February 6th, 2008
03:02 PM ET
7 years ago

DNC chair: We may have to broker Clinton-Obama deal

(CNN) - As predictions of a convention floor fight from the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to mount, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the party would likely intervene to prevent that scenario.

Dean said Democrats would look to “get the candidates together to make some kind of an arrangement” before the party meets in Denver this August to officially select its nominee.

In an interview on NY1 on Tuesday, before the outcome of the day’s votes was known, Dean said he thought the Democratic Party would have a nominee by mid-March or April.

"The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario,” he said.

If there is no nominee selected by his predicted mid-spring date, or by Puerto Rico's June vote – the last presidential primary on the Democratic calendar – Dean said the party would likely bring both sides together to work out a deal.

“Because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention,” he said. “That would not be good news for either party."

–CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

soundoff (85 Responses)
  1. nick

    look at the economy!!doom & gloom is on the horizon..you need clinton to swing into action before the usa is owned by outside sources..I don't think Obama has twhat it takes to kick start the economy..The whole world is being effected by this.He'll make a good president next time round..

    February 6, 2008 08:08 pm at 8:08 pm |
  2. Vivian

    Hillary's older and wiser. Obama's young and naive.

    No deals. We can't afford to risk losing to the Republicans. People wake up. This is Hillary's time. We can't afford to be bullied and Obama will be bullied. He's not ready.

    Go Hillary! Hillary for President!!

    Fathers of Daughters – show your daughters they too can become president some day. Support Hillary for president

    February 6, 2008 08:10 pm at 8:10 pm |
  3. HC

    "Elect Obama and McCain wins in November"

    Sorry, the dems lose more votes to McCain with Clinton as the nominee. You know, unite the right and independants?

    February 6, 2008 08:12 pm at 8:12 pm |
  4. Jean

    dan, paris:

    Barry Oblahblah's appeal among independents and his so-called "bring Democrats and Republicans together" is a total mirage and a lot of campaign hot air that will float away once it's time for the general election.

    Look at the states he won: the small (in delegate count) red states where only super-dedicated Dems reside (as one commentator put it when announcing he won Utah, which has 23 delegates, "Utah probably only has 23 Democrats in the whole state."). In a general election, he has no chance of winning any of those states, even in the Southern states with 100% of the eligible African American voters showing up in the South and voting for him, he'll never carry Alabama or Georgia (not saying Hillary will either, but people claiming he'll attract independents and moderates are dreaming; he's left of Hillary in his appeal a la MoveOn.org endorsement).

    February 6, 2008 08:23 pm at 8:23 pm |
  5. MT

    "Elect Obama and McCain wins in November"??

    PUHLEEZE!!! Didn't anyone see Bill Bennett say on CNN last night that the Republicans are "praying" for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee?

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain.

    Obama is the one who will siphon the independents' votes and beat McCain. The "Hill" is too polarizing and has too much baggage!

    GO OBAMA!!!

    February 6, 2008 08:25 pm at 8:25 pm |
  6. kate

    The DNC better hope it doesn't come to a "DEAL" situation, that might just be the beginning of a people's revolution in this country and the end of the democratic party.

    Can the DNC be so stupid as to not realize AMERICANS have turned out in record numbers in the primaries and caucuses to date to show that THEY care about who is going to be leading this country in 2009? If a DEAL is even whispered about by any of the politicians who have taken part in creating the debacle our country is currently living through, I suggest a NEW political party–AMERICAN INDEPENDENTS!

    UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE DNC CUT A DEAL WITHOUT A CONSENSUS OF VOTER MAJORITY.

    February 6, 2008 08:29 pm at 8:29 pm |
  7. Michelle N Louisiana

    NO DEAL IT HILLDOG WINS I WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN OBAMA/EDWARDS 08
    THE YOUNG GUNS ON THE TICKETS

    Well, Sen. Clinton's candidacy is not legitimate. It is in violation of the 22nd Amendment of the constitution. She has served by way of her husband Bill Clinton the two term limit. She has already enjoyed all the same power and influence that her husband did during his term as he has admitted her role in the White House. she benefited from the income and all aspect of presidential privilege by way of marriage. She has shared income (presidential) and cannot not receive the same privileges again since the two terms have been used for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. Bill Clinton cannot legally have access to all privileges afforded the presidency–income will again be shared by commmunity property laws of marriage. We cannot allow politicians to run over our Constitution. Wake Up People!!

