You want a rigid adherence to the rules? THIS is what you get.

[BzaDem]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

---snip---

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago's gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of new voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

"That was Chicago politics," said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right?" Kass said. "It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race he made sure voters had just one choice."

---snip---

This really highlights the difference between a lot of Hillary supporters and a lot of Obama supporters. Many Obama supporters want to modify voting rights to adhere to the rules. Many Hillary supporters want to modify the rules to respect voting rights. (And please don't go on and on about how there is no right to vote in a primary. I am talking about the principle.)

For all those people here that don't think FL voters or MI voters should have any voice in picking our nominee, do any of you support Obama's tactics of using petition challenges to "obliterate" his opposition? If so, please post in this thread.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. So you're for candidates using bogus petition signatures? nt

[Straight Shooter]

2. Oh boy

:popcorn:

[Sundoggy]

3. There is no such "principle" about voting in primaries

It's a lot more complicated than that. This is an absurd simplification of the situation. Why am I not surprised?

You people really should quit climbing on the cross about the Right to Vote. Everyone sees right through it.

[bvar22]

46. Hillary's Base:

Low. Information. Voters.

[JoFerret]

51. And your point is

what exactly?

(The conclusions I am jumping to are not nice so am wondering if I am being unfair.)

[FSogol]

4. Give an example, please: "want to modify voting rights to adhere to the rules"

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

28. Um, OK.

MI and FL were punished for changing the rules by not counting their votes for the Democratic nomination. I say that this is not an acceptable punishment. Just like we don't put people in prison for life for a parking ticket, we don't take away voters' voices in selecting a nominee because they violated the rules. I'm not saying there can't be consequences; I'm simply saying that removing the right to vote should not be one of them.

[Lerkfish]

36. And Obama is solely responsible for the agreement that every candidate signed, including Clinton?

and your analogy is non sequitor.

Both states knew the already determined consequences of their actions, and chose to do it anyway.

[FSogol]

38. Has Obama promoted taking away their rights? Nope. n/t

[bvar22]

47. If Obama supporters decided to arbitrarily hold the GE this afternoon,

and declare VICTORY....would that be a valid election?

[casus belli]

65. There is no "right to vote" in primaries

You say don't bring it up. Well, then find a new way to describe it. The party has no responsibility to enfranchise you, nor any ethical responsibility to do the same.

This isn't a a general election, and the rules were clear - as was the punishment for breaking the rules. The party has every right to determine how it wishes to conduct its primary election. If people don't like the rules, they can either fight to change them either before or after an election cycle, or they can find a new party to join. Your vote is a privilege, not a right.

[nichomachus]

49. There's no "right" involved

The party is a private organization. It sets its own rules. There are no "rights" other than that involved. The very fact that superdelegates could conceivable override the choice of all the states shows that it's not one-person, one-vote.

The members of the private organization has only those rights that the organization decides they have.

People really need to stop hyperventilating about this as if it were a constitutional issue.

[BzaDem]

54. I said in the OP that I knew it wasn't a legal issue.

Just like your ability to vote in the GE is not a right. Your state legislature can take that away at any time. It is an issue of principle.

[WeDidIt]

5. So I can just load up my petitions with bogus signatures

and I should eb allowed on the ballot?

I think we understand the Hillary position on this a lot more clearly now.

Barack is expected to follow the rules, go to the expense, and do everything right while Hillary gets to cut corners.

Yep, I get it now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. LOL

How dare he stick to the rules!

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

7. This violates the 4 paragraph rule on DU

Kidding, kidding.

[grantcart]

8. how many times do we have to recommend this?

There was another Clinton supporter that started a similar thread this morning.

what site are you guys getting your instructions from? Needs better coordination.

[Connie_Corleone]

9. It's over. Obviously one candidate (Obama) knows what he's doing...

and the other one has been flopping on the ground since Feb. 5th.

Hillary never had a plan after Feb. 5th. She got beat by a better campaigner who planned ahead. End of story.

That's the Chicago way.

