Sei sulla pagina 1di 2
Original Message~ From: "Philippe Reines" Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:57:45 To: HC Ce: Maggie Williams, Howard Wolfson, Huma Abedin, AIS Subject: FL & MI March 10, 2008 To: HRC Cc: Maggie Fr: Philippe & Andrew Re: FL&MI Senator, Continuing on our suggestion of last week to press for revotes in both FL. & MI The current debate over revotes in Florida and Michigan is playing out with both presidential campaigns playing a passive role (publicly). The Obama campaign is doing so because they know a revote will not favor them, and will only serve to reinforce the growing concerns about his candidacy. This is evidenced in part by his surrogates saying very different things from each other - except all have managed to citicize the idea of a revote. Chris Dodd is just the latest, with his untenable suggestion today to split the delegates in half, citing cost as a concern, ‘Simply put, they fear a revote For this very reason our campaign should step into the current vacuum and insist on one overarching principle for a revote: that the revotes are as inclusive as possible and make it as easy as possible for voters who participated in the first round of primaries to participate again. As far as cost is concerned, the right to vote is one that people have fought and died for - no cost can be placed on it, and no cost is too high to pay to protect one of our democracy's most fundamental rights. We should be the one fighting for that right, and let Obama be the one to say "it’s too difficult, it's too expensive". Under state law, third party soft donations could be utilized to pay the estimated cost of a revote. There seams to be little doubt that large sums could be raised very quickly, ‘And while there was a pledge to not campaign in those states before they each voted, there is nothing preventing us now from visiting each to hold "Hear Our Voices" rallies across the two states, where tens of thousands of people can make their wishes heard loudly and clearly. Doing so would change the dynamic from the perception that we are "changing the rules in the middle of the game” by trying to seat FL & MI for our SOLE benefit, to one where people recognize this is being sought after for THEIR cumulative benefit. We need to shift the debate from technical rules discussions to building a consensus in favor of the principle of a broad revote in both states. If the DNC will not recognize the original results, then we are not calling for a re-vote - we are simply calling for a vote. While revotes may not yield as large a delegate gap as the first votes, the key is to run up the popular vote totals among Democrats in each state. Even with wins in FL and MI, and success in PA, KY, WVA, IN and PR, we are unlikely to overtake Senator Obama in earned delegates. However, it may be possible to bring the margin under 100 earned delegates. If so, we can make an argument that Democratic party Caucus quirks should not determine the nominee in a close race and instead the popular vote should be the determining factor. Indeed, Texas provides a perfect example of the caucus results conflicting with the popular will. And Puerto Rico's decision to shift from a caucus to a primary will greatly help close the popular vote gap. ‘Again, narrowing the pledged delegate gap to within 100, coupled with a clear a popular vote majority after all 50 states have been heard, as well as continued question about his electability is our path to the nomination. All our resources & efforts should be geared towards those goals.