Sleazy McAuliffe saying Obama and Edwards pulled names from MI Ballot b/c

[RamboLiberal]

They knew they couldn't win! He said that on Ed Schultz's show. What a lying sleazeball. He claimed the Democratic party didn't ask candidates to pull names and the only reason that Edwards and Obama did so was because they knew they couldn't beat Hillary. He not only slimed Obama but Edwards as well! McAuliffe is pondscum!

[anonymous171]

1. They've already set the goalposts at Indiana. NC is dead to them.

[Justitia]

2. Imagine this tool as our DNC Chairman again. -eom

[otohara]

6. Count On It

they hate Howard Dean.

[RamboLiberal]

15. I disliked McAuliffe when he was DNC chair

I always thought him a bit sleazy and too dependent on the big corporate donors. Also I gave him a lot of blame for Dems poor performance. Glad he's proving me right!

[Debi]

17. I wonder if people have figured that out

If Clinton is the nominee Dean is out.
Dean's 50-state strategy is out.
All the gains we saw in the 2006 elections BECAUSE of the 50-state strategy is out.
And we're back to the DLC Clintons first and all the rest later DNC operation. x(

We lose more that the White House if she is the nominee.

[RamboLiberal]

22. That's one reason I may not march in lockstep

and vote for her if she steals the nom. I have my own 2012 strategy. Only thing that might make me buy a dozen clothespins and vote for her would be the SCOTUS appointments. We could survive 4 years of McCain but not decade or two of a radically conservative court.

[Debi]

26. If she's the nominee Democrats will never get to see what the 50-state strategy

could do FOR the Democrats campaign for the Presidency.

I agree, the SC is the ONLY reason I could vote for Clinton.

[dansolo]

49. It will still be a radically conservative court

Mark my words, if Hillary were to become president and select a Supreme Court nominee, she will most likely pick a pro-choice woman, who also happened to be pro-corporate, just like her. Unfortunately the Democrats will sheer it on, because Roe v. Wade will be safe, even though all of other rights will be tossed away. In some ways, Hillary's nominees will probably be worse than McCain's, because his won't be stealth conservatives hiding behind the fig leaf of being pro-choice.

[krkaufman]

75. You are exactly correct... which would have no net effect from a McCain appointee ...

... since they wouldn't be stupid enough to overturn Roe v Wade. It's all about getting pro-corporate judges in place.

[otohara]

30. But, But, The Good Old Days

when Clinton's ruled the White House and then.....

because of them, the GOP ruled the rest.

Welcome back Hill & Bill!

[Debi]

34. Ooops, responded to the wrong post

Yeah, say good-bye to majority in the Senate and majority in the House and Governors/state legislatures/boards of supervisors!!! *sigh*

[blm]

45. Because Clintons and their loyalists ran the DNC only to serve their needs. Not Gore's

not Kerry's. Not the Dem candidates in 2002 and not the Dem voters who only wanted the election process secured after 2000's rampant theft.

Instead....it worsened in 2002 and even more in 2004.

[LakeSamish706]

I won't be counting on it, cause the Clintons don't control the DNC contrary to...

some thoughts otherwise. In fact I hope they throw the pair of them out once this Primary has completed.

[Debi]

37. The nominee chooses the Chair of the party

(If they don't like the one in place at the time of Convention)

If she's the nominee - Dean is gone.

[LakeSamish706]

46. I have full confidence that she won't be the nominee. n/t

[DJ13]

3. What a lying sleazeball.

He is the perfect Hillary representative.

[madaboutharry]

4. What a stupid thing to say.

It is silly and makes him sound like a hack. Oh, wait a minute....

[LSparkle]

5. More lies from the Clinton campaign

I'm surprised anyone could hear McAuliffe speaking from inside ...
no, I'm not going there.

[Raine1967]

7. Did Ed Call him on this??? n/t

[mod mom]

11. He sure did. Also called him on overstating the differences in amounts spent

in PA. He had Big Eddie riled.

[RamboLiberal]

12. You dang right Ed called him on this

He kept asking Ed to let him speak when Ed pointed out the party asked the candidates to pull their names.

[rinsd]

23. Then Ed is lying because the party never asked them to pull their names.

The DNC is not part of the 4 state pledge, the individual state parties are.

Chris Dodd who was the 1st signee of the 4 state pledge who was key to getting others to join him did not remove his name.

McAuliffe is full of it. They didn't pull their names off because of fear of Hillary victory (though that was though of as her turf kind of like NH).

My theory? It was because Richardson and Biden did so and Richardson was making some headway on Obama in Iowa polling at the time.

When the Obama campaign realized what a fuck up that was they rushed out surrogates in the form of the Conyers' to appeal to Obama voters to vote uncommitted.

