Clinton breaks pledge to early primary states . . .

[Broke Dad]

(edited 4 copyrignt violation & to add link to article-proud patriot moderator Democratic Underground)

http://blogs.dmregister.com/?cat=33

From Political Columist David Yepsen in the Des Moines Register
"Clinton’s Political Duck Test "

:: Mon 9.10.2007 3:33 PM

One thing we learned during Bill Clinton’s presidency was to study and parse his words carefully.

Apparently we’ll need to do that with his wife should she become president.

Just a week after signing a pledge to respect the four early primary and caucus states by not campaigning in Florida and Michigan, Clinton was scheduled to hold a round-table discussion Monday in Boca Raton, Florida with a group of senior citizens - and do 5 fund-raisers.

<snip>

Hmmm. Clinton had pledged: “I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.”

http://blogs.dmregister.com/?cat=33

[wyldwolf]

1. I guess we'll see if Howard Dean has anything to say to her

[madfloridian]

5. Well, that will have to wait.

Nelson and Levin and all the Democrats in FL and MI have written him another letter.

What do they want to know?

They want to know if he is bullying NH.

Why? Because Michigan butted in line ahead of NH and is daring NH to move ahead of it and daring the DNC to do anything about it.

The letter in effect says are you bullying NH like you bullied us?

I sometimes forget how divided the party really is until I read some posts from the DLC supporters. Then I realize most likely there may be no coming together after the primary this time. There is too much pure contempt exhibited for the people of the party.

You know the "fall in line", the favorite words of Bill Clinton? You know, you work for your candidate but then you give in and fall in line?

[wyldwolf]

15. in regards to this part of your reply:

I sometimes forget how divided the party really is until I read some posts from the DLC supporters. Then I realize most likely there may be no coming together after the primary this time. There is too much pure contempt exhibited for the people of the party.

Yep, I hope you're right, because I get a little weary at all the whining and veiled statements that they're the only "true Democrats" from "progressives." I'm hoping they make good on their threats so Hillary can repeat Harry Truman's sentiment of being glad she won without the leftwing of the party.

[madfloridian]

24. But wyldwolf....everyone "falls in line"...don't you know?

All the bad lefties and progressives will fall in line.

Even the contempt shown to those of us who really are pretty much in the middle of most stuff...won't matter really.

We will stay in Iraq. We will keep the power in the hands of those who got us there.

It has always been the way that money and power win. It is no different this time.

We don't even need to worry about getting involved in the primary now.

[wyldwolf]

29. If by "falling in line" you mean supporting the eventual nominee, then guilty as charged

[sandnsea]

25. He was talking about socialists and communists

Not progressives like Eleanor Roosevelt. Geesh. All you're saying is that you don't give a shit about what happens to half the country or the people slaving in foreign factories or living in polluted conditions the likes of which we haven't seen in 100 years.

[wyldwolf]

31. he was talking about "progressives" that followed Wallace from the Dem party to a third party

The rest of your reply is utter nonsense.

[sandnsea]

40. No, Communists

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/schlesinger_wallace_bio.html

He was not talking about working Democrats who have traditionally been the backbone of the party. He was not talking about throwing half the country under the bus for the benefit of sucking up to the top ten percent.

[wyldwolf]

42. Sorry. Wallace led Dems away from Truman to vote in a "Progressive" party ticket.

A matter of historical record. I realize some on the left have tried to alter it in recent years (becauase the current "progressive" movement so strongly resembles that of Wallace's) but the fact remains - Wallace ran on a third party ticket and took a small chunk of Dems with him.

Your link barely touches on the '48 election.

[sandnsea]

50. I'll take Schlesinger's word n/t

[wyldwolf]

62. when he gives his word on this particular topic, let me know.

[sandnsea]

I already did

"On the other hand, the Progressive Party represented the last hurrah of the Popular Front of the 1930s. As the radical journalist I.F. Stone wrote in 1950, "The Communists have been the dominant influence in the Progressive Party. . . . If it had not been for the Communists, there would have been no Progressive Party."

Wallace, in a messianic mood, saw himself as the designated savior of the republic. Naively oblivious to the Communist role in his campaign, he roundly attacked the Marshall Plan, blamed Truman for Stalin's takeover of Czechoslovakia and predicted that Truman's "bipartisan reactionary war policy" would end with American soldiers "lying in their Arctic suits in the Russian snow." The United States, Wallace said, was heading into fascism: "We recognize Hitlerite methods when we see them in our own land." He became in effect a Soviet apologist."

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. "Who Was Henry A Wallace?"
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/schlesinger_wallace_bio.html

I'm not arguing this one way or the other, personally. But it's clear who Truman was talking about when he talked about the left wing. It was communists and socialists. Separating himself from them allowed him to regain a number of moderates. He wasn't attacking the working people the way the Clintons are.

[zulchzulu]

2. Senator Clinton has both sides of an opinion on every issue

That way, she is covered...

:crazy:

[rinsd]

6. Honestly we should both be calling bullshit on this.

Since both Hillary and Obama are planning on campaigning in FL till the DNC makes their decision.