    February 6, 2008 08:29 pm at 8:29 pm |
  8. Realistic in CT

    A "brokered " deal leaves out the people that matter...the voters. For the Clinton's...yes politics as usual. For Obama...hypocrisy. No deal...let the people decide. If the nomination gets messy, so be it...isn't that part of the democratic process. A broker deal reminds me of what goes on in other countries...I thought we were different? If the Dem's can't unite after the convention...then we (I'm a Dem) deserve to lose...again. OBAMA or bust.

    February 6, 2008 08:44 pm at 8:44 pm |
  9. Mike M.

    I'm sure that those who think a Clinton/Obama ticket is not a good idea are hard-core Obama supporters who can't stand having their candidate lose. They should be more concerned about the future of this country, and be satisfied that Obama gets a chance to be in the White House and possibly take over the reigns after Clinton steps down after 1 or 2 terms. This should give him more experience and would be less of a poster boy, and actually know how to do something instead of just talk.

    The way I see it with how they running their campaigns, Clinton exudes this motherly figure that she will be tough, but hardworking and knows how to actually get things done. Barack is more of a pretty boy suitor, wooing the voters with promises and flowery words just to get their votes. When the courtship is over, guess who is going to be on the short end of the bargain?

    I do agree that Obama is promising, but not now, when he is still green and lacking in political experience. I would vote for him in 4 or 8 years,but I would be really concerned if he gets in now and just sets himself up for failure.

    February 6, 2008 09:16 pm at 9:16 pm |
  10. Saybome

    A Clinton Presidency would mean HOLY DEADLOCK, because we know the Republicans will do everything in their power to sabotage her tenure. The Republicans will not be as willing to do business for the sake of the nation. There is no bad blood and history with Barrack, this allows the Republicans to be in a more bipartisan mood with a Barrack Presidency.

    February 7, 2008 02:26 am at 2:26 am |
  11. jess

    The reason many people like Obama is because he is not a Washington institution. The party is already split. The Clintons represent the DLC, an inside group that supported the war and NAFTA. They want to take the progressive movement out of democratic party.

    The Reagan Revolution is falling apart as well. Strange times ahead.

    February 7, 2008 02:27 am at 2:27 am |
  12. Martin Heldt

    judging by the way Obama is raising money, I think he'll beat Hillary outright.

    I don't mind hillary, but we don't need political dynasties, we don't need 28 years of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

    February 7, 2008 02:32 am at 2:32 am |
  13. Bryan

    No deals and no brokering. This country may not be a true democracy but we should at least give our citizens the right to decide who the next leader of the free world should be.

    February 7, 2008 02:33 am at 2:33 am |
  14. Donna

    Elect Obama and McCain will win the White House. Obama will never win the huge state that comes with huge electoral colleges especially California, Florida and Michigan.

    Hillary Clinton has proven that she can carries big states and it was proven from the Super Tuesday's election.

    If the democratic party wants to win the white house the ticket should be Clinton- Obama.

    Califonia is Clinton country and if she will not be the Democratic nominee for the Presidency , Mc Cain will win California comes November.

    February 7, 2008 02:36 am at 2:36 am |
  15. Kevin Topeka, KS

    Broker a deal before the convention? Where was the DNC when both of these individuals chose to run. Sit one of them down and explain the problems their running could cause for the Party, prior to the campaign!!!!. This is the only way we, the Democrats, are going to give the White House to the Republicans. Why did the DNC allow this to be the year that we consider both the first African American and the first female candidate? If a deal isn't brokered prior to the Convention, the Party will not be able to unite for the General Election. Look at this ticker. How many times have posters stated that if their candidate isn't elected they will stay home or vote Republican. We shouldn't have both of these candidates running for the nomination in the same year. Both are extremely good candidates and would easily defeat any field of oppostion in any other election year.

