Why Obama Doesn't Want Michigan and Florida Seated or Re-voted

[kennetha]

It has nothing to do with "the rules." It has everything to do with the fact that if Michigan and Florida are seated as voted, his "lead" practically evaporates. HIs pledged delegate lead would be reduced to something like 100 and his overall delegate lead would be reduced to something like 60. Also his popular vote lead would be instantly cut in half.

Supposed that happened tomorrow. The "narrative" of this race would instantly change. No longer would there be talk of an "insurmountable" delegate lead. No longer would there be the illusion that he was likely to be leading in popular vote at the end of the day -- especially with his declining poll numbers as a result of the Wright hit. The whole buzz would change.

Even if the Florida and Michigan are not seated as already voted, the prospect of late primaries in these two states would have a very similar effect on the narrative of the campaign -- especially if there was any chance of Hillary replicating her earlier margins in these two key states, as the bloom started wear off the Obama rose.

So you can see that it's absolutely vital if Obama is to maintain control of the narrative that Michigan and Florida must not be allowed to be seated as voted or re-voted. Of course, the Obama campaign can't come flat out and say that, since that would utterly doom them with voters in Florida and Michigan and probably also with super delegates in Florida and Michigan. Instead the dissemble and chatter about the sanctity of "the rules." But I think people are finally starting to see through that empty self-serving chatter and dissembling.

You can accuse Hillary of "playing politics" on this one for sure. But I'd rather be in a position where my political self-interests converge with those of the voters (Hilary's position) than in a position where my political self-interest diverge from those of the voters (Barack's position). Ultimately the latter is losing proposition and the former is a winning proposition.

[Little Star]

1. .

[WVRevy]

2. The only "self-serving chatter" I see is from Hillary

Back in October, she made the comment that the Michigan and Florida primaries were pointless, since they would not be counted. Of course, back in October, she had no idea she'd get her ass handed to her in two out of every three states. Now, suddenly, those votes in Michigan and Florida aren't so pointless?

And they accuse Obama supporters of drinking Kool Aid. :banghead:

[kennetha]

9. What Hillary Actually said and Why Obama Acted as he did

The Democratic National Committee has asked candidates to bypass the Michigan contest because the state broke party rules by moving up its presidential primary before Feb. 5, but Clinton has said it would be foolish to take her name off Michigan's primary ballot and sacrifice her chances against the Republican nominee in November 2008.

http://www.wsbt.com/news/michigan/10674161.html">Michigan Gov. Granholm Endorses Hillary Clinton For President

If you read closely, you'll notice that "the rules" did not require these candidates to remove their names.


Some people thought it was smart politics (not moral superiority) to remove your name from the ballot because (a) Hillary was going to win Michigan anyway and (b) it would win you favor with NH and IA voters.

Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware - joined by John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - declared yesterday that they would not be candidates in the state's primary. Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Chris Dodd of Connecticut - who, like all of the Democratic candidates, have pledged not to actively campaign in the state - chose to remain on the ballot.
The decisions serve political purposes for many of the candidates. Clinton, who has been well ahead in the polls in Michigan, may end up with a strong showing that gives momentum to her campaign, even if the DNC follows through on its threat to refuse to seat convention delegates

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/10/five_democratic_hopefuls_pull_names_off_michigan_ballot/">Five Democratic hopefuls pull names off Michigan ballot

Here's a quote, for example, from the contemporaneous discussion on Ben Smith's Politico explicitly making the "smart politics" point.

Hillary's people want the early Michigan and Flordia promaries so that name ID and national perceptions can blunt the impact of early state voters who actually see the candidtes close up and make deliberative decisions. I think it is smart for these guys to take their names off the ballot because it will mke it much more difficult for Hillary to use "wins" in these states to reverse momentum built against her if she stumbles in the legit early states.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Off_the_balllot_in_Michigan.html">Off the ballot in Michigan

More about the competing motivations of various campaigns here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/top-democrats-pull-from-michigan/">Three Democrats Pull From Michigan, Clinton Stays In

[WVRevy]

17. Nothing but speculation

It may be accurate, but it really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that she once said the state's primary was meaningless, but now that she's losing, she suddenly feels for the people of the state.

