Why was Hillary on the ballot in Michigan?

[Radical Activist]

All the other candidates followed the rules and took their name off the ballot. How long has Clinton been planning this scam? From the start? Why else would she have stayed on the ballot in violation of the rules?

[snappyturtle]

1. I'd like an answer to that too. I've certainly wondered about it. n/t

[Avalux]

2. There's no good reason for her name remaining -

other than to 'win' the state and if needed, pressure the DNC to seat the delegates.

[LisaL]

5. And what was Obama doing, remaining on the ballot in FL?

Why do you attack Hillary for doing the same thing Obama did in FL?

[cyclezealot]

13. The Fla Secretary of State

did not have the authority to remove names.Whether a candidate wanted their name removed or not. / If the media says a candidate is a presidential candidate, Fla law says that name WILL be on the ballot.

[indimuse]

19. why did obama leave his name and RUN ADS in Fl???

that makes the agreement Null and Void (imo)..! I'm a 3rd generation Floridian..I want my delegates sat!!!!!!!

[quantass]

21. He didn't ... the ads were National ads not Local

[MonkeyFunk]

39. I don't understand how that argument

is supposed to be meaningful.

All the other candidates managed not to run ads in Florida. Only Obama did. And who gives a shit if they were national ads that ran in Florida? They RAN IN FLORIDA!

If Clinton had done the same thing, you guys would be exploding.

[ButterflyBlood]

66. Only Obama ran national ads

And they ran in Florida because you can't run an ad in only 49 states.

[MonkeyFunk]

77. right

and being mindful of their pledge not to run ads in Florida, they didn't run national ads!!!!

Obama could've done what the other candidates did, OR he could've waited a couple more days before running his national ads.

I still don't understand why it's acceptable because it's a national ad. They ran in Florida, and he was the only candidate to have done so.

And again, if Clinton had run a national ad that ran in Florida and Obama didn't, you guys would be shiting zebras.

[LordJFT]

40. then you should be mad at your state party, not the DNC

[quantass]

20. Yea in FL you can't just remove your name -- think you need a supoena or just can't.

[1awake]

3. I don't think she was the only one on the ballet

I could be wrong though. But I do wonder at times if it was a political strategy. I don't mean that as an attack on Hillary though.. she is a very shrewd politician.. and thats not always bad.

[MaineDem]

18. I think Dodd and Kucinich were there as well. That's it. n/t

[grantcart]

23. Kucinich tried to remove his name but fucked it up

[LisaL]

4. What rules?

Why was Obama on the ballot in FL?
Hah?

[Tarc]

6. That hero of progressive thought, Dennis Kucinich, left himself on the ballot as well

Just wanted to make sure that your rage here is directed at all the possible targets, and not just one in particular.

BTW, are you as upset about Obama running campaign ads in Florida in violation of the rules as well?

[cyclezealot]

10. I followed the Mich Kucinich campaign.

The Detroit Free Press said Kucinich was received in Mich , as a rock star in his three days of rallies. / While in Mich. he said he changed his mind about what the DNC did. He said such actions disrespected Michigan citizens and the needs of Michigan need be heard. Thank you Dennis Kucinich.

[CK_John]

11. Only by fouling up the paperwork to remove his name, not once but twice. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

41. But he also campaigned in Michigan

in direct violation of the pledge.

[cyclezealot]

49. good for him.

we knew he cared for the well being of labor. And he proved it.

[Mika]

58. How could DK violate a pledge he never took?

The DU meltdown is over two candidates who, before any primaries, both agreed to disenfranchise millions of voters in two states.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. Then why did he try to take his name of the MI ballot?

The only reason he was on it was because he was too incompetent to complete the proper paperwork in time.

[Mika]

69. Right. He campaigned and had his name on the ballot. DK never agreed to the pledge.

He recognized how disgusting it was to agree to disenfranchising millions of voters, like Clinton and Obama have done.

[MonkeyFunk]

78. Then why did he try to take his name off the MI ballot?

[Radical Activist]

14. Dennis isn't in the race

so what does that have to do with it? And just because Dennis does something doesn't make it right.

