If Hillary had done the right thing and taken her name off the ballot in MIchigan.....

[Johnny__Motown]

Then neither she or Barack would have been on it.


Wouldn't her argument for a redo election be much stronger if she had only done the right thing in the first place? (the problem with Dems voting in the Repug primary would still exist)



Doesn't this fit the Clinton pattern? Do the wrong thing (like vote for the IWR) and then try to not pay the price later when that action causes problems for her?


I would love a redo. I had to vote Uncommitted last time. The opportunity to vote for Barack would be great. The need to follow party rules is more important than my personal wish to vote for my candidate though. It is to bad she didn't do the right thing in the first place, maybe I would have gotten my chance to vote for Barack in the primary. I guess voting for him in the GE will just have to be enough.



EDIT... (almost) nobody is addressing the original question. Would her position for a redo be stronger if her name had not been on the ballot the first time?

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. The opposite

Since she won the original easily with Obama off the ballot the fact that she is open to a redo now instead of blocking it is more, not less, persuasive.

Dodd remained on the Michigan ballot also for your information.

[Yes We Did]

3. Dodd doesn't count.

Never really did.

Obama would crush her in a redo. People would look at what a piss-poor job Granny has done and expect the same from Hillary.

[joeybee12]

4. Yeah, she's willing to go head-to-head, he's not...

...it doesn't help him, so he won't do it. Michigan will go big for Hilary the second time around.

[EFerrari]

68. The consensus is she hurt the chances for a revote by showing up

in Michigan and offering to help find funders for it.

[Johnny__Motown]

6. Dodd had also dropped out by the time the election was held, I voted that ballot I do not need your

information, thank you very much


She is only supporting a redo now because her attempts to have the delegates seated from the original election failed miserably.


There is no moral high ground for her here. She isn't doing this out of a sense of right or wrong, she is doing it out of desperation and because her attempt to cheat failed.

[Inuca]

11. I am not sure, but I do not think he did

Kucinich was the only other name, AFAIK.

[Scout]

56. Dodd and Kucinich were also on the ballot, Dodd had already dropped out n/t

[stillcool]

62. About Kucinich..

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST

Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff

Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot.

The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.

The issue centers around the Democratic National Committee working to impose order during an ever increasing tumultuous campaign in which dozens of states have decided to push up their nominating contests in hopes of attracting more money and attention from the presidential candidates.

The DNC has threatened to punish states that break tradition and the rules by challenging Iowa and New Hampshire as first to pic. The committee has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that go ahead defy the primary rules set by the party.

Michigan moved its primary ahead to mid-January next year, violating DNC rules which bars all states states, except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, from holding primary elections before February 5.

The reason behind Michigan's decision to move up its primary is because state lawmakers feel that their state rather than the two smaller ones are a better representation for the nation. Proponents for moving up the primary feel that that New Hampshire and Iowa are two states that lack Michigan's industrial economy, ethnic diversity, urban issues and environmental richness.

Ironically this type of national embarrassment and candidate abandonment following the decision is just what they were hoping to avoid.

[Bitwit1234]

21. Bull crappy the state of Michigan would have had to spend millions

of dollars to make new ballots. That's why they didn't do it. And anything to try to steal votes from Hillary Clinton the other candidates party is raring to go...

There were at first 2,000 complaints about the other candidates supporters illegaly filling in ballots in Texas. The number has now grown to over 5,000. Even tho they won't verify it, we now know how he wins caucus...what a bunch of crooks.

[sniffa]

52. This deserves its own thread

I'll gleefully recommend it. :thumbsup:

[stillcool]

63. That's why they did what?

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline
October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST

Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff

Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.
[]
The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot.

The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.

[flyarm]

2. tell me where in the Rules ..that theObama people scream about ..it says names

should or need to be removed..please point it out for all of us...

or you will be seen as nothing but hot air..so please..post here where it says in the rules that any candidate needed to remove their name from the ballot!!