[Clintonista2]

7. NO! If Obama does it, it doesn't count!

[ronnykmarshall]

11. Of course not!

[zulchzulu]

47. I agree totally

If any of the people running said they were not going to campaign in Florida or Michigan, I would assume they mean it. I'm with you on this completely.

[rinsd]

48. The pledge itself still allows for "fundraising" events as opposed to campaign events.

This is much ado about nothing.

[Broke Dad]

51. Round-table discussion is not fundraising . . .

Yepsen "Clinton was scheduled to hold a round-table discussion Monday in Boca Raton, Florida with a group of senior citizens."

Typical . . . and now expected from you and "your girl."

[rinsd]

56. Did I say the roundtable was a fundraising event?

I see you have little problem with Edwards doing campaign and fundraising in FL just days prior to making a hollow pledge.

Also while we're here and since you have refused to do so thus far, maybe you can explain to me how Strategic Visions is a local Iowa polling organization? Or perhaps the local poll where John Edwards has a substantial lead?

[Debi]

63. Clinton's spokesman clearly stated that she had five fund raising events

and a campaign event.

I have a problem with any candidate who broke the pledge, Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

A promise is a promise.

[rinsd]

88. I realize that.

It wasn't part of my point.

When I said much ado about nothing I was talking about the pledge that agrees to no campaign events but allows fundraising events which I find silly on its face. No events, period.

And you certainly deserve points for consistency as you have not played favorites.

[Debi]

92. We agree

The reason I have not played favorites is because I am a VERY undecided Iowan. I do not have a favorite or non-favorite candidate in the bunch. I see good and bad in each of them...of course the behavior of Clinton, Edwards and Obama are part of the bad I see in each of them and abiding by the rules that THEY AGREED TO are part of the good I see in Biden, Dodd and Richardson. Obviously there is much more to each of the candidates than this pledge, but I think their behavior toward this pledge is indicative of how they may treat other 'promises' they make down the road. That doesn't bode well for having honesty in a campaign.

[DURHAM D]

3. What a stupid false Iowa-centric article.

The folks in Iowa don't give a damn what Hillary is doing in other states.

Except, of course, for little David Yepsen who had nothing better to do last Monday.

[flpoljunkie]

26. Except David Yepsen's influence on the primary process is considerable, and has been for many years.

[Debi]

33. Yes, we Iowans do give a damn

And not just about what Senator Clinton is doing but also what Senator Obama is doing and Senator Edwards is doing. Six candidates signed that pledge and three of them are already violating it.

Is this how the candidates plan on governing as President? Speaking out of both sides of thier mouths? Making promises they never intended on keeping?

[DURHAM D]

55. They are not actually violating anything -

except Iowa egos. Who cares.

I am sick of Iowa playing such a big role in the primary selection. I hope by 2012 they have become completely irrelevant to the process - and take little David's false importance to the bottom of the stack with 'em.

[Debi]

60. They are violating the pledge they signed -

The rules that the pledge uses are the DNC rules regarding what constitutes campaigning.

You just don't like Iowa. Making your position on how these candidates are violating their own promises a tad suspect.

[IA_Seth]

59. I give a damn!

And not just about Hillary, but about all of the rest of them (Obama and Edwards) that signed a pledge and now violate it. It seems honesty is a virtue of the 2nd tier these days....

How about you not speak for a state of which you know nothing about, m kay?

[DURHAM D]

67. Here is what I know about Iowa - it has way too much

power when it comes to selecting our presidential candidates. I would like to see Iowa's position put to a vote of all registered Dems in all 49 states - Iowa who? Iowa what? Iowa why?

Iowa is not representative of the rest of the country - period.

[Debi]

69. No one state is representative of the entire country

Please name one state that is. Also, please add that that state is one that has an active voting constituency that is knowledgeable about the candidates and issues facing America AND is small enough and affordable enough for a smaller (meaning non-millionaire) candidate to campaign in.

Please also realize that this thread wasn't one about Iowa's position as first in the nation, but more about candidates who made a promise and broke it.

[DURHAM D]

76. "... active voting constituency..."

Iowa - not even in top five for voter turnout in general elections.

All that attention during the primaries to this small state and then those early decision makers don't lead the nation in voter turn out. Shame on Iowa.

With regard to the direction of thread - its an organic thing and you don't make the rules.

[Debi]

83. Iowa never has made the rules

the current rules were made up and voted upon by a group of individuals that represented each state - including yours.

I'm still trying to figure out how your dislike of Iowa's position on the calendar has with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards not keeping their word?

[DURHAM D]

103. You have decided that they are breaking the campaign pledge-

it is subjective on your part and I don't agree with you.

[Debi]

106. They are breaking the rules established by the DNC

According to the party rules:

Campaigning “for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fund-raising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited ; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state . The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.”

it's not subjective but obviously you are welcome to your opinion.