And you know Obama ran national ads.

[earthlover]

16. Oh please....Obama did not run ads in Florida....there were NATIONAL ads....

and Florida is, the last time I checked, part of the nation. But not ads specific to Florida.

[Tarc]

24. That does not make it any less of a violation then this accusation against Hillary

If y'all are going to get pissy and nitpicky over the rules, then hole them ALL accountable, or hold none at all.

[earthlover]

35. So, let me understand you, you think national advertising should have been banned....

due to one state? On what basis do you conclude that?

[MonkeyFunk]

42. Every other candidate managed to avoid running ads in FL

Only Obama did.

If it had been Clinton, and not Obama who did this, you'd all pretend to be astounded at how people could justify that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

46. Are Clinton, Obama and McCain running ads on Mars?

Because the television signals have reached there.

:freak:

[MonkeyFunk]

47. What's that got to do with anything?

This was cable networks, and he KNEW they were going to run in Florida. No other candidate did that. Obama could've waited a few days to run his national ads, but he didn't.

Just stop for a second and ask yourself how you'd react if Clinton had done this, but not Obama. If Clinton had bought national ads that ran in Florida just before the primary - you'd be OK with that?

No, you'd call her a cheating lying manipulating bitch.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. A couple of things.

First, cable signals are broadcast to satellites. They still reach Mars. :)

Second, all the candidates agreed beforehand that FL/MI wouldn't count. So any advertising that played there is moot.

Thirdly, I like Hillary. :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

55. No

you're just wrong. The pledge wasn't that the votes wouldn't count. The pledge was that they wouldn't campaign there. You've got it 180 degrees wrong.

WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. Fair point on the pledge(I'd like a link, though)...but...

August 25, 2007 6:02
Florida vs. the DNC
Posted by Karen Tumulty | Comments (34) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

The Democratic National Committee, with a near-unanimous vote by its rules committee, has taken a hard line against Florida's plans for an extra-early presidential primary, voting to strip it of all of its delegates if it goes ahead with a Jan. 29 date. The move shocked the state party, which now has 30 days to come up with an alternative plan that passes muster with the national party. One possibility would be a "beauty contest" on that date, in which the winner would walk away with bragging rights and good headlines, but no delegates. The state may also start its balloting early, so that candidates will be forced to give it time and attention, but delay counting the votes until after the Feb. 5 "window" opens.

...
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/08/florida_vs_the_dnc_1.html

6 months later:

CLINTON CAMP: ALL THE WAY TO CONVENTION
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2008 1:30 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton

...

On Florida and Michigan, the campaign again said voters in those states should not be “disenfranchised” and that the states were important to the Democratic Party's fortunes. Ickes also said Clinton didn't vote on the DNC rules.

But Ickes did. And he voted in August to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates as a sitting member of the Rules and Bylaws Commission.

...

“Those were the rules, and we thought we had an obligation to enforce them,” Ickes acknowledged today on the call even while trying to convince members of the media that Florida’s and Michigan’s delegations should not only be seated at the convention, but should also have full voting rights and that delegates should be allocated based on voting that took place in those states -- even though in Michigan, Obama’s name did not even appear on the ballot and uncommitted got 41% of the vote to Clinton’s 55%.



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/16/671358.aspx

Like it or not, the DNC is the ruling party in these matters. The fact that Ickes voted in August(before he was "officially" on Team Clinton) to strip the delegates but now has a "change-of-heart" reveals where the real intellectual dishonesty lies.

Personally, I don't think it will matter. The contest will most likely be over in March.

[juajen]

50. It is easy to leave a state or an area out of a national ad.

You think none of the other candidates would have run ads in Florida if they could? Ya'll need to stop saying he couldn't help it. Obviously, there was a screw up or someone did it so that he would more presence in FL than the other candidates.

[Tarc]

59. You are missing the point

It was a violation of the agreed-to rules that all the other candidates managed to avoid doing. How was his campaign so inept as to run afoul of it?

