Remember, John Edwards took his name off the ballot in Michigan as well...

[Bicoastal]

...so any Edwards-turned-Clinton people calling Obama "stupid" or "reckless" for removing his name will have to call JE on the same thing.

In my opinion, for anyone in the top tier of candidates in January 2008, it was clearly the right thing to do. Campaigning is what make elections fair and democratic, and an election without it is simply a name-familiarity contest.

[gateley]

1. I think those candidates who made a show of solidarity did the right thing. nt

[provis99]

2. rather than get mad at candidates who removed their names

Maybe the people of Florida and Michigan would get more sympathy if they got mad at the people who did this to them; their state politicians. I'm more inclined to sympathize with posters like madfloridan who recognize the problems that the state leaders have imposed on these states' voters, and place the blame on the people where it belongs: DINO's like Bill Nelson in Florida.

[TexasObserver]

5. Agreed. It's the responsible Dem leaders in those states who should be barred from the convention.

The bogus results from Hillary's cheating can never be allowed.

I'm amenable to an even split of delegates between Obama and Hillary, to make the peace and let those state REAL Democrats have some voice at the convention, but any scenario that allows Hillary to benefit from cheating cannot be allowed.

[PassingFair]

3. So did Biden and Richardson. Kucinich THOUGHT he had, but

his paperwork didn't have the proper signatures/notarizations.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Clintonians like the smell of their own b.s., that's why the keep spreading it

[hayu_lol]

8. I have called Obama inexperienced and blamed him for the stupidity on his part...

for attempting to pander to Iowa/NH by removing his name from the Michigan ballot. I have not called Edwards the same because he is no longer a candidate. That was back in the time that Obama and Edwards were a tag-team match against Hillary.

What else can you call it in a presidential election except personal stupidity? The people of Michigan were going to vote in their primary. They deserved to have all the candidates on the ballot even if no campaigning was allowed under the original contract between the Democratic Party of Michigan and the DNC. Neither group represents the people doing the voting.

[shraby]

6. If I remember right, they were asked to remove

their names from the ballot because the states had been disqualified. They did, but Hillary didn't. Maybe for a little extra that she might need and be able to bully the votes for herself?

[PeaceNikki]

7. It was a calculated deliberate unnecessary decision to remove their names. All of em.

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.

[provis99]

10. pretty weak

I don't go to that clown Bill Schneider for an insight into why candidates removed their names; first off, he's a Republican political hack, and never resists the opportunity to badmouth Democratic candidates or partisans. Secondly, its obvious he did not ask the candidates why they removed their names; he simply slurred them with dark, ulterior motives.

[Vinca]

9. Edwards would have done very well in Michigan, too. nt

[hayu_lol]

12. Had the candidates who removed their names from the Michigan...

ballot not done so, then their share of delegates would have been theirs. Since Hillary(and others)remained on the ballot, then they should rightfully claim those delegates.

That is the only 'right' decision to come from this.

Neither Obama nor Edwards nor the other candidates who removed their names from the ballot were REQUIRED to do so. That was their decision alone.

The Obama camp desperately wants their share of delegates from both Michigan and Florida. In the case of Michigan, they earned no delegates. That is the price of what was a personal and stupid decision.

Hillary played fair and square. She earned her delegates and should get them.

[Vinca]

13. Nope. "Clinton " is a brand name. Obama and Edwards would have

needed to campaign there for it to be a fair contest. It's not right anyway you look at it. Consider this - if the tables were turned, Obama's name left on the ballot and Hillary's taken off - would you be saying Obama should get the delegates even though months ago it was agreed by all parties the results wouldn't count? Didn't think so.

[juajen]

11. Gee, I'm so shocked you feel that way.

As a matter of fact, if we polled all of Obama's supporters, we would get the same opinion, I'm sure. However, you all know that if Obama had won those states, we would be hearing the opposite argument from you.

The delegates should be seated and given to the candidates who won them. Fair is fair. This issue needs discussion at the convention so there is no question again.

The voters in FL and MI should not be denied their vote or their delegates. This was a stupid decision and disenfranchises thousands and thousand of voters, and we need those voters in November, every last one of them.

Why didn't they just fine the dem party in FL and MI, instead of hurting the voters. They went and voted where the ballot was and when they were told to go vote. This is not rocket science, people.

Take off your blinders and do the right thing. Come on, Obama is supposed to be the inevitable candidate now. He doesn't need Hillary's vote in those two states, now does he?

Don't any of you feel guilty that you're are trying to bully this vote away from Hillary. She won it fair and square and played by all the rules.

[GodlessBiker]

14. The honorable candidates did what Edwards did.