Turns out that Obama's comments about being fine with a Michigan re-vote were just words

[bigtree]

from the Clinton campaign today:


Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally in Detroit, Wednesday, March 19, 2008


"On February 8, 2008, Barack Obama stood in the aisle of his airplane and told reporters that he would be 'fine' with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off. Since then, such a plan has garnered broad support from top Michigan lawmakers and the DNC has given its blessing.

"So Barack Obama is on board, right? Guess again. It turns out that his comments about being fine with a re-vote if the above conditions were met were just words."


To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: March 19, 2008
RE: Obama’s Re-Vote Pledge: Just Words

On February 8, 2008, Barack Obama stood in the aisle of his airplane and told reporters that he would be “fine” with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off. Since then, such a plan has garnered broad support from top Michigan lawmakers and the DNC has given its blessing.

So Barack Obama is on board, right? Guess again. It turns out that his comments about being fine with a re-vote if the above conditions were met were just words. As yesterday’s headline in the Detroit Free-Press made clear, Senator Obama is the lone standout: “Michigan do-over depends on Obama's backing, Senate leaders say.”

The Clinton campaign believes the right to vote is a bedrock principle of our country and that empowering the people of Michigan and Florida to make their voices heard must be a priority for any candidate running for the Democratic nomination. As such, we must either honor the original vote or hold a state-run primary that doesn’t leave the taxpayers footing the bill.

So why is the Obama campaign refusing to give the people of Michigan the chance to exercise their fundamental right to vote? Let’s take a quick look at what the Obama campaign is arguing and explore why those arguments are wrong:

False Excuse #1: Barack Obama Wasn’t on the Ballot. The Obama campaign argues that their candidate wasn’t on the January ballot because the Michigan primary wasn’t sanctioned by the DNC and they were trying to comply with the early state pledge. Let’s remember that the point of the early state pledge was to protect the role of the four states that held early nominating contests. Well the contests in those states were protected and the people in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada got a chance to vote. Keep in mind that nearly twice as many people voted in Michigan and Florida than voted in the four early states combined.

Senator Clinton signed the pledge and kept it. Senator Obama signed the pledge and kept it in Michigan. But in so doing, Senator Obama decided to go further and made a voluntary decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. That was his right but it was also his decision. As a result, he denied Michigan the opportunity to vote for a slate of candidates. There aren’t many second chances in life but Senator Obama has one now and should ask the people of Michigan for their vote. Why is he refusing to do so?

False Excuse #2: Obama Voters Participated in GOP Primary. The Obama camp will argue that their supporters voted in the GOP primary because Barack Obama wasn’t on the Democratic ballot. They argue that the legislation’s effort to comply with the DNC rules is unfair since the bill would prohibit people who voted in the 2008 GOP primary in Michigan from voting a second time in the Democratic contest. On its face, you might think the Obama campaign is making a sound case. But two points render their argument inoperable:

First, the Obama campaign has repeatedly said that it would comply with DNC rules and DNC Rule 2.E prohibits cross-over voting. The draft legislation does not permit anyone who voted in Michigan’s Republican primary in January to now vote in the Democratic primary. Senator Obama has said that this is a key reason why he cannot support the legislation but that provision must be in the bill in order to comply with the DNC rules. So while Senator Obama’s campaign says he will follow the rules, he wants one of them to be ignored.

Second, the Obama campaign’s allies in Michigan organized an effort to get people in Michigan to vote for “uncommitted” in the Democratic primary, helping to bring the uncommitted share of vote to 40 percent. So the Obama camp can’t reasonably argue supporters participated in the GOP primary and didn’t vote in the Democratic contest.

False Excuse #3: Clinton Supporters Have Said They’d Raise Money For a Primary and They Back Clinton. The Obama campaign will argue that Clinton supporters have said they’d help raise money to finance the primary and that’s not fair. Last time we checked, the Obama campaign wasn’t hurting for donors. More to the point, Democrats are blessed this cycle with an energized grassroots. We believe that appealing to everyday people to finance this primary exemplifies what this election is about: giving a voice to the voiceless.

False Excuse #4: Michigan Law Requires First-time Absentee Voters Must Vote In Person Before They Can Vote Absentee – Just Like in Illinois. The Obama camp will argue that they are at a disadvantage because a lot of their supporters are college students who vote absentee. But Michigan law says that a person voting absentee must cast a vote in person before they are eligible to vote absentee which will result in the exclusion of many Obama supporters, of whom many are first time voters. The Obama campaign should be familiar with that sort of system since it’s the rule in Illinois and we didn’t hear too much complaining in the run-up to February 5 primary there. More to the point, this rule will be in place in Michigan for the general election. So will the Obama campaign use this excuse to justify writing off Michigan in the general if Barack Obama is the nominee? We hope not.

The bottom line is that Michigan has all the problems and promise that we talk about in this country. Competing in Michigan sends a signal that Democrats care and understand the people there deserve the chance to make their voices heard and need someone in the White House who will hear their voices.

If Barack Obama doesn’t want to help make that happen, Hillary Clinton is ready to do so. We call on the Obama campaign to let the people of Michigan vote.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com

[slinkerwink]

1. the state legislature is against this and so are

the county clerks in Michigan.