[sybylla]

63. Then by your reasoning, Obama would have nothing to lose by a revote

If he removed his name from the ballot to "win IA and NH votes" then, now that he has won them, he should have no problem with a revote.

Could it actually be that it has something to do with RULES and refusing to reward powermongers after all.

[kennetha]

75. He fears he would get creamed in a re-vote.

especially following on the Wright thing. He doesn't want Hillary to close out the primaries with a string of victories in large states. Again, he doesn't care about the voters. He cares only about himself. He's actually at odds with the interests of the voters. Strange place for a politician in a democracy to be in. Sort of reminds of Bush and Cheney on the war.

[fadedrose]

97. Just heard on news that....

The MI redo would have been paid for privately by TEN CLINTON SUPPORTERS. Also heard yesterday that people who voted Repub to pick an easier candidate won't be able to revote. Maybe the Obama people don't trust an HRC redo under those circumstances.

I wouldn't trust them. One botched-up primary is enough for one cycle.

[BigDDem]

11. "she made the comment that the Michigan and Florida

primaries were pointless"

Please provide link, thanks.

[WVRevy]

16. Here you go

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859_pf.html

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program.

...and later...

Clinton said she wouldn't campaign there, but isn't about to hurt her own chances.

"If you look at the some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow. And it wasn't, in my view, meaningful...

That simple enough for ya'?

[BigDDem]

19. I missed the "pointless"

please provide that quote.

That simple enough for ya?

[WVRevy]

23. Oh, for christ's sake...

...by a fucking thesaurus.

Pointless = Meaningless

[BigDDem]

94. Dont tell me words dont matter

:rofl:

[kennetha]

22. Typical of how Obama supporters operate!

THe first paragraph reads as follows:

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

And then later:

Clinton was prompted by a caller who said, "It strikes me that this is politics as usual, where politicians say one thing and do something else."

Clinton brushed aside the comment.

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

What's clear is that your candidate made one set of political calculations -- about blunting the impact of Michigan -- while my candidate made a different set of calculations. But your candidate is now pretending to be "above" politics and my candidate has political interests that are exactly aligned with the interest of the voters of Michigan and Florida.

[SoonerPride]

25. SHE SIGNED A PLEDGE NOT TO PARTICIPATE

How daft are you?

She said she wouldn't participate.

Taking the results = participation in the process. Get it?

Hillary is a liar.

[kennetha]

28. Obama (and Edwards) urged his supporters to vote uncommitted in MI

His supporters heeded them and did vote uncommitted. Hillary actually did nothing but leave her name on the ballot.

Come on admit it. Be honest. You're just saying what you're saying as a smokescreen. Admit that you'd do anything to get your candidate nominated. You're not interest in fairness or morality or the voters of Michigan. You're just interested in Obama winning -- and by any means necessary.

[SoonerPride]

32. SHE IS A LIAR.

Period.

You can't get around that fact.

She SIGNED A PLEDGE not to participate and now wants to participate by accepting an illegal vote which she herself said didn't count for anything.

Well, that makes her a LIAR.

I want people not to LIE to me.

And listen, I voted for clinton on Super Tuesday. I wante her to win. But not by being a LIAR. I want her to honor her PLEDGE.

Michigan and Florida DO NOT COUNT by her own SIGNED PLEDGE. Get it?

SHE IS A LIAR.

[WVRevy]

52. Sure they did. Know why?

Because they knew the crooked ***** would try to spin it into a victory if she found herself trailing at some point.

Big surprise...look what's happening.

[WVRevy]

26. What the hell are you talking about?

The only relevant part of her comments is that she views the primary as not counting for anything. The rest is just bullshit excuses for keeping her name on the ballot when everyone else pulled theirs off.

[kennetha]

30. Right!

You quote selectively. You get to decide what a person's real motivations are because you know better than they what they mean or think.

[SoonerPride]

35. SHE SIGNED A PLEDGE.

Get around that FACT.

[kennetha]

53. she honored the pledge not to campaign!

Obama actually did campaign, though not in the state, but on behalf of uncommitted.