[grantcart]

10. Hillbot cricket pls meet hillbotzlt234

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6171014

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Clinton praised those "who work hard and play by the rules".

Delicious irony.

[CakeGrrl]

12. Duplicate post - already posted earlier, and the answer is still the same

Obama followed the rules available to him.

The Clinton campaign agreed to set rules that some of them helped to draft, and now they want to change them because they think it would help them win.

Fail.

[Jersey Devil]

13. LOL, I bet it's burning your ass that she was beaten by a rookie

It wasn't his turn. He was just in it to get some name recognition for the future, maybe stay in it a few months and bow out. ROFL, well, how did that turn out?

[futureliveshere]

14. What this really tells me is that Obama can be as tough as ANYONE else!!

This kills another fantasy talking point of the Clintons that she is the REAL fighter and that Obama is the weaker candidate.

Obama here proves that he can use the rules to help his case rather than break the rules or change the rules mid-way through the process. We really need a fighter against the GOP and war-machines.

[VotesForWomen]

64. yeah, Saint Obama is "tough;" hillary's a dirty-trick playing bitch. give it up please.

[Abacus]

15. Do you understand why the primary system is scheduled as it is?

The objective is to give candidates with less wealth a chance to compete by starting off with smaller states. This ultimately works to "enfranchise" the voters. The rules exist to preserve voting rights. I disagree with the committee's decision to eliminate 100% of the delegates, but the consequences were known well ahead of time.

The feigned concern turned outrage on the part of the Hillary campaign and her supporters is nauseating. Where were you last year? You weren't even concerned this year until it became politically expedient to do so. I think a degree of shame is warranted for the treatment of those voters as political fodder.

[casus belli]

67. Evidence of this can be found...

in Hillary's comments running up to the Super Tuesday. She said it would be over by February 5th. That is completely contrary to her current claims of wishing to count every vote. What she was saying was, everyone will vote after February 5th, but it won't matter. Now that she has been proven wrong and we see it actually DOES matter, she has conviently had a change of heart. Though, to hear her explain it, she has been concerned all along despite what she may have said.

[JackintheGreen]

16. This raises a few issues

1) "politics ain't beanbag": I grew up following Chicago politics. It was true then, and it's true now. I think we can all agree that Sen. Clinton hasn't been playing beanbag this year.

2) ""It wasn't honorable," he said. "I wouldn't have done it. That's what I am saying." This is what Askia said of Obama's tactic. A lot of people feel they could say the same thing about Sen. Clinton's campaign post 5 February. Examples: oh...suggesting McCain would be a better president, purposely injecting the specter of assassination late in the primary, refusing to take any responsibility for her IWR vote, etc.

3) It shows that Obama is a fighter and can play to beat the Repugs. This has always been one of Sen. CLinton's arguments: that she is a better (dirtier?) fighter than Obama and can beat McCain in the fall. The implication is that Obama is a wuss who will roll over like Kerry in '04.

4) Obama played by the rules! They aren't nice rules, but they are the rules. He is still playing by the rules as set out by the DNC. Sen Clinton is not. She wants to change the rules now that she is losing. DO NOT FOOL YOURSELF. She is not doing this to enfranchise the voters of FL and MI. She is doing this to win. If they wouldn't help her, or if she was in a commanding lead, she would spend very little time arguing for the voting rights of FL and MI.

On edit:
5) the article raises the concept of a candidate unable to properly follow the petition rules might not have it all together to run a campaign. What about a candidate who is $20 million in debt during a campaign? Is this a person who has proven to be capable of running a large-scale endeavor?

Don't hate the player, man...hate the game.

(I've always wanted to say that!)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

21. Turning in bogus signatures is a sign that a candidate is unethical or a sloppy amateur

There's no excuse for it. You get your volunteers to check the signatures against the voter rolls to make sure you have enough valid ones. It's Campaigning 101. If you can't pass that simple test you don't deserve to be on the ballot.

[JackintheGreen]

26. So you're agreeing with me?

:shrug:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. Yep! nt

[DanTex]

17. LOL ... "We're not BREAKING the rules, we're just adhering in non-rigid manner"

[Teaser]

18. Yeah, I'm down with it

.