[Yes We Did]

5. That agreement was to not participate in any way. She signed it.

That would include being on the ballot.

We are not going to go over this again. Deal with it.

[Romulox]

18. This is a conclusion, not an argument. nt

[LisaM]

7. No, they removed their names to placate Iowa and NH voters

As if they already didn't have way too much influence over things!

[LSparkle]

13. EVERY election we hear this from Iowa and NH and every time,

the candidates AGREE to it. Because of Michigan's state party's ARROGANCE
(and Florida being stuck with the timetable of its state party run by
Repugs), this put candidates in a position of having to choose between
going with the national party or siding with the state. Sorry, Michigan,
get over it -- you guys fucked yourselves.

I watched the DNC meetings and I was appalled by the behavior of MI's
representatives, including Sander Levin and Debbie (Mrs. John) Dingel.
They were bound and determined to get Michigan a seat at the table during
the early primaries, and when they didn't get the support of the rest of
the committee setting the schedule, they as much as threw a shit fit. They
should have just accepted that THIS TIME OUT, it was going to be Nevada
and South Carolina. Maybe in 2012, Michigan will be among the early
states but they shouldn't have been so dead-set on going early.

And now, as a "reward," they may actually HAVE the desired impact on the
process. That doesn't seem fair to me.

[LisaM]

16. The Republicans filibustered when they tried to change it back in Michigan

But you must be aware that Michigan was in a one-state recession before the rest of the country slid into recession. They actually lost population last year (23,500 people). They wanted to go early because they have a number of economic issues that they wanted to be addressed. The DNC blew them off for Nevada. I give props to the Michigan lawmakers for fighting so hard for their state (which, I'm from, and which I miss dearly. It's a beautiful place). That's what lawmakers are supposed to do.

Now the entire country is in recession (which anyone in Michigan could have predicted would happen) and it turns out that the Michigan delegate wasn't so selfish after all. The economy would have been at the forefront of all the candidates, not just Edwards, if Michigan had had an earlier primary.

All that said, when the DNC insisted on Nevada (why?) Michigan and Florida both attempted to move their date to later and couldn't. The DNC was wrong on this.

[LSparkle]

28. Nevada was selected for its ethnic diversity

Latinos, Asians, etc. That was part of the reason for the expansion of
the early primaries -- to try and be more inclusive, instead of just letting
two predominantly white states have inordinate influence over the process.

The economy is now a huge issue but it was less crucial a year ago (or
whenever the schedule was set). The DNC felt that getting an ethnically
diverse group of voters involved was more important than going by what's
going on economically in the states. At the end of the day, the decision
was made and it's a shame that Michigan didn't just accept that and move
on.

[Romulox]

34. Michigan is a "predominantly white state"??? Are you simple?

:silly: :wtf:

[LSparkle]

38. If not, then why are we haring only about the "blue collar working men" in MI?

That's code for "white guys" (at least from what I've heard).

I stand corrected (reminded) about the Middle Eastern population in Michigan
but, like it or not, Nevada was selected because of the growing Hispanic/
Latino vote ... predicted to play a big part in this year's election.

[Romulox]

40. Because "we" slept through social studies? nt

[Romulox]

42. Detroit is one of the largest predominantly black cities in the country, for one...

Many of them are "blue collar working men" too. Do they count? :puke:

[Scout]

57. except for Detroit and Flint, maybe Lansing and Saginaw, yes,

Michigan is a predominantly white state.

The UP and northern lower peninsula are part of the state too, not just Southeast lower and the larger cities.