[DJ13]

7. This was an early campaign poster in Hillary's HQ, maybe its a clue......

http://image.motortrend.com/f/editorial/my-audi-q7-42-premium-s-line/6429395+w600+cr1+re0+ar1/copyright-warner-brothers.jpg

:shrug:

[cyclezealot]

8. I recall she said

The Mich Secretary of State let it be known to get their names off of the ballot, they'd have to send a notice to have it removed. Edwards ,RIchardson, Obama did such. Hillary said. She will respect Mich voters by leaving her name on the ballot , but will not campaign in Mich. She did not campaign there . Kucinich's petition of removal did not arrive by the time of the deadline. She said something like it would be a disservice to remove her name for those who wanted to vote for her. Not campaigning in Mich , she felt was sufficent compliance to the DNC call to not work Mich for delegates.

[MichiganVote]

29. Correct....but not politically Obama correct.

[cyclezealot]

48. he could have followed suit.

most competitors don't let the other get an advantage.

[MichiganVote]

67. Yes indeedee

[Radical Activist]

75. So she was trying to have it both ways

as usual.

[CK_John]

9. She was smart enough to leave it on the ballot, while others filed to remove their name. n/t

[tekisui]

12. It won't do her any good. It's not that smart.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Cause She's Running For President Dumbass.

:rofl:

[MichiganVote]

28. Operation, you kill me. LOL :):):):):):)

[Bitwit1234]

17. The OTHER candidates did not take their names off they were

never ON THE BALLOT. They had not registered when the call came that the delegates would not be seated, HIllary's was.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Wrong

But why use facts when you can just make shit up?

[Sulawesi]

22. So nobody here has a clear answer to the excellent question posed in the OP?

[MichiganVote]

27. Only those who want to chew th ass off one of the candidates--gee, which one would that be?

[MichiganVote]

25. There never was a rule that the candidates HAD to remove their names from the ballot

Seriously, why do you post distortions like this? Its only been everywhere that all the candidates could leave their names on the ballot. And now...comes the moral high ground for the ones who took their names off the ballot...except for Kucinich, of course, who uniformaly gets a pass.

The fact is, both campaign strategies, Obama and Clinton, had no interest in Michigan--on or off the ballot. They were focused on Iowa and NH, who, if you bother to research it, you will find also broke some rules.

[Egalia]

26. the rules said nothing

about taking their names off the ballot.

[Yossariant]

30. Easy peasy. She is smarter than Barack Obama.

Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151

"I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009," she said.

[JackORoses]

33. being more devious is not being smarter

It was her plan all along to try and claim these delegates. She has no regard for her Party or its rules.

ps. are you the same Yossarian who jumped off the balcony at the Warfield?

[Yossariant]

60. He is the devious one. He lied, held press conferences and ran tv ads. He should quit whining.

[JackORoses]

72. I take you are the famed 'Warfield Flipper'?

Hillary will never get those flawed delegations seated.

She will not take this win away from the People, no matter how hard she tries.

The Dream of a Clinton Dynasty is over.

[goddess40]

36. Hillary

Win at any cost. Whether it tears the party apart or not! I am tired of the Rovian approach to elections and I believe that most Democrats are as well.

[juajen]

52. You just love hearing yourself spout nonsense.

NT

[PassingFair]

57. Yeah, just like she was "smarter" than 23 Senators who voted NO on the IWR

...and the majority of House Members who stood up to
the Chimp and said "NO".

She opted to play it both ways AGAIN.

She always figures that its WIN WIN if
she plays it cynically.

Unfortunately, people are WATCHING,
and she will ultimately LOSE.

[Yossariant]

61. He wants to invade Pakistan. I notice he didn't take a stand on the IWR until AFTER the vote.

Not that he'd have had the stones to be "present" for it.

He merely waited to see if any Democrats voted against it, then "bravely" spoke up ONE TIME.

Since then he said that he would do what Bush is doing, doesn't know how he'd have voted on the IWR and HAS voted to to fund the war.

Like the gambling measure in Illinois when he was a Senator there, he has taken the positions of, "NO!" YES! and "UNDECIDED!"