[The Magistrate]

19. None Of This Is Very New, Sir

Long ago the Sage wrote: "The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become. The sharper men's weapons, the more trouble in the land. The more ingenious and clever men are, the more strange things happen. The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers."

[Stephanie]

20. EVERYBODY does that. Petition challenges are done all the time in NY .

I will guarantee you that HRC had copies of Obama's petitions within minutes of his filing in case she could manage to knock him off. Everybody does it. If you can't even manage to get the required number of good signatures, you don't deserve to be in the race.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. Damn straight. The Dems got Nader knocked off the ballot here in AZ in 2004.

And they'll probably do it again this year because Naderites seem to be incapable of minimum due diligence.

[Stephanie]

48. Here are dozens of stories about petition challenges - it is standard practice

%3BLH%3A80%3BLW%3A630%3B&domains=ballot-access.org&q=challenge+petition&sitesearch=ballot-access.org

[AllentownJake]

22. How was your conference call today?

[K Gardner]

24. Hey.. You Forgot to Link back to your SOURCE...

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=13708

Don't you all have some kind of system to figure out who brings your Daily Talking Points over here?

This has been posted by a swarm of you already.

[BzaDem]

32. No.

I have never gone to that forum, and I have not seen anyone else post this today. I simply saw the article on CNN; it reminded me about this issue (which is important to me), and I therefore posted it. You probably won't believe that, because you believe that Hillary and all her supporters are blood-sucking freepers, but I don't particuarly care what you believe.

[Lerkfish]

40. then why bother?

seriously, its like zen, man.
if you don't anticipate a desired result, and don't care, then what's the point?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. Yeah, because it was Obama--not Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, and Howard Dean...

Who made the rules. How dare Obama not follow his own rules! He should be ashamed of himself! Hillary was simply abiding by the rules that Obama himself made!! He doesn't deserve to win anything for failing to follow rules!! :sarcasm:

[Renew Deal]

29. So you support election fraud?

:wow:

[Raine]

30. They shouldn't have depended on invalid signatures

I'm glad Obama was on point with that.

[GihrenZabi]

31. Not necessarily bad

As I said in my own thread on this topic, as long as all the petitions thrown out actually DESERVED to be thrown out then there's no foul. I don't mind someone playing by the rules.

The article said this which made me raise an eyebrow:

"If names were printed instead of signed in cursive writing, they were declared invalid. If signatures were good but the person gathering the signatures wasn't properly registered, then those petitions also were thrown out."

This sounded like using the letter of the law to subvert the spirit of the law. THAT I cannot get behind.

[LisaM]

53. Thank you for saying that - letter vs. spirit of the law

in 2000, it was the GOP going on and on about the letter of the law, NOT the intent of the voter.

You will notice that Obama's Senatorial opponent in 2004 was suddenly vaporized before the campaign too (he had some kind of messy divorce scandal, and there are rumors that Axelrod leaked the details).

And, BTW, if you read more on that topic, you'll see that Alice Palmer verified her signatures against a 1995 list, and as soon as the 1996 list was available, the Obama campaign jumped on it, giving her almost no time to garner more signatures. I think she was less than 100 short. The reality is that she was already holding that office and was popular in it. She would have had no trouble getting enough signatures if she'd known she was short.

I've said before that I simply don't get Obama's appeal, and I think it's stuff like this that is what I sense lurking beneath the surface. He always pretends to distance himself from it, or that he doesn't like it, but it doesn't stop him in his ambition.

[BalancedGoat]

55. The details weren't leaked.

They were released by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider.

[LisaM]

56. Well, I read this in the NYT piece on Axelrod

I think that when there is a pattern of three differnt opponents suddenly vanishing off the ticket, it bears looking at.

I think the piece is meant to be mostly positive, but it made me start examining David Axelrod's tactics, that's for sure.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?ei=5124&en=c8e20f4144cbf908&ex=1332993600&partner=newsvine&exprod=newsvine&pagewanted=all


"Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was long planned. “An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you,” he told me."