[MADem]

3. Yes, the LEGISLATURE and the COUNTY CLERKS should have the final say! Fuck the voters!

:eyes:

[purji]

15. I'm in michigan

they broke the rules,so that they could feel more important in the primary process even though they were TOLD it wouldn't count. where was the big stink up then.They broke the rules the delegates don't count.
My vote in the general will count so I can't see where I will be disenfranchised in the general.
Not that I am not pissed at the legislature ,I am, the time to deal with them is the next election.

[MADem]

23. Ah, two wrongs make a right? Because "they" (and who is THEY, pray tell?

Surely not every innocent, yet grievously affected, Michigan voter?) broke the rules, the voters must "PAY?"

Punish the ELECTORATE for the sins of the the Party Elders.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

A solution is before them, and ONE CANDIDATE doesn't want to hear from the voters.

Why is that, do you suppose?

"Your vote in the general will count so you can't see where you will be disenfranchised?"

I rather suspect your tune will change if your PRIMARY choice doesn't MAKE IT to the general, eh?

Unless your candidate is McCain, that is, or a fringe third party candidate.

I never thought I'd see a candidate who advertises himself as a black candidate favor disenfranchisement, is all. It's a bit ironic. And not in a good way, either.

[purji]

24. i will of course vote dem

they is my wonderful dlc governor and members of legislation.

[MADem]

28. I think screwing the voters because "they" screwed up is just wrong.

"They" need to correct this situation. They made the mess, they need to fix it.

[lark]

92. Answer to your question

"A solution is before them, and ONE CANDIDATE doesn't want to hear from the voters.

Why is that, do you suppose?"

Arrogance, hypocricy, repugnant efforts at opposition voter suppression. Gee, this sounds exactly like bushco, doesn't it?

I'm from FL, and am equally pissed with DNC, FL legislature and Obama - all have conspired to disenfranchise me and millions of other Floridians and have the gall to say it's "right". There is no "right" about not counting votes, except right wing. Obama is no liberal when he takes a stance that it's OK not to count votes.

[MADem]

98. I have said that I don't care HOW they do it, but they have to do it.

They have to find SOME way to enfranchise those voters. It's the opposite of democracy, otherwise.

[redqueen]

43. The legislature has to sign off on it. (nt)

[TahitiNut]

9. The Clinton campaign has no choice other than to blame Obama ...

... no matter how much misrepresentation they must concoct. The FACT of the matter is that elected Democrats in this state are far, far more aligned with the Clinton campaign organization than Obama's. Granholm is DLC. Stabenow is DLC. Both are unseated SD's pledged to Clinton.

There has NEVER been a snowball's chance in hell that the FUBAR could be undone. Bells can't be unrung. It's been a LOCK that no re-vote will happen. Take it to the bank. KABUKI! Smokescreen.

[rodeodance]

113. ha ha --blame it on to Hillary. so what is new. Your post adds NOTHING to the conversation

[TahitiNut]

123. Still desperately trolling, I see.

I guess that's all you got. Pity. :nopity:

[ThatBozGuy]

25. Ms Clinton knows the MI Legislature is closed for the next two weeks.....

They have gaveled for their easter break, She knew this when she framed the delay as Mr Obama "fault", nothing will be done on this issue for the next two weeks as the Legislature must be seated and vote.

Ommision of known facts of context are still disingenuous if it is the same as lie.

[Zhade]

115. Clinton lied? Again, I mean?

Say it ain't so!

[democrattotheend]

2. You're going to have to find something more objective than a Clinton press release

To convince me that it "turns out" that anything is true. I don't necessarily doubt it, but I want to see a more objective source.

[MADem]

7. Detroit, MI Free Press, perhaps?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/NEWS15/80319014/1008/NEWS06

WASHINGTON –Barack Obama’s chief lawyer raised serious questions this morning about the prospects of a do-over primary for Michigan, representing in the campaign’s broadest statement yet on the subject that such a second nominating contest could leave itself open to legal challenges and confusion as to its results.



AZ Free Republic?

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0319michprimary0319.html

LANSING, Mich. - A proposal for a do-over Democratic presidential primary in Michigan will be dead by week's end without backing from Barack Obama's campaign and a lot of skeptical state lawmakers.

Legislative leaders said Tuesday that the proposal, drafted by a team of top state Democrats in an attempt to resolve the impasse over Michigan's role in picking the party's nominee, won't go anywhere until at least the Illinois senator embraces it.

[rodeodance]

30. And I will cut down BO press releases. Makes sense huh?? sillyness for you to say that!!

[olkaz]

4. Here's the press release! Agree with me!

A privately funded rushjob election! Awesome!

[rodeodance]

31. and the next time a BO fan uses a Press release from BO--i will will slam it-

see how stupid you look by saying that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. rodeodance you are a treasure!

:-)

[olkaz]

72. If I could only enjoy it....

He's been on ignore. He must have been very active this thread, since it seems about half the posts have been written by IGNORED.

[rodeodance]

94. some of these comments are just stupid back and forth crap! no substance. I get

ticked off lately. we just can not seem to have a discussion--just snarks day after day.