[mod mom]

8. Link to her pledge:

Senator Clinton caught lying - admits to breaking her pledge on Michigan
by BoBo2020

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:18:48 AM PDT

This morning, on NPR, Senator Clinton admitted to breaking her pledge to the DNC. She stated:

"... we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall.

This is a direct and unequivocable violation of her pledge to the DNC and Democratic voters. She signed a pledge not to campaign OR PARTICIPATE. Here's the relevant section of the pledge (pdf):

THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I 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 (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

By her own admission, she has broken her pledge.

-snip

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/13/11136/3289/192/475758

[tekisui]

9. Wonder what Edwards thinks of that?

[FatDave]

63. I was wondering the same thing.

Interesting that McAuliffe slagged Edwards on the day that a bunch of Edwards campaign insiders endorsed Obama. Wonder if he knows something.

[knixphan]

10. sleaze for sure

...anyone see my goalposts? I coulda sworn I left 'em right next to Texas.

[Apollo11]

13. Makes sense

I can't see any other reason why they would take their names off the ballot.

Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel all kept their names on the ballot.

[City Lights]

14. He's repulsive.

Why are so many in Hill's inner circle repulsive? :puke:

[RamboLiberal]

18. I'm having more of a visceral reaction to her and her sleazy

surrogates than I do now to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove or McCain!

[City Lights]

31. Me too. I expect sleaze on a grand scale from BushCo, but not from our

side. Our side was supposed to be better than this. :-(

[sandnsea]

16. I wish the Edwards people would understand this

He would be in the same death fight with her. This is who the Clintons are.

[Cronus Protagonist]

20. I don't think so. I think Edwards would be wiping the floor with HIllary

Obama can't do that because he painted himself into a corner, and perhaps he's too naiive.

[anonymous171]

21. Then she would be playing the victim card and getting tons of sympathy votes.

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. Edwards is sharp as a tack... experienced too - she would be shooting herself in the pumps

Ah, how I pine for real leadership.... *sigh*

[sandnsea]

25. Women wouldn't vote for Edwards

And she would also get the black vote because he'd get the rural white racist vote. He would have won out west, in the states that hate Hillary. But he would not have wiped the floor with her in any manner whatsoever.

[Cronus Protagonist]

28. Really, 50% of the population wouldn't vote for Edwards?

hahah, that kool aid must be strong this time of year :P hahhaha

[sandnsea]

33. 50% are voting in the Dem Primary?

:shrug:

Where would Edwards get his votes? Women? no. Minorities. no. Youth? meh.

Tell me how he wins where Obama couldn't. Not possible, because if he could have, he would have.

[Cronus Protagonist]

36. God you sure act oddly sometimes - around 50% of Democratics are women

And you think NONE of them would vote for Edwards. hahah puhlease. :P

[sandnsea]

38. They're voting for Hillary

He would not be wiping the floor with her. He'd be in the exact same fight Obama's in.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Clinton would be the nominee by now if Edwards were her main opponent

She would get most of the black vote and women would still vote for her overwhelmingly. All of this "Obama can't seal the deal" or "Obama is winning the nomination the way McGovern did" stuff is bullshit. She has an overwhelming advantage being the first female candidate with a shot and being a former first lady, which is why Obama is having a difficult time taking her down.

I'll fully admit that Obama is able to compete with her largely because he can get black voters 9-1. But he's not only competing, he's ahead. Obama would have no trouble getting enough white working class voters if his opponent were Ed Muskie.

[sandnsea]

51. Don't forget WA, ID, CO, NV, ME, MN, WI, VT

and I'm sure I've left many out. It is a complete load that he is only winning because of the black vote. He's also winning because both liberals and independents in the west hate Hillary. Consequently, I think those states would have been tight between Edwards and Hillary, but in the end, I don't think Edwards would have had the excitement behind him. Still, if he and her were in it, she'd be throwing the kitchen sink at him and it would be just as ugly.

[Cronus Protagonist]

56. Hillary won CA - so which liberals in the west hate HIllary?

- the ones in Oregon? hahah No, Hillary hating is, by my own unscientific measurement, primarily a mental problem of the conservative.

[sandnsea]

57. She didn't win the liberals in CA, look at the map n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. How do you know it's not true?

I'm not saying it is, because I don't know. But not knowing also allows for it to be true OR untrue. On what basis do you support your assertions of falsification?

[rinsd]

Even funnier, is Ed claims the party asked them to remove their names when they did no such thing

So we have a full of shit political flack talking to a full of shit scream radio personality.

I love this country!

