Clinton Defends Michigan Ballot Stand

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: NYT/AP

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 11, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said it would be foolish to take her name off Michigan's primary ballot and sacrifice her chances against the Republican nominee. As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state's primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15.

''It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything,'' Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, ''The Exchange.'' ''But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008.''

Speaking in the first primary state, Clinton said she understands concerns about her refusal. Rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden took their names off Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot this week, and Michigan's hope for nominating clout all but evaporated.

Clinton's comment reflects an optimism she will win her party's nomination to face the Republican nominee in November 2008. She said any snub to Michigan could hurt her -- and all Democrats' -- chances to defeat the Republicans there....

***

The Democratic presidential candidates already had pledged not to campaign in Michigan because the state had broken Democratic National Committee rules by scheduling its primary ahead of Feb. 5. The rules ban states from holding their 2008 contests before Feb. 5, except Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Primary-Scramble-Clinton.html

[liberal N proud]

1. How does taking your name off the primary ballot sacrifice her chances against a republcion?

[truebrit71]

2. It doesn't, just more double-speak from the focus-group Queen...

...:eyes:

[AlGore-08.com]

3. It doesn't - - if she believes that, she should go campaign there, even if it is against the rules

It's the campaigning by the GOP hopefuls that could jeopardize our chances in MI, not who's name gets left on or off the primary ballot.

Don't forget the Dems are allowed to go visit Michigan as much as they like - - as long as they're fund raising, not campaigning. :wtf:

[adadem]

4. They rarely come here anyway n/t

[bain_sidhe]

8. Anger & resentment

As a Michigander, I understand the "no campaigning" and the taking away of delegates, really I do. The National party has to enforce its rules. Not campaigning is a passive affirmation (by the candidates) of the rules. But the other candidates *actively* slapped Michigan voters in the face by taking their names off the ballot. They essentially said "out loud and in our faces" that Iowa and New Hampshire voters are *more important* to them than Michigan voters. That won't, and doesn't sit well with many people here.

Michigan is purple, nearly 50-50, in fact (Kerry only won it with 51%), and it could definitely make a difference in who wins the state. While I suspect die-hard Democrats will hold their noses and vote for the Dem nominee even if it is one who took their name off, I also know that a lot of those die-hards won't work as hard for a candidate that slapped them in the face. And a lot of swing voters don't consider themselves "married" to any particular party, but they ARE hurting--Michigan's economy really *is* in dire straits--and being slapped in the face by those candidates on top of it *will* have an effect on their enthusiasm for the candidate, if it's one of the slappers. They may not vote for the republicon, but they're more likely to just stay home... and that has consequences down-ballot as well.

As for me, I won't donate or work for the GE campaign of any of the slappers. Yeah, I'll vote for them, and I may do some down-ballot volunteering and donating, but them? They've lost my money and my energy.

[BearSquirrel2]

5. The rules are stupid ...

New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada should not have any more preference for primary dates then anyone else. The parties and states need to get together and formulate a rotating "block schedule" that allows states to flexibly schedule their primaries in a way that allows different states early access to candidates in successive electoral seasons.

New Hampshire is a very small state. The Democrats have to understand that pissing them off is nothing compared to upsetting Michigan voters. If they were smart they would change the primary rules TODAY to allow the Michigan primary electorates to count. How can Democrats complain about voter disenfranchisement when Democrats are going to disenfranchise an entire state in their own nominating process?

Howard Dean ... fix this. The Democrats are being extra stupid on this one!!!!

[spoony]

6. Yes!

Why the hell would a candidate want to deprive a state's Democrats of being able to vote for them? Makes NO sense.

[AZ Criminal JD]

7. Clinton should campaign in Michigan and Florida

The so-called rules being pushed down our throats by Iowa and New Hampshire could cost us the election. If Dean was serious about the 50 state strategy then he would not let 2 minor states control our nominating process.

[bain_sidhe]

9. I don't think so.

I think not campaigning shows the proper degree of respect for the National party. There are rules, and breaking them should have consequences. But those consequences shouldn't include a smackdown of Michigan voters by the *candidates*.

IMHO, of course.

[Pastiche423]

10. It isn't Dean you should be upset with

It's the state Democratic leadership that broke the rules they already agreed upon.

[bain_sidhe]

11. P. S....

I agree that the rules are *stupid*, though. That's what caused the whole break-away by the state leaders in the first place. I know our state had high-hopes when the "reform" was being negotiated that "rust belt issues" would find a place in the "early states" -- even if it had been Ohio or Indiana or Illinois, *our* issues would have been addressed... but they weren't. This supposed "reform" was actually no reform at all, since Iowa and New Hampshire still retained their control of the nominating process. This so-called "reform" was a sham, and I understand our state leadership's anger at being "played" by promises of reform, and ending up with the same short end of the stick. Do I agree with their solution? I'm not sure. It'll cost us, but if the disruption makes *real* reform more likely, it may be worth it.

[fujiyama]

12. Great. The one candidate I just can't vote for in the primaries...

stays on the ballot.

[0rganism]

13. How is any of this leading to a better primary process?

That's what I want to see. One in which regional groups of states rotate primary order, as some have proposed, would be a definite improvement. Hell, even having them chosen separately in a random order each year would probably be better than what we have now.

This whole thing with candidates deserting a front-loaded Michigan primary is... well, it's yet another low point for American democracy, and I don't like it one bit. Hilary is not the problem here, nor is it the DNC per se, it's this insane legacy we've somehow inherited that puts NH and Iowa first every time.