[spotbird]

5. What day is it?

If it's Wednesday, Hillary must be in favor of a revote, but if it's Thursday she isn't.

[bowens43]

6. hillary continues to try to steal what she can't win.....

fucking pathetic. I don't understand how anyone can support her.

[Texas Hill Country]

12. ignored.

[rodeodance]

26. CUT your LIES--BO is wheeling and dealing in MI also.--IF HE wins will you call it STEALING?????

[hell-bent]

87. I'll bet there is some unseen, nefarious conspiracy

behind this attempt at having another election primary in Michigan, right? Put the hat on as it improves reception,eh. :tinfoilhat:

[mtnsnake]

8. What else does he ever have BESIDES words? Anything?

That's why Hillary is the hands on favorite right now to win the nomination and then go on to trounce John McCain...because she backs up what she says with her actions.

[babylonsister]

49. Bwhahaha!

:smoke:

[mtnsnake]

50. Bwhahaha what? That would I said is the cold hard truth?

Sis, you should know by now that the t in mtnsnake stands for truth :smoke:

[babylonsister]

51. Aw, jeeze.

I always wondered what that stood for. I am not surprised! You have always impressed me with your honesty. :hide:

[mtnsnake]

52. lol

:hi:

[Zhade]

116. Dude, you're delusional. She's not getting the nom. She's losing.

Not gonna happen - may I remind you of that when she finally accepts her loss?

[Tarc]

10. Obama went back on his word? Again? No!

Honestly, are we really surprised here anymore? He backtracked on his commitment to public funding, only pays lip service to the anti-NAFTA folks while promising Canada that nothing will change, and now this.

Oh. Wait. He gave a pretty speech, though.

:eyes:

[Pathwalker]

11. Here are some links to local stories in Lansing, Mi. :

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/16785556.html (local NBC)
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/ELECTIONS01/803190338/1411/election (local pape

[DJ13]

13. Give it up Hillary

Without Michigan and Florida's delegates (and vote totals) you know you've lost.

Its time to admit defeat, go back to the Senate, and hope the NY voters arent so sick of your dirty desperate tactics that they vote you out next election.

[burythehatchet]

22. Actually, do not give it up Hillary. Keep at it. If she can campaign long enough

I want her to do enough damage to her reputation to lose her senate seat to a dem challenger.

[BlackVelvet04]

107. and Obama's win will forever be

illegitimate because two states' votes didn't count. The Democratic leaders screwed this up and they need to find a solution....not counting votes is NO solution. But, Obama will say and do anything to win.

[2rth2pwr]

14. Obama in favor of silencing the voices of millions of people.

[otohara]

17. Rules Are Meant To Be Broken

everyone knows that.

[rodeodance]

19. Does BO believe this??---WHY has be been negociating??

[2rth2pwr]

33. gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelette?

[greguganus]

16. Please post a warning when posting such pictures. Thank you. n/t

[rodeodance]

18. **Demeaning a Dem Pres Candidate and MI voters is SHAMEFUL of you**

[SammyWinstonJack]

69. Lame!

[babylonsister]

20. Too bad the Clinton campaign is now ignoring the words that mattered 6 months ago:

A history of 'words' on the Michigan primary

By Jim Tankersley

Hillary Clinton's campaign is extending its "Just Words" attack on Barack Obama to the fate of Michigan's disputed Democratic delegates today -- accusing Obama of backing away from his earlier statement that he would be "fine" with a re-vote in a state that risked losing all its delegates to the Democratic National Convention when it scheduled its primary for mid-January, violating national party rules.

]b

The pledge reads, in part, "I shall not campaign or participate (emphasis added) 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..."

Today, Clinton's memo argues "Let’s remember that the point of the early state pledge was to protect the role of the four states that held early nominating contests. Well the contests in those states were protected and the people in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada got a chance to vote... Senator Clinton signed the pledge and kept it... Senator Obama decided to go further and made a voluntary decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot."

So the issue would seem to be, what does the word "participate" actually mean?

more...

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/a_history_of_words_on_the_mich.html

[redqueen]

46. She also said those states didn't matter because delegates wouldn't be saeted...

but that was when she still thought she was inevitable, and didn't think she'd need them.

[rodeodance]

57. ha ha---She is showing MI voters she cares. What is BO doing?--so far-dissing them.

[redqueen]

59. Sure, she cares NOW.

Back when she thought she had it in the bag, she threw them under the bus.

I wonder how many are fooled by her newfound concern.

[rodeodance]

74. you claims are irrelvant. SHE is in MI---showing she cares. Meanwhile BO is dissing them

[redqueen]

75. No... what she said before, you now consider irrelevant.

It's not my 'claim'... it's her previous stance, back when she thought she was inevitable.

[rodeodance]

81. I said your claims are irrelivant to the present situation.

[redqueen]

84. And I'm saying they're not claims, they're her own statements.

I'm sorry that you are having a hard time processing that.

[rodeodance]

88. Its the NOW--that people are concerned about. simple as that silly

[burythehatchet]

21. If it's on a Hillary press release, it must be factual

I hear Judy Miller's spot might still be open. You can be a reporter.