[DURHAM D]

108. And which one of those on the list are you claiming each of

the three candidates are violating. Can't see where fund raising is on the list. Can't see where talking to a few old people at a non-public event is on the list.

[Debi]

114. So having a campaign event with senior citizens doesn't constitute

either making public appearances or holding events to which Democratic voters are invited? Or did the campaign schedule an event in private with only ineligible voters?

[DURHAM D]

122. It is a private affair - a small private affair.

They are eligible voters but were not screened for party affiliation.

Moral highgrounding must leave one feeling all alone.

[Broke Dad]

123. Pray tell . . . were you there?

Are you with the Clinton campaign? Did you organize the event? Attend the event? How many eligible voters? Were there signs? Sign up sheets? Pass the hat?

We're always interested in news from the non-campaign events of people who campaign 24/7.

This is not about moral high ground. This is about character. After W, the people of Iowa, and I suspect other parts of the country, are looking for an HONEST TRUTHFUL candidate for president. Yepsen pointed out that signing a pledge and then holding events in Florida violates the spirit, if not the letter of the pledge. Deal with it. More than one Democrat in Iowa wondered out loud to me if this means that we are going to have to debate the meaning of "is" again. Apparently so.

Harry Truman was referenced in one of the earlier posts. Harry called a spade a spade. We can only hope that our next president will be so straightforward and plain spoken.

[Debi]

124. Did you attend the event? or at the very least could you provide the campaign talking points

on what their definition of a 'small private affair' is?

Since Iowan Mark Daley (campaign spokesman) only told the nationally read media that it was in fact a campaign event I thought he was telling the truth. This isn't a habit of everyone that works for the campaign is it? Telling shades of the truth, looking for ways to 'technically' obey the rules while violating them?

[dsc]

78. Ohio, and Missouri

are all roughly representative of the US as a whole in terms of demographics, geography, and income.

[Debi]

82. And yet Iowa boasts under three million in population

where Missouri has almost six million and Ohio has over eleven million. Iowa is small, which makes it less expensive to campaign in.

But thanks for the information :hi:

[dsc]

93. Maryland is only slightly bigger than Iowa

and would be way more representative in terms of race, sexual orientation and religion.

[Debi]

95. Then Maryland should have requested to be one of the states that went before the Feb. 5th window

do you know if they did? The DNC Calendar Commission held several meetings between the DNC National Convention and December of 2005 when the final calendar (or what we thought was the final calendar) was put in place. Several states applied to be inside the window. I wonder if Maryland was one of them? (And how does Maryland compare economically? would smaller campaigns be able to afford office rental/television and radio time/lodging?)

[murbley40]

137. Not likely.

[IA_Seth]

127. And likely more expensive as well...

I'd imagine I could get an ad on the air here in Iowa for a lot less than I'd be paying in the media markets of Maryland.

Next?

[rinsd]

4. I guess John Edwards' 2 events in FL on Aug 28th don't count.

On edit: I see the pledge was signed on the 1st of Sept.

So it classic Edwards. Does one last fundraiser, then signs a pledge to not campaign.

On edit 2: On wait I just looked at his pledge and its weasel words

"THEREFORE, I John Edwards, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as �campaigning� is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

[iamjoy]

19. That Was Before The Pledge

Anyway, those were fundraisers.

Didn't our candidates show up at the Univision debate in Miami this past Sunday? Was that violating the pledge?

Nah. The way I see it, the Four State Pledge is full of loopholes any good lawyer can find. Since most of our candidates have law backgrounds it is only reasonable that they will figure out ways to contact Florida (and Michigan) voters without technically violating the pledge. Of course such distinctions are lost on the average voter. It's a calculated risk on the part of the candidate.

It's unfair to single out (for criticism) any candidate who is looking for these technicalities. So I don't agree with only picking on Hillary. I had to clarify the Edwards events on 8/28 were held after the sanctions were announced, but before Edwards signed the Four State Pledge.

[rinsd]

20. Understood.

Also please note my tone towards your candidate has more to with the OP.

[madfloridian]

8. They are all campaigning here.

And don't you forget that Bill Nelson is boss of us here.

[Debi]

34. That's not true, they are not ALL campaigning there

Richardson, Dodd and Biden are following the pledge. Clinton, Edwards and Obama are the candidates playing loose with the rules.

[GeorgeGist]

9. Triangulation at it's finest ...

a lie for everyone.

[Totally Committed]

10. Gawd, I hope people wake up to her bullsh*t before

we're all stuck with her as a nominee.

TC

[Colobo]

12. With Obama, we all win.

[Clintonista2]

16. With Obama, we can't win

I'm sorry, but it's the truth.

[Debi]

35. He's breaking the pledge as well. n/t

[Dinger]

13. Ditto

In fact, ditto like a sonofabitch.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Clintonista2]

21. This particular supporter doesn't particularly like honesty

Even when he's confronted with facts refuting his lies, he still continues to ignore the truth.

[killbotfactory]

32. lol

:rofl:

[sniffa]

144. what are you Laughing at?