[Romulox]

58. So when you exclude the major population centers, it's "predominantly white". Makes sense.

No it doesn't. :silly:

[Johnny__Motown]

36. Don't forget our large number of Middle Eastern residents, Michigan is extremely diverse

[Romulox]

45. Greetings from Dearborn!

:hi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearborn%2C_Michigan

[Johnny__Motown]

47. LOL...see, I am sticking up for you (at least your area)

[mythyc]

75. 2006 census estimates for quick reference, race and gender

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html


Population, 2006 estimate . . . . . . . 10,095,643
Female persons, percent, 2006 . . . . . . 50.8%
Male persons, percent, 2006 . . . . . . . 49.2%
White persons, percent, 2006 . . . . . . . 81.2%
Black persons, percent, 2006 . . . . . . . 14.3%
American Indian & Alaska Native, 2006 . . 6%
Asian persons, percent, 2006 . . . . . . . 2.4%
Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander, 2006 . . 0.2%
Persons reporting 2 or more races, 2006 . . 1.5%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, 2006 . . 3.9%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2006 . . 77.7%

[Johnny__Motown]

15. Hillary won NH, if it was necessary to remove yourself from the MI ballot to placate them...

How the hell did she pull that off?

Did they not know she left her name on?

Your argument makes no sense at all.

[Romulox]

19. Two REPUBLICAN states, might I add. Hmmmm.....

[Johnny__Motown]

8. Participate, look it up....

[Romulox]

20. Just did; says shit all about removing ones name from a ballot. nt

[Johnny__Motown]

37. How about placing name on a ballot and not correcting that mistake?

[LSparkle]

9. All the candidates were asked to take a pledge ... not to participate

in any early primary/caucus (i.e., earlier than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,
that were all permitted to go before the Feb. 6 window). Many candidates signed that pledge
(including Edwards, who challenged Obama and made sure he took his name off, too). Some didn't
(Kucinich, Dodd, HRC -- although , I heard she INTENDED to take her name
off but "didn't get the paperwork through in time").

[Romulox]

24. You're confusing Clinton with Kucinich. It was Dennis who claimed he intended to remove his name

He then proceeded to campaign here prior to the primary. Hmmm.... :wtf:

Wonder if you are missing any other details in this mess?

[stillcool]

65. I think because the election was invalid...

Kucinich, Edward, Biden, Richardson, and Obama removed their names?

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST

Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff

Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot.

The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.

...I think it had something to do with this.....

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”
.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has suggested seating the Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention, even though the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stripped them of their status. The DNC originally set itself up for trouble by denying these influential states a place at the convention as punishment for scheduling their primaries too early in the year. However, the fact remains that, since each and every Democratic presidential candidate pledged not to campaign in these states and to abide by the DNC’s decision, these delegates should not be seated at the convention.

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[rinsd]

10. Obama should not have bandwagoned on Biden & Richardson's political stunt to kiss IA ass.

Before IA voted, the pledge as interpreted by Obama required he even remove his name from the ballot (at least that is his campaign's published rationale) though in reality they got wind of Biden and Richardson removing their names from the ballot and were worried about IA (at the time Obama was a distant 3rd).

After IA voted, in MI his surrogates openly campaign for him urging people to vote undecided.

After IA voted, he seeks permission for TV ads to run in FL as part of his national ad buy.

Notice the contrast

Before IA, drastic measures were necessary to uphold the sanctity of the pledge.

After IA, not so much.

[Johnny__Motown]

12. How is voting Uncommitted a campaign for him.. and Participate.. go look it up

If Hillary had removed her name then nobody would have needed to push the Uncommitted vote.


It is still her fault for not doing the right thing...

[rinsd]

14. Here's the radio ad.

This is the script of the John and Monica Conyers radio ad, which will be broadcast on Detroit-area stations. Monica Conyers is president pro-tem of the Detroit City Council.

MALE: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS CONFUSING. I WANT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA BUT OBAMA'S NAME IS NOT ON THE BALLOT.

FEMALE: THERE IS NO ONE ON THAT BALLOT I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.

MALE: WELL, THESE FOLKS CAN HELP US. EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS, WE NEED YOUR HELP.

FEMALE: HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR OBAMA ON TUESDAY?

