AP: (Bill) Clinton Opposes Democrats' 2nd-Caucus Plan

[Eugene]

Clinton Opposes Democrats' 2nd-Caucus Plan

By HOLLY RAMER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; 12:29 PM

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Former President Clinton says both he and his wife oppose
a change to the Democratic presidential primary calendar that would allow another
state to hold a caucus after Iowa and before the New Hampshire primary.

Clinton said his opposition to the Democratic National Committee plan has nothing
to do with loyalty to the state that helped launch his 1992 campaign and
everything to do with the need to preserve the integrity of the election process.

<snip>

He said the one-on-one campaigning that he did in New Hampshire made him a
better candidate and president.

<snip>

If the full DNC adopts the plan, one state would be allowed to hold a caucus
between Iowa's caucus and the New Hampshire primary in 2008, and a second
would hold a primary shortly after the New Hampshire contest. The District of
Columbia and 10 states, including Clinton's home state of Arkansas, have applied
to fill the two slots.

<snip>

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062800816.html

[Totally Committed]

1. So now he's speaking FOR Hillary...

He must think she has Iowa sewn up.

This is what is inherently wrong for the spouse of a former POTUS to run for POTUS herself. All the hubby has to do is step forward and endorse his wofe's decision, and he has, in effect, endorsed her as a candidate.

This will happen more and more as the '08 primaries get near.

TC

[jobycom]

2. I don't agree with anything you said, but that struck me, too, that he

was speaking for her. Wonder if she approved that beforehand. She had to have, the Clintons are too good to do anything without planning. Seems to project the wrong image, to me.

[rabid_nerd]

3. ***** Bill

and ***** New Hampshire.

I think Iowa and New Hampshire should be set dead last in primaries and caucuses for 20 years, after Florida.

The DNC should have no say when the state party chooses it's delegates, as long as it's in the same year.

Either make it all the same day/week/month or butt out.

And I'm mad at my state for not having the guts to kick it up there.

[TayTay]

5. Ahm, the problem is that NH is not controlled by the DNC

New Hampshire's primary is run by the STate of New Hampshire, not the DNC. New Hampshire has passed a law that says it will be the firt in the nation primary. The DNC can't do anything about that. It can try and put a few caucuses in between Iowa and NH, but if NH thinks it is being disrespected, it can go ahead and unilaterally, without consulting the Dems or the Repubs, move it's primary.

The only counter the DNC has to this is a messy credentials fight at the actual nominating convention. No one in their right mind wants a fight on the floor, in full view of the media, that basically says, this delegation cannot be seated because it didn't follow the rules the DNC set out. (Again, there are primaries set by the DNC and primaries that are set and run by the States. That is simply the way the current election law works.)

Imagine you are a candidate and that you are running very close to another candidate for the nomination. Do you want to provoke a whole state by claiming that what looks like a technicality to the average voter should prevent people from sitting in and voting on the nomination of the party standard bearer. That's nuts.

[iconoclastNYC]

6. DNC doesn't have to count thier delegates.

Who's in charge of the Party, one stupid state or the National organization?

It's time to end NH's and Iowas tryanical rule over our party primary.

If I were in charge i'd have 3 primary dates. And the states would be selected by random lottery. Each primary date would have primaries for states that represent 33.3% of our countries population. Everyone would get equal chance of being one of the first states who set the front runner, and it woudnl't be a front-end loaded system.

[TayTay]

7. That job belongs to the candidates at the nominating convention

That's where a credentials fight would occur.

Realistically, which candidate, with an eye on the November election, is going to come out on national TV and say that he or she doesn't think a delegation should be seated because of a technicality? (The average voting American doesn't give a shit over what primary goes first or second. This is an insiders and bloggers fight.) Tell me which candidate is going to intentionally antagonize a whole state just to prove a point.

I have no problem with Iowa and New Hampshire. I have no problem with adding another caucus in between. But every action has a reaction and there will be one to this.

[iconoclastNYC]

8. Why are you concentrating on the candidates?

If NH wants to play hardball, the DNC should play hardball with them.

[TayTay]

9. Because the candidates control the process

They decide what happens at their conventions. That is why it is critical to go after them if you want change. The DNC does not control the law in New Hampshire and cannot 'tell' New Hampshire to get in line with the DNC decision, if New Hampshire doesn't feel like it. The only way to resolve that would be a credentials fight on the floor of the convention and no candidate running for national office would ever, ever, ever do that. Ever.

That's how the process works. The DNC can ask for this, but New Hampshire has the legal right to say no. They legally control their own primary, not the DNC or the RNC. They can do what they want. Other forms of pressure, including national candidates not showing up in advance of the event, are things that would sway them. Otherwise, the DNC or RNC supposes, but New Hampshire disposes.

[iconoclastNYC]

10. I'm not so sure you are right.

you are basically saying that NH could have thier primary tomorroow (there is a state law!) and the DNC is powerless to do anything about it. Sorry not buying that.

[iconoclastNYC]

4. DLC Bill and Hill vote for the status quo, news at 11:00

Clinton was a disappointment as a Democratic President. He sold out the country to Wall Street. DLC centrism de motivated our base, emboldened the right-wing and left our party weaker. The Clintons are our parties past. Hey Bill --- go give some more 100K speeches to corporatists and quit trying to use your undue influence to meddle with the good work Howard Dean is doing. Your picks for the DNC chair lost. Get over it.

Keeping the system the way it is allows the big money DLC candidate to spend thier corporate donations on carpet bombing the airwaves with swift-boat style attack ads against whomever has the people behind them. The DLC and the DLC candidates did this to Howard Dean in 2004 and they want to be able to do it again in 2008.