    February 7, 2008 02:46 am at 2:46 am |
  16. Sofia

    NO DEAL...NO DEAL .... NO DEAL................. CLINTON, EDWARDS AND OBAMA PROMISE THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULD NOT COUNT.. I FEEL BAD, AFTER ALL I LIVED IN ONE OF THOSE STATES.. BUT THIS IS HOW YOU CAN TELL HOW THE CLINTONS PLAY... NOW THAT THEY SEE THEMSELVES IN TROUBLE... THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE RULES.... HELLO PEOPLE, WAKE UP. THE CLINTONS WANT TO CHANGE THE RULES RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME, WHEN THEY SEE THAT THINGS ARE NOT GOING THEIR WAY.... THIS ARE THE CLINTONS WE SHOULD TRUST.... SO THAT TELLS YOU SOMETHING FOR STARTER EVERYTHING SHE IS SAYING IS ONLY A BROKEN PROMISE.. START WITH THAT. OH YEAH, SHE IS REALLY UPSET BECAUSE 'POOR US', OUR VOTE WON'T COUNT. SHE DID NOT MENTION THIS WHEN SHE WAS AHEAD IN SC. YES, HILLARY. NEXT TIME JUST CRY, IT MIGHT JUST WORK AGAIN.

    WE WANT CHANGE ... REMEMBER THE VOTE FOR WAR. THAT MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR A BETTER EDUCATION, VETS, HEALTH CARE AND OUR ECONOMY WOULD NOT BE LIKE IT IS.
    LISTEN, WITH THE CLINTONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, THAT IS AMMUNITION FOR THE REPUBLICANS ... THERE ARE LOTS OF SKELETONS STILL BEHIND... DO WE WANT TO WAIST OUR TIME AGAIN WHILE OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD IS IN NEED? SO THINK CAREFULLY WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

    February 7, 2008 02:52 am at 2:52 am |
  17. Jon

    "I do agree that Obama is promising, but not now, when he is still green and lacking in political experience. I would vote for him in 4 or 8 years,but I would be really concerned if he gets in now and just sets himself up for failure."

    well said Mike, the country can not afford to take a chance on an untested president. We need some one strong and tested to beat any republican. A Clinton/Obama ticket would win hands down and be best for the country. The more this fight lasts, the easier the republicans can win

    Clinton and Obama '08
    Experience and Change together

    February 7, 2008 03:13 am at 3:13 am |
  18. Jet

    8 years of State legislative experience and 4 years of Senate experience is more than Hill has. This whole "inexperienced" meme is tired. She is not the right answer for the country. Nothing else matters. We don't need a two family parties, we need a visionary.

    February 7, 2008 07:14 am at 7:14 am |
  19. Populist Pop

    What no one in this thread seem to be taking into consideration is that the "deal," if past brokered conventions in our history are an example, is that a third candidate would be the nominee, neither Obama or Clinton. Al Gore, anyone?

    February 7, 2008 10:56 am at 10:56 am |
  20. Robert

    I think the Super Delegates need to throw their support behind whichever candidate wins the most votes after all the primaries/caucuses are over. That's the best "deal" out there, because democracy still wins. If it's not my guy, I'll suck it up and deal with it, but if they choose the person with fewer votes the "deal" would stink of a smoky back room.

    February 7, 2008 11:43 am at 11:43 am |
  21. RO

    No Deal, Howie!

    February 7, 2008 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  22. Pancho, Miami FL

    NO DEAL!

    And you can't just seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. The only way to make this fair is to have a new election in those states. Obama and Edwards were not even on the ballot in Michigan so folks couldn't vote for them if they wanted to.

    NO superdelegates to decide THIS ELECTION!

    February 7, 2008 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  23. AJ

    I'd take John Gotti over Obama.

    February 7, 2008 11:50 am at 11:50 am |
  24. CC

    Hate to break it to you guys, but they vote the same way. Often. Obama actually doesn't vote at times when he doesn't want a public record of his opinion. That's his gimmick.
    Whatever. Either one is fine.
    Just no more (R)s.
    And please, dear gawd, no McCain.

    February 7, 2008 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm |
  25. nasm

    The super delegates will end up choosing the nominee, which most likely will be Clinton and her political machine. Just another slap in the face. Exactly why is my son in Iraq? , for some super delegate to tell him he has to stay. There is no way Clinton is going to bring them home. Just watch how she will change her tune when she is up against McCain. So you all can vote for her and continue with your "bumper sticker' support.

    February 7, 2008 12:05 pm at 12:05 pm |
1 2 3 4