:shrug:














;)

[Debi]

36. But...but...but...Obama and Edwards are doing the same thing

damn you sniffa :grr:

[zazzle]

64. Obama can't win a primary - much less the nomination

but his supporters are doing everything possible to knockout Edwards - and help Hillary win.
At the end of primary season, Obama the Opportunist, will have enhanced the corporate media's bank accounts - and furthered his political ambitions.

[Debi]

70. If he can't win a primary, how the hell did he win the contested nomination

to run for the Senate? AND how did he win the Senate race?

Obama has just as much opportunity in this race to be president as any of our candidates.

[Armstead]

17. "On the other hand....."

"but on the other hand....but on the other hand......"

[cobalt1999]

18. They are all campaigning here

The "pledge" is so full of loopholes that it doesn't change anything.

The candidates are all just walking a tightrope until this is resolved. They can't ignore Florida & Michigan, but do not want to piss off the "official" early states either.

They are all still here but now they are here on "fund raising" events vs. "campaigning" events.

[Debi]

37. Please get me the schedule of events for Biden, Dodd and Richardson

They aren't ALL campaigning in Florida - only Clinton, Edwards and Obama. The three candidates who took an extra day to 'analyze' the pledge and the DNC rules before signing on.

There are three candidtes who are following the rules and should be applauded for it.

[cobalt1999]

109. technically, they are following the rules

You don't like the loopholes in the pledge, fine. Ask them to sign a stricter pledge. In fact, why not ask the RNC & DNC to stop being hypocrites and sign a pledge to not accept money from Florida and Michigan too?

[Debi]

115. If we are going to talk about technically following the rules

then Clinton's sixth event - the campaign event with seniors - breaks the rules.

Why should the RNC and DNC not accept money form Florida or Michigan? The DNC has done nothing wrong.

[sparkleon]

22. Hillary and Iowa

No surprise where Hillary is concerned...flip flop, flip
flop....or is it okay for a woman to change her mind...and not
be concerned.  Your word is your bond with the world, lose it
you have nothing.  My words speaks for me and only me...I will
not vote for a candidate that does not keep his/her word after
making a public statement.  To do otherwise, shows you cannot
be trusted.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I Don't Understand The Primacy Given To Iowa And New Hampshire

There are more folks in South Florida than both those states combined...

There are also more Hispanics in Miami than both of those states combined...

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. That's the whole point.

Early in the primaries there are a number of contenders who do not have the resources to compete in the large states. They compete in the small states, where they are on a level playing field. As the field narrows, and the primaries move into the large states, the survivors are those who either have the resources to begin with, or who got a boost in the small states and have developed those resources based on that boost.

It keeps wealthy candidates from dominating the process. You know, like a democracy.

The move to frontload the primaries with large states is a move by the DLC to dominate the process and squeeze out any real progressive challange.

But I suspect you already know that.

[cobalt1999]

30. Strange view of democracy

I always viewed it as everyone having an equal say (or vote). :shrug:

Nice of them to "subsidize" the small money guys with my vote.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Lets try a little allegory.

You've got two candidates, scheduled to speak in two venues. The venues are a baseball stadium, with 30,000 voters and a classroom, with 150 voters. The candidates can raise $1 per voter at either venue. Both candidates have valid messages, but candidate A is cash poor. But Candidate B happens to own a megaphone, which Candidate A does not.

Candidate A and Candidate B can speak on equal footing to the classroom venue.

In the stadium Candidate B can speak to the whole crowd, but Candidate A can only reach 5%.

Isn't more fair that they both speak in the classroom first? If A has a message that resonates with those voters he can get enough money to continue on to the stadium because he will be able to buy a megaphone, too.

OTOH, if the stadium is the first venue, the A will never have a chance, because he will be drowned out by B. This is fair?

THAT is why the early primaries are in small states - to give all candidates an equal opportunity. If they cannot take advantage of that opportunity, that's THEIR problem. Frontloading the primaries with big states only make it worthwhile to campaign in those big states for the most well-funded. The entire election could be dedided by California, Florida, New York and Texas, and fuck the rest of the country. This is fair?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Hmmm

You've got two candidates, scheduled to speak in two venues. The venues are a baseball stadium, with 30,000 voters and a classroom, with 150 voters...

The 150 voters are all white...But in the stadium of 30,000 , 3, 600, are Latino, another 3,600 are African American, and 1,500 are Asians...

How are minority voices heard in your mythical classroom?

And how is the primary process that favors small states at the expense of large states different than the Electoral College that does essentially the same thing?

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. Does it really make any difference?

All the classroom does is allows A to buy a megaphone so (s)he can compete with B in the stadium. Even if A manages to get every single dollar and every single vote from the classroom, it is a miniscule fraction of what is being competed for in the stadium. And if those in the stadium disagree with those in the classroom, their few votes will be swamped by the stadium.

Winning in Iowa give no one an advantage. It is too small to be significant. But it does allow Kucinich to compete evenly with Obama. Seriously, how can winning a dozen or so electoral votes be decisive when you need 280. There are more electoral votes in Florida alone than in all 4 of the early primary states.