So if anybody broke the pledge, he did.

[SoonerPride]

54. No, she signed a pledge not to PARTICIPATE.

Not campaign.

Now you are lying.

Shame on you.

The text of the pledge is not to "participate"

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 ensure 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 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.

[WVRevy]

56. Yeah, and having her shill campaign for her

was nothing on her part, right? Oh...you DID know about the governor very publicly supporting Hillary leading up to the faux primary, right?

[WVRevy]

45. I linked to the fucking article!

If I was "quoting selectively" in order to hide something, I wouldn't have linked to the entire text. She said that the vote was meaningless, and she was leaving her name on the ballot to make it look good for November. That's ALL that really matters out of that article.

[wileedog]

89. Yeah, I'm really hoping to have another President

who will say one thing when it is expedient and another thing when it no longer is. I can never get enough of my President lying to my face when his/her 'political interests' don't 'line up' with mine. Can't wait for another 8 years of it.

[GOTV]

3. You've provided no evidence of what Obama's motivation is. You took a self serving guess.

Nor have you provided a reason for a mid-primary change of rules.

[rodeodance]

58. Ha ha--like the BO supporter so do, Stop the WHIN

[GOTV]

105. Drinking and Posting do not mix. n/t

[flor de jasmim]

4. Have you read the previous threads on this issue?

[NJmaverick]

5. Hillary ran unopposed in Michigan

and thinks it would be "UnAmerican" to not count those results. Doesn't that call into question her judgement and what she thinks is "American?

[kennetha]

10. Pure strategic political calculation by her opponents

Being spun as something morally superior. Utter disingenuous nonsense that the press and Obama enablers have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Abandon the power of critical thinking all ye who enter here.

[SoonerPride]

21. Bottom line is Hillary's PLEDGED WORD means jack squat

Because she will take a pledged oath and ignore it 90 days later.

That is so utterly craven and foul it turns my stomach.

[snappyturtle]

61. Ditto. n/t

[democrattotheend]

6. They should not be seated as is. But he should agree to a revote in Michigan.

His concerns about the current proposal are valid, but I do feel like he might be stalling. He needs to put forward a counter-proposal. But seating them as is is ridiculous.

With respect to Florida, I think the best option, one that he should propose, is to seat half the delegates but no superdelegates.

[olkaz]

7. You don't get it. At all.

Everybody knew as far back as August of last year (and even earlier, actually), that Michigan and Florida would not count. They moved up their date, the DNC said it wouldn't count. They repeated it over and over. Both candidates knew that the votes wouldn't count, so they didn't campaign there.

So now, we're supposed to care? This was months and months ago! They could have had this resolved waaaaaaay before now and avoided this whole thing! But no. They wanted to play games. Break a deal, face the wheel. Period. It's the state leadership at fault.

I'm not about to disenfranchise the other 48 states with quickie abberation elections that are likely to produce bizarre results, just to satiate a Hillary's feigned interest in the rights of voters in both states.

God, the whole situation makes me sick to my stomach. Michigan and Florida folks, I feel for you, but your leadership is borderline retarded. We're not going to change the rules midstream for you.

[SoCalDem]

20. I blame the SoS & governors of BOTH states..

They KNEW the vote would be null/void and SHOULD have totally eliminated the presidential part of it.. If there were other issues to vote on, they should have been the ONLY things on the ballot..

they were playing electoral chicken with the DNC and they ALL knew it..

failing that, they could have/should have put ALL names on the ballot and not allowed ANY to be removed..and THEN they should have advertised the election like crazy and TOLD people to be sure and vote IN CASE the ban get overturned later..

they tried to sneak two HRC victories under the radar..before Obama & the others even had a chance (she WAS the presumed big winner, remember)..and that would tee up her big Super Tuesday Slam-Bam..(they thought she would be a close 2nd after Edwards in Iowa) and would Blow-out NH..and by Feb 5, it would all be over..


She crashed & burned and then lost 12 in a row..
they gambled and they lost..

[olkaz]

24. That is the perfect synopsis of why they're interested now.

"She crashed & burned and then lost 12 in a row..
they gambled and they lost.."

