when) Clinton is officially going to concede. How she is going to transition into the "healing" phase of the general election.

Still, the day's news has been an ongoing game of "will she or won't she?" This morning, the Associated Press reported that Clinton campaign officials said she would concede Tuesday night that Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. The Clinton camp quickly denied the report. (Disagreement in Hillaryland? Never!) So the AP took a different tack, declaring the race over based on a tally of public commitments and "more than a dozen private commitments." But seeing as the superdelegate metric has always been about public commitments, it's unclear why that's news. ...

Read more at the Hillary Deathwatch.

Could Clinton Dominate in South Dakota?

With all the "will she or won’t she" speculation about Hillary Clinton dropping out, a lot of people seem to forget that nobody knows how tonight’s elections will turn out. (This lack of interest may have something to do with the low stakes—Clinton’s done either way.) Stoking the drama, such as it is, is a recent ARG poll that shows Clinton leading Obama in South Dakota by a daunting 26 points, 60 percent to 34 percent.

Blog reaction to the poll has been deeply skeptical, at best. "Seriously? Is this actually possible?" gawks Election Inspection. TalkLeft dismisses the poll as "just for fun." The widely read stats blog Five Thirty Eight deems the survey "completely batshit crazy." The skepticism is rooted in the fact the Obama won the surrounding states by almost equally large margins. (See the New York Times’ electoral map here.) Another problem: There’s little to back it up. Pollsters have hardly bothered to survey Montana and South Dakota, leading to wildly differing views.

I called up ARG pollster Dick Bennett, who defended the poll. "It’s what the voters told us," he said. "It’s the same process we’ve used in other states." The survey interviewed 600 people who represented the state’s demographics, without the need for weighting or other fancy modeling.

Bennett dismissed the notion that South Dakota will vote like the surrounding states. "Look at New Hampshire compared to Vermont and Massachusetts and New York," he said. "You can’t pick out states like that."

He also pointed out that South Dakota is the oldest of the recent states except for Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and Clinton has performed well among older voters. According to the U.S. Census, 14.2 percent of South Dakota’s population is 65 years or older. In Pennsylvania, the number was 15.2 percent; in West Virginia, 15.3 percent. The Mount Rushmore State also has a closed primary, which tends to favor Clinton—no "independent bonus voters for Obama," Bennett said—and a large proportion of likely Democratic voters are women.

Another factor is the Native American population. There are no good polls for how Native Americans tend to vote—and in an election as demographically determined as this one, that could be a major factor in South Dakota’s outcome. Both candidates have courted tribal leaders, but it’s unclear who’s favored. Bennett says it doesn’t matter, since Native Americans vote in such low numbers. They make up about 8 percent of the population, but they "didn’t filter through as likely voters," Bennett said. "Barack Obama could get 100 percent of them, and it won’t make a difference."

Clinton is calling her speech tonight in New York a "celebration." If ARG is right—or anywhere near right—she might actually have something to celebrate.  

Slate V: Hillary's Last Ad

Hillary Clinton released a new TV spot on Sunday touting the 17 million people who have voted for her in the Democratic primaries. That's "more than any primary candidate in history," the narrator tells us.

Well, sort of. Over at Slate V, we've got a remix of the ad pointing out the big old asterisk next to Clinton's claim that she's winning the popular vote. Watch it here.

Today's "Hillary Deathwatch" Odds: 0.4 Percent

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Hillary Clinton scored a win and a loss this weekend. She claimed a 2-to-1 victory in Puerto Rico on Sunday but netted only 24 delegates from Florida and Michigan in the decision passed down by the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee. Yet neither of these events changes the landscape of the race. Obama remains fewer than 45 delegates away from the new magic number of 2,118, which keeps Clinton's chances at a near-conclusive 0.4 percent.

Clinton won the Puerto Rico primary in just about every possible way. Women and men, young and old, rich and poor, educated and unschooled—all favored Clinton. (The only demographic that favored Obama was people who sympathized with indicted Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila, who endorsed Obama.) An early estimate showed Clinton winning 35 delegates to Obama's 15, with five still unaccounted for. The Clinton campaign is spinning the results to suggest Obama has a "problem" attracting Hispanics.

But on Saturday, Clinton had problems of her own. ...

Read more at the Hillary Deathwatch.

So Much for Healing

The first half of today’s RBC meeting was all about “unity” and healing. The second part, not so much.

