HRC: We believe DNC's rules provide necessary structure to respect and honor nominating process

[blm]

Press Release
9/1/2007
Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

[WeDidIt]

1. That was then, this is now. Cheat to win. n/t

[LVjinx]

26. So you agree with the Supreme Courts Bush v Gore decision?

[blm]

34. Supremes CHANGED the rules for THAT election - just as Hillary is trying to do now.

.

[MyNameGoesHere]

2. it's strange. The candidates got to sign a statement

but the voters of FL, and MI got screwed. I guess they should be comforted that the candidates signed a pledge.

[blm]

3. The voters of Mi and Fl were represented by their state party officials who also

agreed to the rules.

They didn't choose to have this fight when the rules applied in 2004, did they? They had the OPPORTUNITY to weigh in when the DNC rules were renewed in 2006 - did they argue then or did their officials SIGN ON TO THE RULE?

[MyNameGoesHere]

8. perhaps, but as far as I know

the voters did not have a direct voice in the decisions and any resolution will be way after it is to late ala voting people out. But at least they have a piece of paper with pledges on it. So i am sure they feel much better.

[WeDidIt]

21. Voters rarely have a direct say in these sorts of things

This is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy, or "Democratic Republic" if you will.

[stillcool]

50. They knew in June of 2007

what the consequences would be for the actions taken by their representatives. I don't know how aware citizens in the two rogue states were, but there sure was plenty of time to raise a ruckus if they wanted to. Did you feel much better last summer that these 2 rogue states were going to fuck with the Democratic Primary?

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

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
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 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

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.
------------------------------------
"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."
----------------------------------
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

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/

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

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 decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

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

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.


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

[elocs]

4. The candidates did not screw them, their representatives did, so don't blame the candidates.

The representatives of FL and MI felt they were above the rules and did not believe that the consequences would apply to them. Too bad for the voters. If they had left their primaries where they had been scheduled they would have had a big impact.

[MyNameGoesHere]

10. Well there ya go. i didn't say the candidates did. But as a supporter

of hope, unity, and change i know anything against Obama just turns you into a fit of rage. So i understand

[elocs]

18. No rage, but I think the implication of your post was that the candidates screwed them.

Clinton certainly agreed to the rules when she did not think she would need either FL or MI, but that tune changed.

[blm]

51. Clintons play by the same book Bushes do. Rules mean NOTHING to them.

.

[scheming daemons]

5. Rules are rules.... they screwed themselves.

[MyNameGoesHere]

11. No their reps did. At least get the facts straight. n/t

[Justitia]

6. Guess they need to elect some new reps that better represent their interests.

Instead of screwing them around in their state legislatures.

[MyNameGoesHere]

13. Sure that sounds peachy.

And in what 8 months they get to have their say. OOOPPSS to bad it's slightly after the fact. But thank god they have a signed pledge.

[hokies4ever]

14. Great point

If those delegations aren't seated, a lot of those representatives will be looking for new jobs pretty soon. The MI and FL state politicians are responsible for this mess and they should be the ones to pay the price for it.

[MyNameGoesHere]

16. Yes i assume that will happen. In the mean time

the voters have a signed pledge to be comforted by.

[spoony]

31. Why stop at voting? Let's deny the citizens ALL their rights

until they vote for someone that meets your personal approval.

[WA98070]

12. Their OPINION is being heard over and over and over again...how are they getting screwed?...

Does anyone ever hear about the voters of Nevada, Washington, Iowa, New Mexico.... anymore?

The voters of Michigan and Florida are responsible that their state governments felt they were more important than the DNC.

[MyNameGoesHere]

15. yes i understand, the unity, hope, and change is not for everyone.

But the voters at least got a signed pledge. that is worth something huh?

[hokies4ever]

25. Hillary supporters desperate for attention

How does it feel knowing that the Clinton camp drafted a concession speech today just in case she has to use it tomorrow night? I'm looking forward to her giving her first inspiring speech tomorrow if she drops out. :rofl:

[MyNameGoesHere]

27. Your show of unity, hope and change are exactly what i expected.

You are a fine supporter of Obama.

