Again, Hillary, I implore you: Don't ABANDON the dems in Michigan the way

[Mezzo]

BO wants to.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/clinton_camp_to_obama_stop_sab.php

It's a sad day when any camp of any stripe wants to turn their backs on the voters. On the People.

IOKIYBO

[Medusa]

1. It's a sadder day when a candidate claims Michigan as a win

when she was the ONLY candidate on the ballot and that she wants those "results" to stand in yet another desperate bid to win more delegates.

[SoCalDem]

2. Pretty pathetic, isn't it?

Like bragging about an able-bodied person winning a gold medal at the special olympics :evilgrin:

or the Patriots bragging about beating Valley View High Jr. Varsity football team :)

[earthlover]

3. Reminds me of some communist country where there was only one name on the ballot

And they brag about an election victory.

[Justyce]

8. Except for the fact she would

have won Michigan easily: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-12-michigan-poll_N.htm

"If the other major contenders were on the ballot, Clinton would still win with 46% of the vote. Obama would receive 23% and Edwards would get 13%, the poll indicated."

[SoCalDem]

9. It's really all about the Super Delegates she wants from Michigan

the actual split would not have gotten her many more delegates than he would have gotten.:)

[PassingFair]

14. Why do you think the COLLUDED to FRONT-LOAD the primary season?

Name recognition beats in early contests.

Hillary had the "brand".

It is better to vet the candidates over time.

Just LOOK how much we find out once the voting
begins in earnest!

[Romulox]

16. Are you talking about IA, NH, NC, NV? Why must all early primaries be in REPUBLICAN states??? nt

[PassingFair]

23. It was SOUTH Carolina, btw.

There is a DELICATE balance involved in the
type AND place of the early caucuses and
primaries.

They represent a cross section, and the
rules DID include new states, to ROTATE
in the future.

The voters in Michigan DID NOT WANT to
break the rules, our LEGISLATORS, in
collusion with elements within the MDP,
prodded by assurances by the Levin camp,
went ahead ANYWAY.

It was TRANSPARENT and disgusting.

[Romulox]

24. Sorry, I meant the OTHER Carolina that went for W twice (do we need two?)

[Romulox]

25. Isn't 1 person = 1 vote a good enough balance? Why the Rube Goldberg voting machine?

[PassingFair]

26. Its about choosing the right candidate for the PARTY.

DEMOCRATS in those states vote, along
with Independents who help to show the
feelings of the GENERAL ELECTORATE.

Front-load without vetting, and the
big brand name will wrongfully be
chosen over more thoughtful, vetted,
and appropriate candidates.

I don't want the CORPORATE WING of the
party branding their way to the White House.

[Romulox]

30. That argument is untenable; the two best funded candidates are the two left standing

Moreover, by allowing 4 Republican-leaning states to "vet" our nominee, the Democratic party has be wrenched to the right.

I don't know where you get that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the "anti-Corporate wing" of the Democratic party...In fact, nothing could be further from the truth...

[stahbrett]

19. With no campaigning, it's not surprising

Hillary has started out with huge early leads in the polls almost everywhere. It takes a lot of time and money to cut into that lead.

[Mezzo]

5. While Hillary Probably should have spent more on red state caucuses,

BO should not have turned his back on the people of Michigan by allowing his name to be taken off the ballot. It was a sucker bet to start off with.

They both called for a revote.

i wonder what Obama is afraid of.

[Catch22Dem]

7. Are we trying to rewrite history here?

Taking his name off the ballot was the RIGHT thing to do. Obama wasn't the only one. Edwards, Richardson, and Biden all withdrew because it was the RIGHT thing to do.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. No, it wasn't "right"

it was politically expedient at the time.

[Exilednight]

17. Candidates were suppose to take their names off the ballot. It was part of the pledge they signed.

[DemVet]

10. Except that Obama pulled his own name off the ballot. A rather stupid move. n/t

[StevieM]

42. Obama had a strategy in Michigan

he got his supporters to vote "uncommitted" and then turned around and claimed there was an "anti-Hillary" vote--people who would rather vote for no one then for Hillary. Of course, it was a lie. But Obama succesfully used this around the country. He wouldn't still be in the race if it wasn't for Michigan. If there were results in Michigan for him to refer to, then there are results period. They should be seated.

Of course, it is Hillary who is trying to get a new election, Obama who is fighting it. There is nothing Obama won't do in order to win.

Steve

[Yossariant]

4. Don't count the votes!

:crazy:

[rodeodance]

28. BO will do anything to win

[Catch22Dem]

6. It's a sad day...

when the MI Dem leadership KNOWINGLY fucks over the MI voters. The voters in MI don't deserve this, but their vote in the January primary should not count. If they truly end up getting screwed, and have no delegates seated in Denver, perhaps they'll throw out the leaders who did this to them.

[Vinca]

11. Obama hasn't dismissed a new Michigan primary.

What he has said is that he wants to know the plan before he signs onto it. Are they proposing a closed primary or an open primary? A primary or a caucus? In any case, neither candidate has to agree or disagree with a revote. Michigan should go ahead and hold another primary. If you hold it, they will come.

[rodeodance]

12. "deliberately run out the clock on the possibility of a revote."