But flip it around, and put Florida first and the lesser endowed candidates would be forced to devote all their limited resources to one or two big states, and their voices will not be heard anywhere else.

Why do you have a problem with the intrinsic fairness of a level playing field?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Why do you have a problem with the intrinsic fairness of a level playing field?

Any other loaded questions...

You forgot to ask "when I stopped beating my wife?"

California is the largest state in the union... I'll bet you weren't even alive when they had a say in the nominating process due to the primary schedule...

Why not make Alaska first?

Or Hawaii first?

They are as representative of America as is Iowa and in the case of Hawaii probably more so....

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. I've got no problem with Alaska, or Hawaii, or ANY other small

state stepping to the front - so long as it remains in the small states. I heartily approve expanding the early primaries to include Nevada and South Carolina. My problem is when the powerhouses try to dominate the process. I don't think the ten biggest states should have a primary earlier than a month after the first primary - because those 10 states control better than half the electoral votes. Hell, I'm even open to having one (1) of those big ten having an early primary, decided by lottery or some such, maybe rotated between them, because just one of them will not make any candidate the inevitable choice. But if you have even two or three big ones going for early primaries there would be no choice for all candidates other than to concentrate on just those two or three, because winning three of the big ones WILL make a candidate inevitable - and if all resources are devoted to just three states, the rest of the country loses. The most efficient fundraisers are not necessarily the best candidates - it can be argued that the exact opposite is true.

That's why we have to stick with the small state primaries.

Not to mention the fact that jumping the line like this violates agreements that ALL the state organizations signed on to.

BTW, my first vote was for McGovern, and I've voted democratic in every election since.

[IA_Seth]

61. Exactly, thank you! n/t

[cobalt1999]

99. Even if you try to make it fairer for small money candidates

You can't get away from the fact the DNC is "subsidizing" the small money candidates with my vote. If we all don't get a say, then it's not really a democracy.

Basically, find another way to fund the small money guys, but you CAN NOT violate the "everyone gets a vote" principle. Between the two conflicting interests, a persons vote is more important.

In your allegory, is it fair for the classroom to choose the candidate and the stadium to get one person only. In 2004, I had ONE choice...Kerry.

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. I do not understand your post at all.

I have no idea what you mean by the "DNC is 'subsidizing' the small money candidate with my vote". What does that mean?

Nobody's vote is being violated. I don't understand why you think it is.

And the classroom, or Iowa, does NOT choose the candidate. Just because someone wins Iowa or New Hampshire it doesn't mean they will win the election -- unless you're a republican. The republican organization generally makes sure that nobody except their annointed candidate will win. The dems, OTOH, have about a 50/50 record - half the early winners go down in flames by Super Tuesday. The early primaries do not decide a damn thing. They just allow some candidates to get their voices heard. By the time they get to the stadium, or Super Tuesday, everything can change. And often as not it does.

Just look at the reality of the record before you complain.

[Debi]

38. Thank you. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Strange View Of Democracy

That allows the parts of the nation that are 99% white to make decisions for the rest of the country that isn't...

[madfloridian]

53. This is sounding like prejudice against states with white population.

This constant hammering on the "white".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Sounds Like Your Argument Is Flawed

Iowa and New Hampshire are predominately Caucasian...

Kenya is predominately African

Korea is predominately Asian

Luxembourg is predominately European...

Pick out which statement is racist....

You can't

[madfloridian]

74. Actually....

after reading several blogs today on the topic....it appears the new talking points ARE targeting the whiteness of IA and NH to give FL and MI a cover for their rule-breaking.

It's is amazing how it is being done.

One blog even blames it all on Howard Dean who is not bullying NH who is not moving ahead of MI yet even though MI jumped ahead of them and told Dean to bully NH.

One blog says it is because Dean is white and from New England and is against Florida.

Actually that does seem to be the premise.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. I Wasn't Informed By A Blog...

And I could care less who gets the nomination as long they can win in November...

But the suggestion that Iowa and New Hampshire are representative of anything other than Iowa and New Hampshire is laughable...

Somebody up thread mentioned that the big states shouldn't have their primaries until later in the primary season just because they are big...

Why should somebody be punished and have their vote diluted because they live in a populous state?

Aren't they already punished by having their vote diluted by the infernal Electoral College?

[madfloridian]

85. When someone refuses to read what is posted..

then people realize your own agenda transcends anything else, anyone else....

Bye.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. In Your Flawed Opinion

Have a day...

[madfloridian]

101. There are a lot of folks here now. ....

who just tell others they are flawed. Or their opinions are flawed. Or other stuff.

Must be boring not to have original thoughts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. I thought you said goobye to me

I was just seeing if you were a person of your word...

[madfloridian]

28. Did you know SC and NV were early states also?

Did you know that Florida is trying to bully its way to the front, even though it voted for the DNC rules?