Rep. Conyers: YOU CAN'T. YOU CANNOT EVEN WRITE IN OBAMA'S NAME. IF YOU DO YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT BECAUSE OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN CHOSE NOT TO PLACE HIS NAME ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES. BUT YOU CAN VOTE UNCOMMITTED

Councilwoman Conyers: IF AT LEAST 15% OF THE PEOPLE VOTE UNCOMMITTED, THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MUST SEND THAT PERCENTAGE OF DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION UNCOMMITTED.

Rep. Conyers: MY WIFE AND I ARE VOTING UNCOMMITTED. WE WILL WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO MAKE SURE THAT UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES GO TO THAT CONVENTION TRULY UNCOMMITTED SO THAT OBAMA CAN COMPETE FOR THEIR VOTE.

MALE: THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS. I WILL JOIN YOU AND VOTE UNCOMMITTED ON TUESDAY.

FEMALE: ME TOO - AT LEAST MY VOTE WON'T BE WASTED

Councilwoman Conyers: THIS TRUTH IN POLITICS MESSAGE WAS PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF MONICA CONYERS

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/voters_face_confusion_in_michi.html

How can that not be classified as campaigning?

"If Hillary had removed her name then nobody would have needed to push the Uncommitted vote"

Yes then we could have had a unified fuck you to the Democratic voters of MI!

Chris Dodd, original signer of the peldge and key advocate who got the others to do so as well, thought that removing the names was a drastic step that could alienate voters.

[Johnny__Motown]

27. You can't seriously believe that asking people to vote Uncommitted equates to campaigning for Barrac...

That add was broadcast on Detroit area stations. I assume on a station(s) who targeted African American listeners (since I never heard one and am white and live in Detroit). They would use Barracks name to reach that demographic.



The idea that it was campaigning for him or in any way participating in that primary is a clear and utter distortion.



The original question stands, IF she had removed her name wouldn't we have a better chance for a redo now?

[rinsd]

33. Umm its blatant campainging for Obama.

Do you see Edwards name mentioned?

Do you realize that Conyers & his wife are big supporter of Obama?

In an effort to signal that Clinton cannot stroll away with the state's delegates, even in a largely uncontested race, Michigan Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit city council member Monica Conyers, taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote.

They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver.

An "uncommitted" vote would take the place of a write-in, which is not permitted.

"People are already frustrated here in Detroit because they can't cast a ballot for Obama. Many on their absentee ballots many have tried to write in Obama, but they have spoiled the ballots," said Sam Riddle, Monica Conyers's chief of staff. "We know we've got to educate the voters in a hurry."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/voters_face_confusion_in_michi.html

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. – As Michigan Democrats go to the polls today, a Detroit consultant working to keep down Hillary Clinton’s share of the vote -- her only competition on the ballot is “Uncommitted” -- says the results should be seen as a referendum on her campaign’s handling of racial issues.

“If the Clintons don’t get at least 60 percent of the vote, I think it would be a total rejection of her candidacy,” said Sam Riddle, an adviser to Detroit city councilwoman Monica Conyers.

Conyers and her husband John, a U.S. congressman – both backing Obama -- taped radio ads urging voters for “Uncommitted,” which has become a consensus alternative for supporters of Obama and John Edwards. Riddle said a weeklong back-and-forth between the Obama and Clinton camps over the legacy of the civil-rights movement and Obama’s own drug use will galvanize black voters in the urban centers of eastern Michigan to deliver a no-confidence vote to Clinton.

“That type of stuff has no place in the campaign but it shows the Clinton desperation,” Riddle said. “They’re demeaning Obama and folks in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Pontiac don’t like it one bit.”

With the campaigns respecting a Democratic National Committee boycott of the primary, the election-day ground game has become a proxy war between local supporters. Clinton has some of the state’s most prominent elected officials working on her behalf, including Governor Jennifer Granholm and Senator Debbie Stanbenow.