[hokies4ever]

28. So are you staying home in November

when Hillary is denied the nomination?

[MyNameGoesHere]

33. Staying home? What an odd little thing to say.

Of course not i am a Democrat.

[Cha]

45. No..your reasoning is uninformed.

The voters of Michigan and Florida should be confronted with the Democrat, in name only officials, who tried to screw the Democrats in going ahead a week earlier than SuperTues. Remember hilary thought it would all be over on Feb 5, 2008-Super Tues.

All the facts are in madfloridian's journal..she's been assiduously keeping track of the facts and timeline. Thanks, mad!!

[jsamuel]

7. um, the "nuclear" thing is within "the DNC’s rules"

it is based on the committee that oversees the primary under DNC rules

[hokies4ever]

17. I love the name 'nuclear option'

Even if it's within the rules, it reinforces the idea of Hillary as a desperate housewife rivaling the likes of Eva Longoria. :rofl:

It also makes her sound like she'll do ANYTHING to win. The 'nuclear option' will no doubt have a backlash on her. Shame on the idiots running her campaign. They should have came out publicly with a different kind of name for this tactic that would stick better before this nuclear label. Oh, and it also reminds people of her 'obliterate' comments, nuke-baiting Iran.

[jsamuel]

20. this is like the 10th thing this season to be named the nuclear option

it is just like whatever-gate

[WeDidIt]

23. It's a loophole in the rules

Look at the timeline.

First, the R&BC Rules that Michigan and Florida will ahve all of their delegates to th convention stripped. They rule that candidates cannot campaing in these states. They specifically requested the candidates remove thier names from the Michigan ballot since they still could.

The candidates play by these rules.

Now, after the fact and in a blatant attempt to overturn the results, they rule the results now count and seat these delegates?

I cannot be a part of any party that would strip a win by overruling a prior ruling jjust to benefit the candidate that lost. If that's what the Democratic Party stands for you can count me out.

[oasis]

9. Remember in November:Better to be pissed off at Hillary than to be pissed on by McCain.

:thumbsup:

[blm]

30. As IF...I know what the news organization have had for months. YOU all just keep pretending

you don't know it, too.

[juajen]

19. Ya'll need to get over it! In order to have their votes in the GE,

FL and MI need to have their votes counted and delegates awarded "as is". Too bad there was no agreement possible between the two in order to have a revote. DO not deny please that the Clinton campaign had supporters that would gladly have paid to have a revote in MI. FL is A-OK as is. Obama was not only on the ballot, he even advertised in the state, illegally.

When will you admit that you would be arguing the exact same thing if Obama had won those states? Ya know, the SDs will look at those wins, whether they admit it or not.

[wileedog]

24. A Re-Vote paid for by Clinton Supporters in MI?

Are you for real? Nope, no ethics conflicts there....

And no, I would not be arguing this if the situation were reversed, because if they seat these delegates as is, especially MI, then this party is a complete joke. And I'm not interested in supporting the Comedy Party.

[TheDudeAbides]

22. I didn't sign a pledge that said I would agree to a Non-Democratic process

every person gets a vote
That's Democracy

The current situation is Gore/Bush II

The ONLY solution is new elections in FL and Michigan.

The Candidates' opinion on this should carry no weight.
We the people.

[blm]

32. YOU voted for your state representatives and party folks. So YES YOU DID.

They voted for you representatively.

If YOU don't like that rule, then YOU should change your state party rules to reflect the rules YOU prefer.

[TheDudeAbides]

36. I thought Democracy was ... like ...uh....OBVIOUS n/t

[blm]

39. Representational democracy is ...like...uh... obvious.

May I ask why all of this is NEW TO YOU this year? Can you show me where you spoke out at your state party rule meetings because you were so concerned? It should be in the minutes of the meeting, eh?

Or maybe you wrote a LTTE in your local paper when these rules were voted on in 2003 and again in 2006? Can you post it here?

[TheDudeAbides]

43. What if the tables were turned...

If the tables were turned and my favorite candidate would only win the Primary
if two states were not counted, then I'd still be calling for new elections in those states.
It's just wrong to punish the people for misbehaviors by a few party/state leaders.

how about you? Can you honestly say that your opinion on this is not influenced by your
candidate choice? If, it turns out that you are a Hillary Clinton supporter,
then I'm just going to say "wow!"...and I'll have to step back and think about what
you are saying about the rules.