[rodeodance]

29. Thank you--you are correct.

[burythehatchet]

32. NHU

noone home upstairs

[rodeodance]

still talking to yourself I see.

[burythehatchet]

35. NHU

[rodeodance]

38. Thanks for the kicks:-)

[rodeodance]

27. REC

[babylonsister]

34. The Obama Campaign's Argument on Michigan

because I'm sure you would want both sides represented.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/19/783219.aspx

The Obama Campaign's Argument on Michigan

From NBC's Mark Murray
The Obama campaign just released a memo from top lawyer Bob Bauer, which contains concerns about the re-vote plan in Michigan -- the chief one being that Republicans, independents, and even Democrats who voted in the January 15 GOP primary would be disqualified from participating in the do-over.

Bauer writes, "Since any Republican or independent who did not vote in January in the Republican primary is fully free to participate in the June primary, the effect of the proposal is to enfranchise a class of Republicans while disenfranchising a class of Democrats—the ones who chose to vote in the Republican primary when they correctly understood that the Democratic contest was meaningless."

Below is the entire memo...

TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Robert F. Bauer
RE: Michigan Primary
DA: March 19, 2008

In the short time available, I have reviewed the proposed legislation to establish the June 3, 2008 primary, considering primarily those issues that bear on the central question of whether this election can be conducted successfully without undue risk of legal challenges, including those challenges arising out of errors or other breakdown induced by the schedule the State has proposed.

No one disputes that the election will have to be hurriedly prepared; and it is further accepted that it is, in material respects, unprecedented in conception and proposed structure. Michigan will be, for example, the first to state to have re-run an election in circumstances like these, to redress violations of party rules, and it will be the first to do so with the state supplying the legislative and administrative support but with private parties underwriting the costs with "soft money". Whether the state can achieve its goals here depends on the nature and seriousness of the legal and administrative questions presented by this initiative—questions that, raised after the election, could put at risk the running of the election, undermine acceptance of the results if the election is held, and in both cases effectively deny Michigan voters, a second consecutive time, meaningful participation in the nominating process.

For the reasons discussed briefly below, there are such questions and they are serious both in nature and in their potential, if not likely, impact on the June election proposal.

Voter Disqualification

Although Michigan has always run open elections, which allow voters to vote in whatever primary they prefer, voters who participated in the Republican primary in January could not vote in the June election under the proposed law. This class of voters includes Democrats and Independents who chose not to vote in the invalid Democratic primary at the time because the majority of active candidates did not appear on the ballot and the results would not be accepted under party rules.

This provision raises a significant constitutional question and, along with it, the prospect for litigation that would undermine the perceived legitimacy of the election and bring preparations to a standstill under circumstances in which such delay is effectively fatal. The claim here could also be presented to the party, under party rules, with a similar effect of putting the election and its results in serious question.

The burden on voters here is one of complete disqualification—they cannot participate in the Democratic primary in June if they voted in the January Republican primary. Their claim of a violation of their rights would rest on the fact that that the state "changed the rules in the middle of the game." These voters' choice was entirely reasonable in the circumstances: there was no valid Democratic primary available to them at the time, and they could not know that, when their choice was made, that they were disqualifying themselves from participating in a re-run Democratic primary this year that they could know would be held.

Moreover, the state will have difficulty justifying this disenfranchisement by reference to any legitimate state interest. Michigan cannot argue that it wants to limit the June primary to those who are genuinely Democrats, because it has always run fully open primaries. Voters, in other words, have a state-conferred right to vote in the Democratic party no matter what their affiliation. The primaries in January were fully open; and the decision to close them in June will not easily stand constitutional scrutiny. In any challenge, Michigan will be criticized for proposing a re-run without, in effect, restoring to voters the original choice they had—whether to participate in a meaningful Democratic primary.

In other words, the proposal offers a re-run for the State but not for all the voters. The state will have to assert an interest sufficient to justify this infringement on the voting rights of its citizens. Its challenge will be to show how, when the state is seeking to remedy a problem of its own making—failure in the first instance to observe party rules on timing—it can somehow discriminate against groups of its own citizens.

The State is also vulnerable to challenge under the party rules. Since any Republican or independent who did not vote in January in the Republican primary is fully free to participate in the June primary, the effect of the proposal is to enfranchise a class of Republicans while disenfranchising a class of Democrats—the ones who chose to vote in the Republican primary when they correctly understood that the Democratic contest was meaningless. A challenge along these lines would consume time, when time is not available, and it is not clear that the party would or could approve this exclusionary feature even if the participating candidates were to agree to it. The DNC would subject itself to legal action if it proceeds with approval of the plan with these terms included.

These voting rights issues constitute a serious vulnerability in the proposed legislation and a threat to its successful enactment and implementation.

Voting Rights Act Pre-Clearance

The June primary proposal is clearly subject to pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act. Because of the voter disqualification feature, together with the other extraordinary circumstances, there is no reason to believe that this review will conclude promptly or without issues raised. The Justice Department is not even required to issue its ruling until 60 days have elapsed. This timeline simply does not fit within the state timeline and may only further delay preparations.