The Hillary camp cranked up the pressure on the Obama campaign over the Michigan revote today, demanding that Obama make a public and active push to make a revote happen by supporting the current proposal for a June 3rd rerun of the election.

On a conference call with reporters, senior Hillary adviser Harold Ickes repeated an insinuation that Hillary's Michigan co-chair, former Governor Jim Blanchard, made to me a little while ago: That the Obama campaign is using professed procedural concerns to deliberately run out the clock on the possibility of a revote.

"I know the Obama people are going around saying, `We don't need a rerun.' They're sort of winking," Ickes said. "We are saying that Senator Obama's campaign does not want a primary...There's only one hold-up: Senator Obama. Period. End of story."

The Obama camp has not taken a position on the proposal.

Interestingly, Ickes also claimed that the Democratic National Committee had privately signaled its support for the Michigan revote plan, which could up the pressure on Obama to accept it. I've checked in with a DNC spokesperson on this.

[Tellurian]

20. Yes, I would have answered the post above yours the same way..

Obama is stalling running out the clock..

All the missteps and mistakes Obama has made in his campaign are by his own hand. Yesterday's speech all but sounded the death knell for Obama's campaign. It will give him plenty of time to reflect on the fact by him backing Wright he deserted the electorate who thought he was an honorable man capable of governing fairly all colors and stripes in the country. His own words sealed his fate.

[Royal Oak Rog]

21. Do It or I'll show you in Muslim Garb Again!

And so goes the election of the female David Duke of the Democratic Party..."rules, we don't need no stinkin rules, let's just run roughshod over the whole system if I can't have my way."


Hillary Rodham Nixon

[rodeodance]

27. More name-calling by immature posters

Hillary Rodham Nixon

[Royal Oak Rog]

29. Seriously these are honest representations

She's been Nixon like, David Duke like, the only thing she hasn't been is presidential like!

[Romulox]

18. It's disgusting that my political franchise is a mere pawn in Obama's game...

to be moved strategically when it benefits him, if at all.

[Vinca]

31. Um, as I mentioned, the state DOES NOT need an okay from either

the Obama campaign or the Clinton campaign to hold an election. Call your lawmakers and demand an election. Don't blame it on Obama. If Michigan holds an election, I guarantee he'll show up.

[Romulox]

32. Sorry, you're mistaken: "Obama's camp raises doubts over plans for primary do-over"

Howard Dean has said that both candidates must agree or there will be no redo primaries.

Barack does not want Michigan to be able have a re-vote, either. :eyes:

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/NEWS07/80319014

[Vinca]

33. Is Howard Dean an elected, Michigan official? Is Barack?

Baloney. Tell Howard to go to hell and have an election. If there isn't an election, you'll be whining for the next 4 years that Obama stole the White House.

[Romulox]

34. Ummm, yeah. We already had an election. nt

[Vinca]

35. Sometimes it's like trying to have a discussion with a brick.

Michigan violated the rule, they paid the price. They can undo it if they try hard enough, but apparently you choose to piss and moan rather than sitting on the doorsteps of your party officials and demanding another vote. You blame everyone but the party officials who screwed it up in the first place. If they hadn't been so anxious to somehow cancel out Iowa and New Hampshire, you'd be sitting in the catbird seat. It's not Obama's fault, or Clinton's fault, or the voters in the rest of the country's fault, it's the Michigan Democratic Party's fault.

[Romulox]

38. You just don't seem to understand: the DNC has granted Obama VETO power over any Mi. redo.

Your posts make no sense because you don't seem to get this point.

[Vinca]

43. All I know is Michigan had one illegal vote. Put everyone's name

on the ballot and have another illegal vote. If both candidates are on the ballot, I'm betting it will count. Obama wants a compromise of some sort, a notion that seems foreign to the "my way or the highway" Clinton campaign. For example, he's interested in whether or not it's a closed primary. Now that Rush has the Republicans voting for Hillary, Obama would be a fool not to be concerned about that.

[Romulox]

15. Labor is a liability in '08! North Dakotans DEMAND Michigan's delegates not be seated!

:puke:

[stahbrett]

22. The state bigwigs who pushed up the election date turned their backs on the voters

How dumb of them, since they saw what happened to Florida when THEY moved their date up and decided to go ahead and do the same thing!

A re-vote will be a waste of money at this point.

I *would* be in favor of the following solution:

Penalize Michigan and Florida 50% or 75% of their delegates' voting power. Then seat Michigan 50/50 (because Obama was not on the ballot), and seat Florida as-is.

[DearAbby]

36. Wondering where you got the idea that the Candidates

are the ones to solve this problem, when it is the DNC?

[Turn CO Blue]

37. A very sad day when DU'ers want to disenfranchise the OTHER

voters - you know, the ones who did NOT get to select the candidate's name they PREFERRED because it was not on the ballot, and are therefore utterly disenfranchised if ONLY the Clinton voters get counted...

A very sad day that such obtuse thinking makes it to the GP.

[elixir]

39. I agree, Mezzo, but you know what all's fair in politics. And Obama has the advantage of stopping

this thing in MI.

[pointsoflight]

40. Um, it's the local dems saying no.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.