[BalancedGoat]

57. I assumed you were talking about Jack Ryan.

I'm unfamiliar with that. Thanks for the link.

[LisaM]

58. Funny how it happened twice in a row, eh?

Not to mention getting three opponents off a different ballot for signature violations (and Alice Palmer had verified hers - just against an old list).

[GoesTo11]

33. This act showed a glimpse of the manipulator he would become

First he used the rules about signatures on petitions to push out his opposition.
Now he used the rules about caucus delegates counting to push out his opposition.

That rule-using schemer.

[Indenturedebtor]

34. Yeah who needs rules anyways?

I should be able to declare my candidacy tomorrow and recieve federal and DNC funding!

Me for Pretzledent! :eyes:

You're trying to pass this off like he cheated... oh no he invoked the rules to keep someone from breaking the rules! How um unethical? Or maybe not... this is stupid.

[Honeycombe8]

60. Yes, they're very desperate now. They're even citing things that are

advantageous to Obama (like his knowing how to win, within the boundaries of the rules), while falsely stating that it shows the opposite.

[Lerkfish]

35. "respect voting rights"?

um. right. the delusional bus tour is right this way...

[SoonerPride]

37. GOOD!! Damn that's great news! I like rules!

[Skip Intro]

39. Big K&R! What's inside the box draped with shiny hope and change paper?

A scheming politician who would rather neutralize his opponents than allow the voters to chose.

The messiah wears no clothes.

[scheming daemons]

42. Thanks for the K&R! Obama won't let his opponents cheat! Yay, Obama!

[Skip Intro]

44. "It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today....

...He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race he made sure voters had just one choice."

[Chulanowa]

45. The irony of a Hillary supporter having an issue with that is staggering

[unblock]

41. i am SO HAPPY we have a nominee who knows how to enforce the rules!

it's about time we had someone like this on OUR side!

[IsItJustMe]

43. Get rid of the rules, chaos is much better.

[democrattotheend]

50. This story has been out there for a while

Why is it suddenly considered news?

[quaker bill]

52. The rules committee

to include all 13 Hillary Clinton backers thereon, voted unanimously for the 100 percent sanction.

Actually the Obama supporters, consistent with advanced Democracies everywhere, want a consistent set of rules and processes for registering the vote and measuring victory, that is established before the first vote is cast, and maintained consistently through the completion of the process. This is not novel. It is one of the consistent standards imposed internationally to judge whether elections are fair.

Changing goalposts and changing established rules for voting and measurement of success, once the votes are cast, are the anti-democratic features of some Bananna Republics. In fact it is even beneath many them to go as far as some here currently propose.

[Honeycombe8]

59. Actually, you are wrong that Obama supporters want to modify rules re MI/FL. It is Clinton...

who wants to do that.

The rules were that HALF the delegates would be counted. Then the DNC committee ruled that the offenses by those two states were such that they warranted NONE of their delegates being counted. That, too, is in accordance with the rules; the rules allow the committee to decree a punishment.

Obama agreed with the committee that he would abide by their ruling and would not campaign in either state. So did Clinton.

Obama has not changed his position at all. Nor have his supporters. They maintain that the committee's rules should be abided by...whatever their ruling is.

Clinton, OTOH, changed her position to one that says the rules be dammed...MI & FL should be counted fully, as if they had not broken the party's rules (she changed her position when she realized she was losing).

[undeterred]

61. Call a WAAMBULANCE.

The committee decided the outcome, not Obama. Obama played by the rules, and Hillary wants to modify everything in the world to get herself elected. If she gave a damn about voting rights, we would have heard about it in past national elections where thousands were disenfranchised. She doesn't give a DAMN about anything or anyone except herself and her lust for power.

[FrenchieCat]

62. !

"OH NOES!!!"

[VotesForWomen]

63. O-ists sure love their rules, don't they?

[Azathoth]

66. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions..."

Yes John, that's politics, and it ain't just "Chicago politics"...it's done *everywhere*, and you would be foolish not to do it, because your opponents will be trying to do it to you.