Further, should the Department of Justice object, the state would be barred from proceeding with its plan. Even if the Department pre-clears the election, objections could be pursued further in litigation initiated under another provision (Section 2) of the Voting Rights Act.

Additional Issues: Implications for Litigation
Under the bill, and in connection with meeting the demands of an election under the schedule it establishes, there are additional sources of potential legal challenge. Each of these is addressed briefly here:

(1) Voter Affirmation

The proposed legislation would call for voters to affirm that they have not participated in any other Presidential primary election in this calendar year. Should the election be close, it foreseeable that these affirmations would become a source of challenges, as we have already seen, in Texas, similar demands for the verification of up to one million voters' eligibility. Any such challenge would delay results on a timetable that does not allow for delay.

There is also a significant danger here of potential voter confusion: a voter might affirm that he or she did not participate in any other Presidential primary, by which the voter might mean the prior Democratic primary, with the result that the voter would be subject to investigation for falsely affirming what he or she believed to be true.

The result here could be extensive litigation, embarrassment to the voters, and eventual loss of credibility for the election.

(2) UOCAVA

It is a serious risk that, under the highly compressed timetables established under the proposed bill, Michigan will be unable to satisfy the requirements for compliance with the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which was designed to protect our men and women in uniform, among others. The Election Assistance Commission's report in September, 2007 on the low turn-out in overseas voting called on States and local election authorities to attend closely to the requirements for the timely and reliable delivery and receipt of ballots. The fact that, as noted below, election administrators within Michigan have already raised the potential for administrative strain, if not breakdown, in the proposed June election squarely raises the foreseeable consequences for Michigan's performance of its obligations to these voters under the law.

(3) Strain on Election Preparations

Those with the most detailed knowledge about, and the greatest responsibility for, how well the proposed election will work—the clerks who will actually be charged with administering the election—have stated that the election cannot be planned and administered within this time frame. http://blog.mlive.com/kzgazette/2008/03/saginaw_county_clerk_says_redo.html (reporting the President of the Michigan Association of County Clerks conclusion that "Our software and other equipment are not designed to run (multiple) elections at the same time. There are just so many reasons why this wouldn't work").

The professional judgments in advance of the election, warning of breakdown, will be cited in litigation over any difficulties Michigan experiences over the course of endeavoring to run this election. If breakdowns occur, and especially if the election is close, it is likely that Michigan's attempt to hold this election on this timetable, in the face of these warnings from the responsible local officials, will weigh heavily against its legal position. In any litigation, it is sure to be noted, as in the past, that "Michigan is the largest . . . state that today place{s} responsibility for conducting elections primarily at the municipal level. . . . Some 274 city clerks and 1,242 township clerks . . . are primarily responsible for the actual administration of Michigan elections." Steven F. Huefner, et al., From Registration to Recounts: The Election Ecosystems of Five Midwestern States 88 (2007). An election held without regard to the independent and professional judgment of the responsible officials will, in the event of breakdown, subject the state and the party to adverse consequences in any subsequent legal accounting.

A Note on Financing

I have further reviewed the state's plan to collect the funds needed for this election from private sources. It appears that, under Michigan law, the State may, if it "appropriates" the money by separate enactment, invite private parties, individuals or groups, to contribute on an unlimited basis to support a public function such as this conduct of this election.

To the extent that this extraordinary financing provision raises issues, these arise under the Federal Election Campaign Act of l971. Throughout press accounts, supporters of the proposal and others commenting on it have referred to the private funding as "soft money." Now in formal use following the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, this term covers any funds raised and spent outside the FECA's contribution limits, source restrictions and reporting requirements to influence a federal election. Neither the national party nor candidates may solicit such funds, nor may others "acting on their behalf" as their agents.

We could expect that this issue may be raised—and it has already been identified by a leading reform organization, Democracy 21, a leading supporters of the BCRA "soft money" reforms. http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={93E58584-8019-4201-A02C-4519BC65B974

Since the state is acting on behalf of the party, with the expected assistance of the candidates, a creditable case may be made that all soft monies raised have been impermissibly solicited on behalf of at least the Democratic National Committee and, possibly, Senators Obama and Clinton (to the extent that their donors are encouraged or motivated to volunteer funds). It is therefore well within the realm of possibility that such a case will be made, subjecting the party and its candidates to potential liability.

[WVRevy]

70. BabylonSister...Your post contains

...too many words. You don't actually expect Clinton supporters to grasp a complicated response, do you? If you want to make any impact, you're going to have to simplify it for them.

[bigtree]

86. thanks

[rodeodance]

89. Fine--but Hillary is in MI--arguing for them to be included. Her actually being their is important

[babylonsister]

91. You keep telling yourself that, hon. It's not going to make one iota

of difference where she is. She signed on to the initial pledge, she might just have to live with it. Too bad, so sad.

[rodeodance]

93. ha ha--in the meantime she is showing MI voters she cares. BO is not. simple as that.

neither of knows what the future will bring. But her fighting for the voters "counts"








You keep telling yourself that, hon. It's not going to make one iota

of difference where she is. She signed on to the initial pledge, she might just have to live with it. Too bad, so sad.

[Zhade]

117. Wow - Camp Clinton wants to DISENFRANCHISE some votes in order to win conservative ones!

Here's the REAL truth of the thread!