After an extended lunch break, the panel returned with a set of resolutions. The first, presented by committee member Alice Huffman, proposed seating Florida’s entire delegation. Even before it was voted down, Clinton supporter Tina Flournoy mourned that the resolution had “no chance of passing this body.” “That saddens me,” she said. “It really does.” The motion failed, but it was closer than most people expected, 15-12. Instead, the committee unanimously passed a motion splitting the Florida delegation in half. When DNC Secretary Alice Germond tried to soften the mood by describing her experience hearing MLK speak in Washington, D.C., the Clinton-friendly crowd booed. Okay, you won, the boos said. Just don’t pretend it’s democratic.

Things turned even more sour during the Michigan discussion. The committee passed a motion adopting the Michigan Democratic Party’s 69-59 split, but giving each delegate only half a vote. The solution nets Clinton five delegates. (If you include Florida, she netted 24 delegates today.) Even before the vote, everyone knew how it would turn out. Clinton supporter Don Fowler voiced his disappointment with the resolution, but said he would vote for it anyway. He then addressed Harold Ickes. “This is my position. I respect and love you, but this is what I think we should do.”

Ickes, after a pause, leaned into his mic. “We find it inexplicable,” he said, speaking for himself and Clinton, “that this body that is supposedly devoted to rules is going to fly in the face of other than … the single most fundamental rule in the delegate selection process. That is fair reflection.” As far as he’s concerned, fair reflection—the notion that delegate allocation must reflect the true vote—is “analogous to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” He went on: “The motion will hijack, remove four delegates from Hillary Clinton.” (In Michigan’s Jan. 15 vote, “Uncommitted” won 55 delegates; the solution gives him 59.) “There’s been a lot of talk about party unity,” he said. “I submit to you that hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity.”

Committee member Ben Johnson tried to push back, denouncing the “propaganda” disseminated by “one of my colleagues that makes it sound like this motion will hijack” some delegates. But the damage was done. Clinton supporters chanted “Denver! Denver!” from the balcony. Every time a committee member said the word “vote,” someone from the audience would yell, “You mean half!”

If the goal of this meeting was to take a step toward party unity, its final moments don’t bode particularly well. At the end of his speech, Ickes left us with “one final word: Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her right to take this to the Credentials Committee.” An ominous warning for party healers everywhere.

RBC Preview: The Case Clinton Has To Make

A lawyer for the Clinton campaign fired off a letter today to the co-chairs of the DNC rules committee, outlining the argument they plan to make tomorrow. Their case hinges largely on whether Florida and Michigan have been sufficiently punished. We all agree they’ve been very bad states, the argument goes. Get over it.

The letter rejects the argument made by DNC lawyers that the committee can’t reinstate more than half of the delegations. “This conclusion is incorrect,” the Clinton letter states. “The RBC has broad power to fully reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegations” as long as the state parties “have taken provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to bring the state into compliance” with party rules. Attempts to hold re-votes count as such good-faith steps, even though they failed, according to the campaign. If the RBC buys this argument—that the states genuinely tried to comply with the rules but failed—then the Clinton camp might have a shot at reinstating all the delegates. (In Florida, at least; Michigan is messier by a long shot.)

But there’s another rule the Clinton campaign doesn’t mention. In the same part of the Delegate Selection Rules (PDF) cited by the Clinton team [Rule 20(C)(7)], it says that “other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.” In other words, Florida Dems have to prove they fought tooth and nail to keep the Republican state legislature from moving the primary date up.

As we’ve pointed out before, that didn’t really happen. The effort to move the date up was initially spearheaded by a state senate Democrat, and tacitly supported by other Dems. In 2006, a spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party said that “Florida Democrats are all for it.” Likewise, Michigan Democrats knew full well what they were doing when they moved their primary to Jan. 15.

So even if the Clinton camp is able to prove that Democrats made good-faith effort to hold re-votes, they’ll have a lot more trouble arguing they did everything in their power to prevent the original sin.

"Hillary Deathwatch" Odds: 0.4 Percent

The high-stakes drama of Saturday's rules committee meeting appears illusory. Meanwhile, Obama rakes in more superdelegates, putting him 40.5 away from the nomination. According to our formula, that sinks Clinton to 0.4 percent.

T minus one day and counting to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting. Can you feel the suspense? Clinton supporters are busing up from Florida. Obama fans are being encouraged to stay home. Tout le média will hang on Howard Dean's every word, as well as those uttered by the Obama and Clinton campaign surrogates sent to argue their cases.

But the drama is largely phony. DNC lawyers have said that seating any more than half of the Michigan and Florida delegations would violate party rules. The proposed solutions are well-known. And every likely compromise fails to put Clinton within range of catching Obama, who now leads by 200 delegates. ...

Read more at the Hillary Deathwatch.