Is rule breaking and bullying ok so along as it is done by a big state?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I Don't Want New Hampshire And Iowa Making Decisions

I don't want New Hampshire and Iowa making decisions for the rest of the country when their racial composition has more in common with the rest of the nation, than say Beverly Hills...

[madfloridian]

52. So just break the rules and lie about it? That's not very honest.

They voted for the 4 states to go first. Now they are launching attacks on those states.

I think anyone who thinks that is ok...breaking rules, lying, is not very aware of what is going on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. The System Is Flawed

I think the last time California's primary meant anything was in 1968...

And I'm surprised you don't want your fellow Floridians to have a real say in the nominating process...


Iowa and New Hampshire are as representative of America as Hobe Sound and Manalapan are representative of Florida or for that matter, the nation...

[madfloridian]

75. Then do away with rules and let's have anarchy.

If you want to change a system, you don't vote for the rules then break them.

And then lie.

That is the most disturbing part....that people are so casual and uncaring about the lies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. Don't Light Any Matches Near Your Strawmen...You Might Immolate Yourself....

You like colloqialisms...

I could give a rat's ass who wins the nomination...

I just think the primacy of New Hampshire and Iowa in the nominating process is a joke...

How do you like that colloquialism?

[madfloridian]

100. See, that's it. You don't realize two more states were added.

And you are joining the "hate white NH and IA" chorus.

You are ignoring facts and using rhetoric on me. Doesn't work.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. More Strawmen

I don't hate NH and IA...

I am merely pointing out the homogeneity of those two states....

[madfloridian]

104. No, you are ignoring the diversity of NV and SC

.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. IA Still Occurrs First

And I don't see how Nevada is anymore representative of America than say Atlantic City...

[Debi]

71. What does that have to do with Clinton, Obama and Edwards

pledging to campaign only in states that follow the rules and then going right out and campaigning anyway?

The argument against Iowa doesn't fit in this thread except to excuse candidates ignoring the promises they made.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. My Argument Is Larger Than The Candidates

The notion that Iowa and New Hampshire should be first as if it was received from Mount Olympus is oppressive...They need to get over themselves...

It reminds me of the argument made from some guy from New York that his city is the center of the universe and the rest of the nation are leeches benefiting from NY's greatness...

[Broke Dad]

79. And I think current intentional grounding rule in pro football is stupid . . .

If you or little Hill don't like the current nominating process or the agreed upon schedule than change it for 2012, or don't sign a pledge . But play by the spirit and letter of the rules YOU agreed to . . . or risk getting called for the penalty. Yepsen called little Hill for cheating.

As an adopted Iowan, all of the Iowans I know take the presidential caucuses very seriously. We had 200+ people turn out in a little town of 3,000 for Edwards's event over the Labor Day weekend.

Shame on my guys for fundraising in Florida, BUT little Hill goes even beyond the fundraising loophole, she schedules a round-table discussion campaign event. Yepsen nailed it.

We in Iowa are closely related to our neighbors in the Show Me State. Little Hill has shown us who and what she really is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. I Could Care Less About Little Hill And Your Little State

Iowa is about as representative of America as Beverly Hills is representative of the state of California...


America is 67% white... 15% Hispanic....13% African American...5% Asian...


Iowa is 94% white...

The suggestion that Iowa is representative of anything other than Iowa is laughable...

[Debi]

87. So you're only on this thread to cause trouble and not to add to the discussion

in any meaningful manner? You just wander around DU and look for threads about Iowa or in which Iowans have posted and attack, attack, attack?

The subject matter of the thread means nothing as long as you can attack Iowa for being first in the nation?

The fact that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama made a promise and broke it means nothing becasue YOU HATE IOWA.

Got it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. Absolute Truth Is An Absolute Defense

Iowa is not representative of the United States and all your obscurantism won't make it so...


This is actually my first posts on the topic but I have always thought the primacy of Iowa and New Hamphire in the nominating process for both parties is a practice best left to antiquity...

[Debi]

94. No one state is - along with being small AND affordable

How is that being obscruant?

And you still haven't touched upon the subject matter of the thread.

So, although you don't like Iowa and New Hampshire, you don't seem to have a promlem with the dishonesty (or obscurantism) coming from Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. The Candidates Should Obey The Rules

The notion that the first primaries should always be in New Hampshire and Iowa as if its an iron clad law handed down from Mount Olympus is riduclous...

I don't see how the two premises are mutually exclusive...

We could have saved a lot of time if you or anybody here asked me " do you think people should abide by the rules they agreed to?"


I would have answered in the affimative ...

[Debi]

97. Well, the OP is about a candidate who has chosen not to obey the rules

and broke a promise she made (she didn't have to make it)to the voters in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

As for the Primary rules - the DNC created a commission of members of each state that met several times over a two year period and created and voted on the calendar as it (was supposed to) exists today. Many states have broken the rules and moved their primaries and caucuses up from the date that their state representatives agreed to.

So if the candidates should obey the rules then they should honor the pledge they made and not campaign in states that have broken the rules. The rules established only for the 2008 election cycle. THEN, if somebody wants to change the rules, well so be it. Change the rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. I Agree 100%

And I like Iowa and Iowans...