[powergirl]

36. Turns out Clinton's pledge that Michigan delegates wouldn't count are just "words"

I remember the Clinton campaign, and Clinton herself, so brazenly insisting that there was nothing wrong with the election even though she agreed the results would not count, she would not campaign in MI, and, oh yeah, Obama was not on the ballot. From her own mouth, she was adamant that the Soviet style election should be hers. OUTRAGEOUS!!! Doesn't that make you crazy?? It does me! This is what Republicans do.

Is she a liar for dishonoring her pledge not to count these delegates? Is she a liar for changing her message from "count my Soviet style votes" to "let's have another election?" Which one is it?


:shrug:

[rodeodance]

39. Read the OP ---false claims part.

[powergirl]

40. Clinton made a pledge

she now dishonors the pledge. This is what Republicans do - not Democrats. Notice how Clinton has backed off making the "results" stick b/c her pollers must be telling her that is offensive to the electorate. She made a promise, in writing, and she broke it. I don't want a president who does that. I've had 8 years of that.

[babylonsister]

42. Apparently her word doesn't matter if it gets in the way with what she wants.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/a_history_of_words_on_the_mich.html

A history of 'words' on the Michigan primary

By Jim Tankersley

Hillary Clinton's campaign is extending its "Just Words" attack on Barack Obama to the fate of Michigan's disputed Democratic delegates today -- accusing Obama of backing away from his earlier statement that he would be "fine" with a re-vote in a state that risked losing all its delegates to the Democratic National Convention when it scheduled its primary for mid-January, violating national party rules.

The words that matter most on the subject, it would seem, are more than six months old -- from a pledge that Democratic campaigns agreed to last August and a Clinton press release announcing her support for that pledge.

The pledge reads, in part, "I shall not campaign or participate (emphasis added) 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..."

Today, Clinton's memo argues "Let’s remember that the point of the early state pledge was to protect the role of the four states that held early nominating contests. Well the contests in those states were protected and the people in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada got a chance to vote... Senator Clinton signed the pledge and kept it... Senator Obama decided to go further and made a voluntary decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot."

So the issue would seem to be, what does the word "participate" actually mean?

Read on for the pledge and for the Clinton press releases, then and now.

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a
2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our
presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and
the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the
nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, 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
rules and regulations of the DNC.


Sept. 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."

[powergirl]

44. Thank you again, Babylon sister

This bugs the begeezus out of me. The MSM really needs to call out the Clinton campaign about her lies which are calculated to change the rules of the election.

[babylonsister]

48. You're welcome! Post #34 has the Obama campaign's response to

all of this, FYI.

[rodeodance]

76. HRC is in MI with voters showing she cares. Where is BO?--telling them he does not care.

[powergirl]

102. She cares only about herself - not voters

That is why she marginalizes the "smaller states" and the "caucus states" and those states she doesn't win (include previous two groups in this one). If she really cared about voters, she would not have ignored the caucus states at the beginning of her campaign and she would not be stuck behind Obama. Clinton cares about Clinton. End of sentence. period.

[Zhade]

118. She doesn't care about the voters who ALREADY VOTED.

She's trying to cheat another way, and you approve.

Reprehensible.

[bigtree]

104. Hillary Clinton Counters

Hillary Has Consistently Said That Michigan Matters

3/19/2008 5:09:49 PM

Today, Sen. Obama repeated his charge that Hillary was "disingenuous," claiming she only recently expressed concern about the voters of Michigan:

"Senator Clinton, I have to say on this, has been completely disingenuous. She said when she was still trying to compete with the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count," he said. "Then as soon as she got into trouble politically and it looked like she would have no prospects of winning the nomination without having them count, suddenly she's extraordinarily concerned with the voters there."

Sen. Obama is referring to an October 11, 2007 interview with New Hampshire NPR. She noted that the election scheduled for Michigan would not "count" under the current DNC rules. But she added this, explaining why she kept her name on the ballot:

I did not believe it was fair to just say goodbye Michigan and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009.

Hillary has been stressing the importance of voters of Michigan for months. It's time for Obama to do the right thing for the Democratic party and join her.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6628

[rodeodance]

37. "If Barack Obama doesn’t want to help make that happen, Hillary Clinton is ready to do so."

If Barack Obama doesn’t want to help make that happen, Hillary Clinton is ready to do so. We call on the Obama campaign to let the people of Michigan vote.

[AGirl]

41. I have to say, it is undemocratic for Obama to oppose a revote.

[ORDem]

122. Please show evidence that Obama opposes a re-vote (and no, an HRC press release doesn't count). n/t

:eyes:

[Ysabel]

45. i just keep wondering if hillary...

- is auditioning for a part on the love boat...

[rodeodance]

101. No but

she care for the voters of MI and they see that.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_vH5f59Og-Sc/Rsk8dPZMnAI/AAAAAAAAA7g/JRs1kzPFYOU/s320/rove+obama.jpg

[Capn Sunshine]

47. Two words for you clowns

Break the rules, lose your standing.

[powergirl]

53. I love that Nelson character

He kills me! :toast:

[TwilightGardener]

56. I agree--I don't even know why we're still talking about this. MI and FL brought

it upon themselves.