Let me know.

[blm]

46. I'm a rules person - growing up in a family of 12 kids it becomes part of who you are

and you learn to get along everyday within an established protocol. Good life lessons there.

So - are you new to protesting the DNC rule or do you have a record of protesting it when Terry McAuliffe first set the rule in place in 2003?

LTTE? Minutes to the DNC meeting, perhaps?

[TheDudeAbides]

47. No, DNC bashing is new for me

it's my first time getting really upset with the DNC.
I just thought that the purpose of an election in a Democracy is to count every person's vote.
Clearly, I'm too much of an simple, uneducated working class man to understand this stuff.

However, I do think I now have the audacity to give up hope.

Funny thing is...I campaigned for Howard Dean during his Presidential run.
Now I know the man can't see the forest for the trees.

[Cha]

49. You're the one who can't see right in

front of your nose. Get your facts and then debate those who know what has happened since the dinos in Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up a week 'cause they couldn't wait for Feb 5..they knew the rules..hilary knew the rules and all the other primary candidate knew the rules.

And, most importantly the SuperDees know they all knew the rules.

"To my fellow superdelegates ...
An urgent message from PAUL G. KIRK JR., former chairman of the Democratic Party"


Sunday, April 06, 2008
"Resolve Florida and Michigan now!

In sports as in life, if you don't play by the rules you must pay a price. The same should be true of politics.

<snips>

One "price" being considered for Florida and Michigan, both having ignored party rules on the timing of their primaries, is to nevertheless count their votes at what could be a determinative moment late in the calendar. But every candidate knew that neither state held a valid election, so no candidate should be able to claim an advantage from it.

It is equally untenable for our party to convene in Denver without Florida or Michigan being represented. But the answer is not to award them a do-over after they violated the rules. The fairest solution is to divide their delegations equally between the two candidates. The campaigns can work with the state parties to assure appropriate demographic representation.

Let's use our superdelegate influence to insist that the campaigns agree to this solution now. The states need time to plan; the party must abide by its rules and must avoid an unnecessary and divisive credentials battle in Denver.

<more>
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08097/870671-109.stm

[TheDudeAbides]

53. Whose party is this? Is it the People's party or the "leaders" party?

I am an egalitarian and a populist.
The few are denying the people their right to vote.

I cannot accept punishment of the people due to the games played by a few
arrogant state and party leaders.

Shall we agree to disagree? I think I'm there.

Good luck with your new world order. The people lose again.

[gateley]

29. Yeah. I clicked on this to see WHEN she said it. Knew it wasn't recently. nt

[spoony]

35. That first line is the entire bloody problem.

It's well past time to end the early-state privilege bullshit.

[blm]

37. Then that is what the candidates should work towards BEFORE the rules are agreed to

and so should the citizens who want the rules changed.

Changing the rules afterwards is exactly what the WORST TYPE OF COMPETITOR would do - like Bush.

[spoony]

38. And if their leaders screw it up, then rob the citizens of their rights

Good plan!

[blm]

40. Can you show us where you stood against this in 2003 and again in 2006? Maybe a LTTE

after your state party signed onto these rules? Surely you didn't JUST decide to be outraged recently, right?

[spoony]

41. Oh goodie, I have to prove I deserve my right to vote now!

What's next, a poll tax?

[blm]

48. Just asking if this issue is NEW to you or did you not know that the representatives

you voted for in your state ARE YOUR VOTE on party rules for your state.

YOU DID vote for this at some point whether you admit it or not.

[stillcool]

52. It's sort of like counting votes..

No one gives a shit about it, until their candidate is on the losing end. In other words, after the election occurs..the 'uproar' begins. The rules were decided on in 2006, the sanctions for the 2 rogue states were voted on in August of last year. Plenty of time to voice outrage then...not a peep.

[madfloridian]

42. Here's the video from MTP....she did agree at first.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1976

[L0oniX]

44. This is why drugs are bad.