I like New Hampshire too...


I just don't think it's fair to have the first caucus and primary there every season...


It would be like compelling the Hawkeyes to open every football season on the road...

[Debi]

86. Exactly - don't sign the pledge if you don't agree with it

But it is dishonest to make a promise and go out and break it. THAT is the point of this thread (at least I thought it was) NOT to have ONE MORE discussion about how much everyone hates Iowa...

[Debi]

84. So you don't care that three of the six leading candidates have broken their promises

because you don't like Iowa and New Hampshire's position in the primary calendar? Doesn't make much sense.

[madfloridian]

43. You are so lucky I happened along.

I have been following the Florida Power Grab of Greed since it happened, and here it is in chronological order.

When you make a power play and lie to and about your own party chairman...you have failed.

Enough of this. Florida Democrats now threaten Dean and the DNC with a "voting rights probe".
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1453

The "appropriate legal official" to "investigate" Dean and the DNC...is...Gonzales.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1452

Nelson: "I will lead the delegates to Denver whether or not the DNC plans to let them in."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1455

Two summaries of the DNC committee ruling about Florida.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1456

Florida sowed the seeds of a propaganda war against the DNC.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1458

Proof. Vindication. Both Florida parties did it for "relevance." From March.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1459

The latest Florida propaganda tactic here about attacking the DNC...local email.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1460

Florida's Geller joked about his amendment: "sarcasm and audible laughter in chamber"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1461

One Florida county is saying there will be further bloodshed. Much argument here today.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1462

Florida Democratic Party website building anger toward the DNC
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1465

Democratic activist sues over loss of Florida delegates
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1466

"Dean was conciliatory and offered DNC help for the state"..hour long phone call
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1467

Gelber admits they did not fight the GOP about the primary.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1468

"Primary bully Florida ought to be ashamed"...four articles catch on to Florida's primary ploy.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1469

Bill Nelson today will file a bill for regional primaries...but first he had to get your attention
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1478

Bill Nelson today: "DNC penalties unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1479

[rinsd]

45. Credit where credit is due. You've been on this since its first rumblings MF.

:toast:

[Cameron27]

68. I'll ditto that,

MF has posted a wealth of information about this. She's been an excellent resource no matter where your opinion falls on the issue.

[Debi]

41. Thanks for posting this Brokedad!

We should have seen this coming - I'm amazed that Clinton's supporters here in Iowa have no comment on this (or Edwards supporters or Obama's supporters)they just look the other way.

Having an honest candidate is important to me, maybe not so much for other folks.

[truebrit71]

66. There she goes again...speaking out of both sides of her mouth...

....she just can't help herself...:eyes:

[Debi]

72. She's not the only one - Obama and Edwards are doing the same thing

Looks like Biden, Dodd and Richardson are the only candidates who know how to keep their word.

[Broke Dad]

110. Hillary's just the most blatant . . .

The next time Hillary comes to Iowa, she will have some explaining to do . . . or not. Maybe we in Iowa can just help here return to her Senate seat like we did Ted Kennedy in 1980.

[DURHAM D]

111. Hillary is not breaking any of the rules listed.

Your post is wishful thinking and your point is false.

Point out the rule you think she has broken. Be specific. You won't find it.

Fund raisers - not illegal. A few people at a non-public event - not illegal.

False posting - disgusting.

[Debi]

117. Where do you get the idea that there were a few people at a non public event

even her campaign spokesman said it was a campaign event with seniors.

The DNC rules aren't complicated - they are very straightforward and I've pointed out the specific rules Clinton violated.

[Lucinda]

121. Yup. I'd be mad if she had blown off the roundt able...I see no problem here n/t

[Debi]

125. The fact that she scheduled it after agreeing not to hold events like it

doesn't bother you? A potential president saying one thing and doing the opposite isn't a problem? Seems like more of what we already have in D.C.

[AZ Criminal JD]

113. They have no money

Biden, Dodd and Richardson are "keeping their word" because they just don't have the money to compete in Florida or Michigan anyway. If they had the money they would be there also. All the candidates should be in those states instead of bowing down to the ethanol special interests in Iowa.

[Debi]

118. Or they are honest and keep their word. n/t

[Breeze54]

112. This doesn't bother me, sorry. I know she "broke" a promise, I guess but

she IS campaigning for the presidency and the Florida voters need to hear from all the candidates too.

JMO, your mileage may vary. ;)

[Debi]

119. So a person who has to potential of being the President of the United States

breaking their promise isn't a big deal? Not like we need a President who keeps their word.

[Breeze54]

120. I think reaching out to voters is more important, then this silly "issue".

I mean, it's not like she's still refusing to denounce her IWR vote! :P

Besides, it was the rethugs in Florida that changed
the primary rules and the FL Dems got screwed by that.

The voters need to hear the DEM message. We need their votes.

[Debi]

126. Okay, Making a promise and breaking it isn't a problem for you

Like agreeing to hold a primary on one date and changing that date almost two years later isn't a problem.