PLAYING IT THREE WAYS.

:puke:

[PassingFair]

65. Mighta, coulda, shoulda, woulda.

I DO know what we'll get with Hillary, though.

A prevaricating, cynically voting, "ends justify HER means" leader.

No. Thanks.

And for the record, I've seen film of Obama speaking out against the
war BEFORE the IWR vote.

[mopinko]

71. his speech was on oct 2, '02. 2 weeks before the vote.

sorry, wrong.

[Radical Activist]

74. Smarter?

Since she looks like a dishonest candidate who will do ANYTHING to win, thus playing into the worst impressions of her, I don't think it was so smart.

[LostInAnomie]

31. Probably for the same reason she agreed to the rules about FL before the election...

... then started whining about disenfranchisement after she won.

She doesn't care about anything as long as she can win.

[bain_sidhe]

32. She decided it wasn't a good idea to slap MI voters in the face

just to pander to Iowa. At least, that's *this* Michigander's take on it.

[dkf]

34. But was too scared to tell Iowa and New Hampshire that right?

Playing both sides of the fence.

[Yossariant]

63. Yep. There was a total media blackout in Iowa and New Hampshire.

:rofl:

[elfin]

37. Because it didn't bother her to break the rules

of the Democratic Party to get to victory by any means possible.

Rules are rules - if you cannot abide with them, then don't play the game.

Also, Granholm is her buddy an a snub would not have looked good.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. There was no rule to

remove one's name from the MI ballot. Why repeat lies?

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Person number 10 in 3 days now

to claim, falsely, that all the other candidates took their names off the ballot in Michigan.

Is there one central source of this lie? It seems unlikely 10 of you thought it up simultaneously.

[Radical Activist]

76. Its an obvious question.

And everyone always ignores Kucinich. The fact that his excuse is incompetence by the campaign is very easily believable in his case. I suspect people will keep asking it as long as there's not a clear answer. It looks like she had this scam cooked up months ago.

[MonkeyFunk]

80. You said all the other candidates removed

their names from the ballot. That is blatantly untrue.

Half the candidates - four of them did. Four of them remained on the ballot.


I'm just curious how this particular lie has become so widespread in only 3 days.

[PeaceNikki]

43. There was no requirement they remove their names. In fact, it benefited the others TO remove theirs

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html
The Biden campaign criticized Clinton and Dodd for not taking their names off the ballot.

"The Dodd and Clinton campaigns have chosen to hedge their bets, thereby throwing this process into further disarray," Biden campaign manager Navarro said. "In doing so, they have abandoned Democrats in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina."

CNN's Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider suggested the Democrats who withdrew may have calculated that it was simply in their best political interest to do so.

"If there's no campaign, the candidate most likely to win Michigan is Hillary Clinton," Schneider said. "Her Democratic rivals don't want a Clinton victory in Michigan to count. They want Iowa and New Hampshire, where they have a better chance of stopping Clinton, to count more."

It was an unneccesary step - an "extention to their pledge" to the DNC that snubbed the voters there.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/leaving_michigan_behind.html

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday both filed paperwork with the Michigan secretary of state to have their names withdrawn, as did Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.

"This is an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.

[tandem5]

53. No, there were no rules requiring removal of their names. nt

[cd3dem]

54. Just shows deeper intelligence if you ask me!

Why burn bridges?

[TexasObserver]

64. Because Hillary lacks the basic honesty of other candidates, and cheats when she can.

[Az_lefty]

68. because she "oh so forgot" to take her name off the MI ballot

it's one of those "aw shucks" moments for the most intelligent woman in the universe. Or she just wanted to hedge her bets, thinking those delegates would become useful someday.

I'm not going to bother with the sarcasm tag...

[MonkeyFunk]

79. Nope

she never claimed that.

There was no rule, no requirement, no pledge for candidates to remove their names from the ballot.

That's been pointed out a few thousand times here - why spread an obvious lie?

[WillyT]

70. It's Called "Hedging Your Bets" !!!

She was betting on this very scenario.

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

73. Since when did the rules say

she had to take her name off?