[BlackVelvet04]

108. No, the voters didn't.....

if was the Democratic leaders, not the voters. Sad to see you don't get the difference.

[rodeodance]

54. Love the sign from a voter: "Michigan votes count"--- Hillary is listening.--Is BO?

[EFerrari]

55. Turns out Clinton think rules are for other people. I've had enough of that. n/t

[rodeodance]

58. BO is giving voters the Brush off. HRC is showing she cares. Enough said te he

[ElsewheresDaughter]

61. amen

[redqueen]

65. Why didn't she care when she *thought* she didn't need their votes?

I guess her 'care' is conditional.

[rodeodance]

78. your false interpretation had no meaning. HRC is there NOW and they like her.

[redqueen]

79. Well good luck to her.

Maybe they don't remember what she said back when she thought she didn't need them.

[rodeodance]

95. Thank you.

[BlackVelvet04]

110. Not true....

Sen. Obama is referring to an October 11, 2007 interview with New Hampshire NPR. She noted that the election scheduled for Michigan would not "count" under the current DNC rules. But she added this, explaining why she kept her name on the ballot:

I did not believe it was fair to just say goodbye Michigan and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009.

Hillary has been stressing the importance of voters of Michigan for months. It's time for Obama to do the right thing for the Democratic party and join her.

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6628

[Zhade]

119. She doesn't care that those who voted before WON'T GET TO VOTE AGAIN.

It's another form of cheating from the power-hungry Clinton campaign.

[krawhitham]

60. The state legislature voted it down - How does OB get blamed for that?

[redqueen]

63. They're all in thrall to THE OBAMA! He is ALL POWERFUL!

That, or the claims are utter BS.

[rodeodance]

100. because it

is BO who is dragging his feet. Hillary is in MI.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_vH5f59Og-Sc/Rsk8dPZMnAI/AAAAAAAAA7g/JRs1kzPFYOU/s320/rove+obama.jpg

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[LostinVA]

64. "Hag" is a very sexist term

[rodeodance]

80. "hag is saying"---WHY ARE you using such Sexist language!!!!

[OzarkDem]

66. Shape shifter Obama is at it again

In fact, he's been very "elusive" on this issue as well as many others of late.

[totodeinhere]

68. You know as much as we do that this is all just politics.

You can fake outrage about this if you want, but does anyone in their right mind doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot then Obama and Clinton would reverse positions on this issue?

[Diane R]

71. Hillary just can't stand it that she's stomping her foot, and no one is letting her have her way.

[rodeodance]

77. ha ha BO best get to MI--HRC is there and the voters she that she cares about them.

[futureliveshere]

73. HRC continues her scorched earth policy

Here is the link from the Politico Ben Smith's article. No where is Barack Obama's name even mentioned. So how the f*** did the HRC camp come up with this ridiculous accusation that BO wants to dis-enfranchise the Michigan (or FL for that matter) voters?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Doover_is_dead.html


A Lansing insider IMs to explain the latest development:

The Senate Dems just had a long caucus meeting following their long phone call with the Gang of Four , and the result is that no one moved. Votes aren't there. Thus, it will not go to a vote in the Senate. And barring some other last minute miracle that doesn't involve those four, the governor and Hillary traveling to Michigan, it is dead as a doornail.

[rodeodance]

83. She is talking to the voters of MI. Where is BO?

[Zhade]

120. Is she telling the voters who voted previously they can't vote again?

Or is she deceiving voters - again - by not telling them the whole truth?

[McCamy Taylor]

82. Clinton's logic is sound as usual. I like logic. Logic gets things done.

[McCamy Taylor]

85. BTW, McGovern got the nomination in 1972 by being logical and using the rules.

Right now, the campaign which is acting most like George McGovern 1972 is the Hillary Clinton campaign. Not too surprising,since she and Bill helped with his campaign. McGovern did not win with rhetoric. He and his people won the old fashioned way. They studied the rules and they figured out how to get the delegates.

[Iceburg]

90. Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on . /nt

[VotesForWomen]

96. O wants to 'win' without 2 of the biggest, most important states in the country counting.

[jackson_dem]

97. Can we now call him Jeb Obama?

[judaspriestess]

99. kick

n/t

[RBInMaine]

103. Obama HAS NOT said he wouldn't accept a re-vote. Where does this shit come from???

He has said he'd accept a FAIR re-vote and one approved by the DNC. Hillary wants it ALL her way, and has even been so outrageous as to say that the MICHIGAN vote already cast (although hers was the only name on the ballot) should stand as is. And that's being defended?? Are you Hillary fans that insane??? Or just that GREEDY for power???
Obama is not saying no to a re-vote. He just wants a fair one. And, it is the MI legislature that has to vote for one, and they are saying the votes aren't there. So just hold onto your asses, and give this a chance to work out.

[LittleClarkie]

105. Why are you including pictures of Hillary in your post. Do you think her behavior is better?

Like being the only one on the ballot and then declaring oneself the winner?

[bigtree]

106. Obama took himself off of the ballot on his own initiative -- political posturing

. . . tripped him up.