I wonder if a President saying they'll do one thing and then doing the exact opposite would be a problem for you?

Silly, being honest is just silly?

[Romulox]

128. Sometimes standing up to a bully is more important than being honest...

This is one of the few principled things I've witnessed from the Clinton camp. There is no justification for disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters.

:thumbsup:

[Debi]

133. What bully? And how did Florida and Michigan voters get disenfranchised?

From July of 2004 through December of 2005 a commission made up of members from each state created and voted on a primary calendar for the 2008 election cycle. It's not like Florida and Michigan were set to vote in october of 2008 - in fact they had established primaries THREE WEEKS after Iowa. The Florida (and no Michigan) legislators BROKE THE RULES established by the DNC and now are crying foul at the punishment that THEIR REPRESENTATIVES helped establish.

Six of the candidates signed a pledge that stated that they would not REWARD states that broke the rules - meaning that if Florida and Michigan had kept their primary date of February 5th that the candidates WOULD campaign in those states.

Now Hillary Clinton (and to a lesser extent Barack Obama and John Edwards) have decided that they were just kidding about the pledge.

So, who is the bully? Seems that Florida and Michigan would be the bully - or at least the rule-breakers - and the candidates that are rewarding them for breaking the rules are dishonest.

[Breeze54]

129. So, umm, what are you trying to say exactly?

[Broke Dad]

130. Who is the bully that Clinton is standing up to?

Standing up to a bully might be refusing to sign a pledge.

Chicksh_t and dishonest is signing a pledge and then doing whatever the hell you want to despite the pledge.

If Clinton is so damned principled, she should not have signed the pledge.

[Breeze54]

131. I think you meant to reply to Romulox

[Romulox]

132. I loath Clinton, but the "pledge" was the result of strong arm techniques...

There was nothing principled about the pledge to begin with. nt

[Debi]

136. Please explain

Why was the pledge to campaign in the states that obeyed the rules established by the DNC Calendar Commission unprincipled?

[Romulox]

138. Because it was based on a scheme to disenfranchise millions of voters...nt

[Debi]

139. Strange scheme that Florida DNC members voted for

Hard to believe that voting on February 5th after the first contest occurs January 14th (22 days prior)is disenfranchisement - unless you mean the state being penalized for breaking the rules - but who should get punished for breaking rules? Not Florida apparently.

This must mean that you approve of candidates making pledges and breaking them? That is an odd charateristic to want in a President.

[Romulox]

140. My desire for a pledge-keeping candidate is trumped by my desire not to be dictated to by Ia and NH

nt

[Debi]

141. Please explain how you are dictiated to by Iowa and New Hampshire?

If you choose to support the winners of those two contests rather than the candidate you supported prior to those events that's your problem. Iowa and New Hampshire don't dictate who the nominee is, only who the majority of voters in those states select. If voters in other states can't be bothered by being loyal to their chosen candidates, why blame Iowa and New Hampshire?

Seems a very shallow argument to justify supporting a candidate who isn't being honest.

[Romulox]

142. By the time most of get a say, the majority of candidates have *dropped out of the race*...

Claiming being first isn't important is blatant reverse psychology. If being first wasn't important to Ia and NH as well as party insiders, you wouldn't be fighting any change tooth and nail.

[Debi]

143. Are you actually saying that the majority of the candidates are going to drop out within 22 days

of Iowa's initial contest? You've got to be kidding. Maybe in the 2000 calendar or the 2004 calendar that was true - but in 2008 Florida was scheduled to hold it's contest on February 5th.

I never said being first wasn't important, I said that Iowa being first shouldn't dictate who YOU choose to support. But my reasons for wanting to be first aren't all selfish. There is no way a Dodd, Biden, Richardson campaign could even get off the ground in Florida. A person would have to be independently wealthy or famous (or infamous) to be about to run for president starting in a state Florida's size. The media market alone would bankrupt a smaller funded campaign (not to mention the cost of renting a headquarters/housing for staff/traveling across the state/hotel - event accommodations for events. Unless you wanted a campaign run solely on sound-bite television and out of major airport tarmacs the races need to start in smaller states.

Unless you are already supporting a multi-million dollar campaign, you'd rather your candidate be allowed to gain traction and support than demand they try to buy their audience through the paid media.

You can continue this argument all you want - this thread was about candidates failing to keep their promises - which I guess you agree with as long as Florida gets to hold it's contest whenever it pleases - damn the DNC and the rules FLORIDA AGREED TO. I guess Florida, Michigan and the candidates who can't keep their word are a good match.

[Debi]

135. Right again!

Nobody forced any of the candidates to sign the pledge (in fact I believe Kucinich/Gravel didn't sign it).

So, why sign it and then thumb your nose at it? Why not be honest with the voters in IA/NV/NH/SC that you'd rather reward the states that break the rules and ignore the states that obey the rules.

Great beginning to a presidency.

[Debi]

134. I don't understand, are you trying to be obstinate instead of having a discussion?

How does that help?