:eyes:

[RamboLiberal]

32. It was in the spirit of agreeing not to compete in MI and FL

To me that's a Failure to Do Right! Shouldn't count. Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

We all know that she has huge name recognition. Not fair that she is now trying to count these votes in her popular vote total when Obama (or Edwards) didn't have a chance to campaign there.

Sleazy, Sleazy, Sleazy trying to win this way!

[rinsd]

39. Then Obama should not have run TV ads in FL and should not have had his surrogate ad in MI

If we want to go by the spirit of the thing.

I am not fond of Hillary trying to seat these two state's delegates.

I am less weary of looking at the FL vote as a straw poll.

[RamboLiberal]

41. Go away - Ignoring you and McAuliffe's sleazy crap

[rinsd]

42. RamboLiberal is running away with his fingers in his ears!

Now I know why I ignore most scream radio fans, they prefer the echochamber.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Obama ran NATIONAL TV ads and it was impossible to exclude Florida...

He also got permission from the DNC and the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair to do so (South Carolina was the only pre February 5th state left).

[rinsd]

52. Which proves how removing his name from the ballot in MI was a political stunt to kiss IA ass.

Before Iowa, the drastic action of removing his name from the ballot was required.

After Iowa, his surrogates run radio ads telling Obama voters in MI to vote uncommitted.

After Iowa he seeks permission from the SC Dem Party Chair (The DNC was not involved) so he can run ads that will be seen in FL.

The national ad buy was the only one by any candidate other than a couple of Rudy ads that were shown on Fox's sunday new show. He could have waited 5 days and ran the ads after the primary was done.

Again, before Iowa he could not even be on MI's ballot.

After Iowa, well some concessions could be made.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Florida was 6 days before Super Tuesday, advertising about two weeks before isn't anything new

Obama ran national ads because he competed in far more Super Tuesday states than Hillary did. Remember Hillary wrote off all of the small caucus states. Obama's national ad buys allowed him to reach those states as well as big media markets in a more cost effective manner.

And Hillary didn't really have a damn thing to say about seating Michigan and Florida until she needed them.

[rinsd]

59. I don't think the FL or MI delegates should be seated unless it by the nominee.

But again, before Iowa drastic action was necessary. After Iowa, concessions could be made.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. IMO they both had different things to say about it before and after Iowa

But I do not believe that Obama ran a National ad as a backdoor way of campaigning in Florida. He ran a national ad because he was competing in a lot of states.

[rinsd]

62. I would agree with that subject line.

"But I do not believe that Obama ran a National ad as a backdoor way of campaigning in Florida. He ran a national ad because he was competing in a lot of states."

I don't think that was the intention but rather a side benefit.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Alright I think we've got more or less a consensus

I think both candidates have said one thing and done the other at some point during this debacle, just like pretty much every single politician in the history of the world has done. Some supporters on both sides seem to think their candidates are infallible, though.

BTW, I think Dean should have docked Florida and Michigan 50% of their delegates like the GOP did. That solution caused no chaos on their side, whereas our solution did indeed create quite a few headaches.

[rinsd]

69. Madfloridian has done quite a work up on this.

I think Dean was fine with that solution but that MI & FL went apeshit.

If you haven't read MF's work on this you should.

My own solution is to the split the pledged delegates 50-50 between the two and not allow the Superdelegates from either state to vote.

That way the voters are not punished but the party officials responsible are.

Or course that solution has the proverbial snowball's chance.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. I've read Madfloridian's work, part of the reason I don't favor seating MI and FL as is

And I think your solution is a good idea but indeed unlikely to happen. The FL and MI party leaders that botched this whole thing will remain super delegates.

[RamboLiberal]

24. Oh give me a break - did they pull their names from any of the

other contests where Her Inevitability was favored????????????????? You think with that both Edwards and Obama would have done badly in Michigan. As well as a Clinton constituentcy, Edwards populist message and union support and Obama's message and good African-American support would've probably had the 3 of them splitting the vote!

Isn't it amazing how she said it wouldn't count but she still kept her name on the ballot. I'm sorry, but she's a sleazy candidate!

[my3boyz]

29. Gosh I hope they keep talking...keep spinning....then supers

will come out and shut them up. The big supers come out when they are sick of the Clinton camp lying.

[helderheid]

35. Yea, because following the rules is so not cool!

:sarcasm:

[RamboLiberal]

40. Faux News makes McAuliffe into a promotion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbJVkIzKq64

With her running to the Wingnuts like Scaife I'm feeling like a live in Bizarro World!

[Yossariant]

43. LOL and DUH! McAuliffe is right. Did Obama's fans just start paying attention in the last 5 minutes?

Or does their wishful thinking cause memory loss?