“’Uncommitted’ does not the get-out-the-vote apparatus that the Clintons have,” Riddle said. “We did talk radio, hit the churches -- much like you would with a candidate, except the candidate is ‘Uncommitted.’”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/michigan_clinto.html

[Johnny__Motown]

41. Please read the last sentence of your own post.. That Candidate Is Uncommitted

Not Barack


nice post though.. good try

[rinsd]

50. Yes and they are campaiging for Uncomitted for Obama's benefit.

Something that would have been unecessary if Obama had not taken his name off the ballot and simply adhered to the no campaigning pledge as everyone but

BTW, while I find it baffling you are arguing that what happened was not campaigning, I do not think Obama was breaking the pledge because he was doing so thru surrogates.

But again note the contrast of his rigidity on the pledge pre IA & post IA voting.

[Romulox]

26. Obama got what he paid for: He pandered to Iowa and won.

He is the one that doesn't deserve a second bite at the apple. He knew damn well that he was sacrificing Michigan to win in Iowa.

[Johnny__Motown]

29. Following rules is not pandering..

[Romulox]

31. You're spinning in circles. There was no rule requiring he remove his name.

Moreover, it is now being reported that the DNC has signed off on a revote plan for Michigan, but that Obama is objecting to it...

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/democratic_national_committee_2.php

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880319014

[Johnny__Motown]

35. How can having your name on the ballot be considered not participating ?

Clearly if your name is there you participated. No it did not specific ly say that your name should not appear on the ballot, it shouldn't need to. A bare minimum attitude toward adherence to our party's rules isn't good enough IMO.


Also, raising questions about the process is not the same as opposing it. That legislation has not passed, if it does we can talk about supporting or opposing the redo.

Some Dems did as they were asked and voted for Romney to keep McCain from locking up the nomination quickly. They did so because they were told that there were no delegates at stake in the Dem contest.


Even so, this wasn't my point


Would her position calling for a redo be stronger if she had removed her name?

[Romulox]

39. It's not clear to me, which is why I'm asking you to explain. nt

[Johnny__Motown]

43. having your name on the ballot is participating in it, therefore against the pledge

[Romulox]

48. I think that's a reasonable interpretation, but not the ONLY reasonable interpretation

Nor do I believe that Obama removed his name because he felt he "had" to--he was trailing Hillary in polls in Michigan by over 20 points at the time he yanked his name.

[Johnny__Motown]

51. My original question stands.. would her call for a redo have more standing now if she had,

[bowens43]

17. One thing that we can count on

hillary never do the 'right thing' unless that thing is self serving. Everything that she says and does is about hillary.

[elixir]

22. Dodd counts and so do all the others that left their name on the ballot. Dean needs to fix this and

he's messed it up. His 50 state... I mean 48 state strategy is working really well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. The DNC announced it approves of the Michigan revote plan

Link to coverage:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/democratic_national_committee_2.php

[Romulox]

30. According to the Free Press, Obama is opposing the revote.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880319014

[Johnny__Motown]

32. That legislation never passed, and there is the issue of Dems who crossed over and voted for Romney

the way they were asked to (on this site I believe) in order to keep McCain from locking up the nomination quickly.

[Iceburg]

44. What's that old saying ..."cheaters never prosper" /nt

[Johnny__Motown]

46. Thank you for agreeing, Hillary should not benefit from her attempt to cheat

[ElsewheresDaughter]

70. they ignore facts...they only hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest

ahh good son by art and paul

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

25. exactly - always doing the wrong thing and then pretending she didn't know better

its denial denial denial

[hayu_lol]

49. It is simply amazing that we keep going over this material without...

coming to the conclusion that it was Obama/Edwards, back in the days when they were tag-teaming against Hillary, who deliberately pulled their names off the Michigan ballot. Neither was REQUIRED to do so.

The rules of the agreement was not to actively participate in the election process, i.e., not to campaign in the state.