BTW, the voters of Michigan who participated in that primary election 'declared' Hillary Clinton the 'winner.'

[LittleClarkie]

109. In a primary that didn't count, where non-committed was around 40%

Interesting that 40% even bothered to come out just to vote non-committed.

Still a bogus win for Hillary. And staying in the race rather than following her fellow Dems off the ballot was political posturing in MY book. "Fuck the DNC, I want those vote in November," I reckon was the thought process. Not much love lost in the Hillary camp for Howard Dean.

[bigtree]

111. That 40% was spread among several other candidates

She still bettered them.

Posturing was removing yourself from a ballot you know you wouldn't win, anyway.

[RBInMaine]

124. BS ! ALL (or virtually all) EXCEPT Hillary took their names off.

You Hillary people are misinformed and like your candidate selling your souls for power. This is BS ! Obama will accept a FAIR process to seat the delegates. MI and FL screwed up ! They broke the rules of their own free will, and were rightly sanctioned. Grow up and get real !

[bigtree]

125. you're yelling at me for something your candidate did on his own initiative

There was no agreement that candidates' names would be removed. Obama took his off because he calculated he could benefit more from appeasing the DNC. He had every opportunity to leave his on, but at that point in the campaign, he figured he'd lose badly and wanted that trouncing to be obscured in the 'undecided' vote.

[rodeodance]

112. Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally in Detroit, Wednesday, March 19, 2008

[AX10]

114. Of course Obama opposes this.

These states favor HRC and he knows it. He is willing to disenfranchise them in order to win.
Obama is just another politician. But he is worse because he pretends to be above it all when he engages in the same tactics that most of the others
do.

[ORDem]

121. Nice. Use a quote saying he's for it then just use Clinton's words that he's against it.

Hillary's middle name is Disingenuous.

She knows damn well that no MI re-vote is going to happen (and that such a re-vote would benefit Obama) so she's just milking some trumped up nonsense against him. She is pure politics all the way, not a genuine non-self-serving bone in her body.

:dem:

[bigtree]

126. and everything Axelrod and crew are doing is pure and unquestionable

. . . according to Obama's supporters. It's ALL politics. If Obama's politics can't win the day, that's a measure of his own weakness, just as much as it's some indictment on the character of his opponent's campaign. And, I don't think the expectation is that Obama would win Michigan. If Clinton knows this, that would make all of the fuss over some nefarious motive moot. This is about getting votes out of Michigan, and, I believe she expects to do just that.

[bigtree]

127. Speech in Michigan yesterday in which Hillary Clinton made her criticisms

. . . and proposals.

{snip}

Every voice should have the chance to be heard and every vote counted. This goes way beyond this election and it goes way beyond who's running, because no matter where you were born, or how much money you were born into, no matter where you worship or the color of your skin, it is a bedrock American principle that we are all equal in the voting booth. For me, it has been a long struggle to get to the point where barriers were knocked down and doors opened and we still haven't completed that journey.

But it is the vote that has given voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless. It is through that vote that women, African American, Latinos and so many others have claimed their rights as full and equal citizens. We have made our laws more just and our society more fair. Each vote is a declaration of our dreams for our children and a reflection of our prayers for our nation's future. That is why generations of brave men and women marched and protested, risked and gave their lives for this right.

It is because of them that both Senator Obama and I stand before you as candidates for the Democratic nomination. It is because of all those who came before that we are both in this race today. We should carry on that legacy by saying clearly that we will protect and cherish the right to vote for all people.

I’ve always stood up for voting rights. I’m proud of the legislation I’ve sponsored in the Senate to assure that every eligible voter can count and every vote is counted and I will always defend your right to vote, no matter whom you choose to vote for in the end, it is not about that at all. Because I believe that Michigan’s families are just as important as the families of any other state. The father in Detroit wants the same opportunities for his children as the father in Des Moines, and he deserves the same voice in the future. The mother in Lansing needs access to health care just as much as the mother in Los Angeles, and she deserves the same voice and how we will provide quality, affordable health care to everyone. The families in the U.P. need good paying jobs that stay right here in America just as much as the families in Central PA, and they deserve the same voice in trying to get that done. The soldiers from across this great state need a Commander-in-Chief who will end the war in Iraq and bring them home.

They certainly deserve the same voice in choosing that person. That’s why I’ve been saying for some time that the people of Michigan and Florida must have a voice in selecting our nominee for president. I have called repeatedly for an agreement that would seat Michigan delegates at our national convention, because I believe your voices and your votes should count. When others made the decision to remove their names from the ballot, I didn't, because I believe your voices and your votes should count. That's why I’ve been saying we need to either count the votes that have already been cast in Michigan and Florida or have new, full, and fair elections so that we can have your voices and your votes counted.

Senator Obama speaks passionately on the campaign trail about empowering the American people. Today, I’m urging him to match those words with action, to make sure the people of Michigan and Florida have a voice and a vote in this election. I have accepted the plan for a new vote in Michigan, proposed in draft legislation and approved by the Democratic National Committee. In fact, the DNC put out a statement earlier this morning making clear that the proposal fits within the DNC rules. It is fully within the party's rules. I call on Senator Obama to do the same.


full speech: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=6631