:shrug:

"Put yourself in David Plouffe's mind. True, Florida and Michigan will have their delegates restored at the convention. But in January, when delegate accumulation matters, they'll have none. Should Obama spend more of his money to compete in two states which won't reward him delegates, or should he spend considerably less money explaining to voters in Florida and Michigan why he's not campaigning there?

What no one really knows is how the press will cover, first, the Michigan primary on the 15th and second, the Florida primary on the 29th. If every candidate pledges not to participate, then a Clinton victory will be expected...

BTW: Gov. Jennifer Granholm issued a statement this a.m.:

'We expect that all of the Democratic candidates for President will be on the ballot in Michigan on January 15th. We hope that every candidate will campaign here.'"
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/the_jockeying_behind_the_four.php


"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.

That leaves Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and "uncommitted," as the choices on the Democratic ballot in Michigan."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151

[Usrename]

53. They took their names off the ballot because they didn't trust her.

They couldn't trust Hillary to keep her word.

And it turns out that they were smart not to trust her.

Had they had left their names on the ballot this whole debacle would be even more out of control.

I don't know how they guessed that she would try to rewrite history about this. Somehow they knew she'd turn into a lying sos.

[Yossariant]

68. You do realize that your post is nonsensical gibberish? I hope.

[Usrename]

71. She is trying to rewrite history.

This should not be a very contraversial concept. If they hadn't taken their names off the ballot there, her new argument would carry a lot more weight, like some folks say about Florida, where they also tried to have their names removed from the ballot. You have heard some people argue that they should count Florida but not Michigan, right? Why do you think that is, if my argument is so unreasonable? If Florida had removed their names we probably would not even be having this discussion. It's idiotic.

[madrchsod]

61. dennis screwed up and filed to late

to take his name off the ballot....

[Yossariant]

65. UH ... "Dennis" actually campaigned in Michigan which puts the lie to his "screw-up."

[BattyDem]

47. She couldn't even break 60% against "uncommitted"

:eyes:

[onenote]

50. McAuliffe spins. But Superdelegates look at the facts.

And here are the facts: in the fall when Michigan decided to defy the party rules and schedule an early primary, Clinton had a sizable lead in the polls over all of the competition -- around 25 points over Obama, who was the closest competitor at the time.

She maintained close to that margin through the holidays. And then, in the final days, without Obama being on the ballot, the uncommitted vote shot up from around 30 percent to nearly 40 percent. That in and of itself would impress many SDs.

And subsequent polling has indicated that Obama does as well or better against McCain as HRC and that a new primary in the state would result in a virtual tie.

All of which suggests that for the undecided SDs, HRC's "victory" in Michigan doesn't count for much in terms of giving a reason to support her over Obama.

[4_Legs_Good]

54. Probably only partially untrue

I don't know about the Democratic Party asking candidates to pull names for sure, but I absoutely bet that Obama and Edwards yanked their names because of strategic reasons. They KNEW the primary didn't count, and as Clinton would have easily had the most instant name recognition, she was way ahead as the front runner, and would almost certainly have won a primary without campaigning.

Obama and Edwards didn't want a paper loss

Clinton very much wanted a paper win (which she got)

So they each played it to their advantage, I don't blame any of them at all.

But changing the rules or trying to count the "popular vote" is absolutely ludicrous.

David

[madrchsod]

58. the supers are going to pull the plug on this primary

the hillary machine does`t understand or they do not care if they disrupt the nomination process. they whine and cry about how things should have been but never can be now. it is really sad to see these people beg

[mckeown1128]

64. Hillary is so FULL of BS on the MI issue:

NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858


How dare she try to claim votes from a contest that she even admitted before hand didn't "count for anything"


the same logic she uses in her answer here also applies to FL.

[BlooInBloo]

67. Pfft. Um, he advertises for Faux news. The perfect Clinton supporter...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbJVkIzKq64

[wisteria]

72. He is just a scum bag spinner. n/t

[uponit7771]

73. He's on Hannity right now agreeing with Gengrich and Hannity right now....he's STUPID!!

[McCamy Taylor]

74. It is worse than that guys. There is a bloggers who says that Obama persuaded

Edwards and a couple of the others to pull from the race and not tell Hillary so that she would be the only one on the ballot. This would then be used against her in Iowa, where they were mad at Michigan, to help the others win in Iowa. Dennis tried to withdraw but was too late. Only Dodd and Gravel would not go along with the plan. Dodd said it was unfair to mess with the Michigan primary like that.

The details are in my journal "The Press v. Hillary Pt 4 Friendly Fire"

[FlyingSquirrel]

76. Dude. Why didn't Edwards pull his name from ALL the ballots then?

He knew he wasn't gonna be able to compete with the rock stars. There's no reason he would've pulled his name from MI except to comply with the DNC's wishes.