You cannot run for president by pulling your name off any state's ballot. That is the bottom line. Obama would have undoubtedly pulled his name off the Florida primary ballot had it not meant that he would not be on the GE ballot if he did so. It was HIS stupidity and inexperience that led him to remove his name.

Further, Hillary was not the only Dem left on the ballot: There was Hillary, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich(who actively campaigned in Michigan despite his pledge not to do so).

Having voluntarily taken his name off the Michigan ballot, Obama now wants 50% of the delegates which he did not earn. Had his name been on the ballot, he might have given Hillary a run for her money. He is now caught up in the Law Of Unintended Consequences by his own actions.

Our resident 'cult' here can spin and spin and spin however they want, but you cannot change the facts.

As to both Michigan and Florida: We need both to win the GE. The Dem party in both decided that they wanted some of that 'easy money' for states who held the early primaries. It was essentially a bottom-line economic decision. Both states Party heads had agreed, 18 months to the original schedule. Both states violated that agreement. I ask you, what happens to you if you violate a contract you have previously agreed to.

Obama is the original uncommitted candidate. It shows in his political background.

[StevieM]

53. Hillary did the right thing and left her name on the ballot. Obama can always be counted on

to do the wrong thing. He is a reprehensible man.

Steve

[d.amber]

59. That's pretty funny

Michigan knew the rules. Each one of them started to take their names off. Edwards, Bidden, Richarson and Obama. Then the last one was Hillary. But she waited...saw that everyone else removed their name and then left hers.

It was cold and calculated. She expected to win on Super Tuesday and she expected to be able to gracefully seat these delegats at her crowning.

Not it is not turning out the way she expects and she cries foul and blames it on Obama?

I'm a woman and I know games when I see them. The DNC will sort this out. Michigan broke the rules. Michigan voters knew what their party chairs did. They were worried like so many of us that Super Tuesday was going to end this thing and they wanted a chance to have a say.

It backfired on them. Obama has nothing to do with Michigan's or Florida's problems.

[StevieM]

60. Something tells me that Michigan and Florida voters will not see it that way in November

Not that Obama cares. He is on a narcissistic ego trip and could care less about our party or our country. This is not a man who belongs in public office.

Steve

[wileedog]

66. Great, they can protest not gettting to vote

by not voting.

Fucking genius.

[Bigleaf]

69. Pot, meet kettle. Get fucking real! Hillary the self-annointed one

is in a foul mood now because she can't run a campaign worth a fuck. But she'd be ready on day one. Okay. The 15 state strategy has worked like a charm. Look where she is now. She's the one who doesn't give a fuck. If the tables were turned, the media would have told Obama to fuck off, take his ball and go home. Game over. But not with Hillary. They kiss her ass and spew this shit that she can/might somehow catch up in pledged delegates. Bullshit. Ain't going to happen. Supers? They are not going to overturn this and piss of the supporters of the candidate who won the primary fair and square.

[Johnny__Motown]

71. It is clear to most of us in Michigan that Grandholm (a clinton supporter) did this to help her

Sen. Obama won't be held accountable.

It is a pretty safe bet MI goes Dem in the GE. Our economy has been having serious trouble longer than most and we blame the Repugs for it.

[sallyseven]

54. No

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. Hillary do the right thing? Not a chance.

[annie1]

61. that's why she wanted everyone to leave their name ON the ballot.

which i think would have been better.

[stillcool]

67. Why would you want names on a ballot...

for an invalid election?

[LulaMay]

74. Absolutely. She knew what could happen, and it is. Where was Dean?

[Zhade]

64. Yep - she cheated the first time and is trying to cheat again.

She also campaigned in FL the night before, but called it a "fund raiser". Suuuuuuuure it was.

[LulaMay]

73. Stop calling her a 'cheater'. She could be the nominee. Show some respect. Obama people stop this!

[LulaMay]

72. SHE was the one thinking ahead, not to take them for granted looking to Nov.