Exactamundo. They could care less about those two states. Only states like California and New York count.

[sybylla]

85. Thank you for saying this so well.

I'm so tired of all the whining about Michigan and Florida. It's not something the candidates have a final say over. It's not something the DNC should rewrite the rules for. It's just not our problem. Period.

I sympathize with the Democratic voters in those states, but they are the only ones who can do something about their party leadership. Whitewashing this with some kind of trumped up rules change will never encourage them to clean up the mess there and can only encourage other states to pull the same crap in 4 years.

Somehow, HRC wants to make this a campaign issue. It's not and it shouldn't be. Anyone who believes in the integrity of the party should be applauding the DNC for the way they have handled this to date.

Anything else is like sending a child to a corner for a time out one minute only to let them off the hook the next on top of letting them do the thing you sent them to the corner for in the first place. Tough noogies.

As for those who say that we will lose Michigan and Florida in the GE must be certain their Dem parties are so weak they can't handle the PR in a year that so few want to vote for a Republican. That's just pure hogwash.

[olkaz]

95. negative encouragement

"Whitewashing this with some kind of trumped up rules change will never encourage them to clean up the mess there and can only encourage other states to pull the same crap in 4 years. "

This is a huge point. The DNC can't let individual states run roughshod over the system in an attempt to make their votes more important. The order could be changed by seeking an agreement with the other states and with the DNC, but doing it by blatantly and unashamedly for selfish reasons, there will be a price. You can bet that this crap won't happen again now.

The only people screaming for a revote are either:

-People who don't understand what happened

or

-Hillary supporters who are overturning every rock looking for more delegates.

The thing that really surprises me are my fellow John Edwards supporters (after he dropped out, I flipped to Obama) going for the ride on this thing. Guys! Edwards did the right thing too, he took his name off the ballot! That's what he was supposed to do, just like Obama did.

I think I'm wearing a palm imprint on my face.

[global1]

8. Are There Any Polls In Mich & FL With Respect To A Re-Vote?........

Has there been any polling conducted in these states to indicate how a re-vote might go?

As I recall - in Florida - there was a huge early vote.

I'm wondering if the candidates actually went into these states now - would the outcome be different. The people of these two states will now have had more of an opportunity to see and hear the candidates. Many may have changed their minds. And Obama has been very good at moving people when given time to campaign.

At best Hillary may win a few delegates or she might lose the whole enchilada. Any poll numbers?

[bluedog]

36. new St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 statewide poll

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campaign 2008

Howard Dean and Barack Obama may insist Florida's Democratic presidential primary was meaningless, but Florida Democrats aren't buying it.

According to a new St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 statewide poll, the Democratic presidential contenders' boycott of Florida had little effect on Democratic voters' choices here, and an overwhelming plurality want the officially meaningless Jan. 29 results to count.

Also, one in four might not vote for the party's nominee if Florida winds up with no say in the Democratic nomination.

"If there's one thing that this survey says, it's that you have to acknowledge the Jan. 29 primary on some level,'' said pollster Tom Eldon, of Schroth, Eldon & Associates, which conducted the poll of registered Democratic voters. "You really can't say the Florida primary was a nonevent to voters. It was a nonevent to (DNC chairman) Howard Dean according to the rules of the DNC."

A record 1.75-million Florida Democrats voted in the January primary, which Hillary Rodham Clinton won by 17 percentage points, but as punishment for holding the election earlier than allowed by Democratic National Committee rules, no delegates were at stake. Now, as a nomination stalemate looms in the close race, the candidates and state and national party leaders are struggling to figure out how and if America's biggest swing state can be counted.

Twice as many Clinton supporters — 56 percent to 27 percent — want the Florida primary to count. Still, even among Obama supporters polled, the idea of counting the January primary is slightly more popular than holding a new election or dividing Florida's delegates evenly between the two candidates.

"We've been not counted so often and especially in this state that has felt for so many years that our vote doesn't count, to not count our votes again would be so detrimental — especially for our youth,'' said Tallahassee resident Molly Gosline, 45, executive director of a nonprofit group and a Clinton supporter.

But Carly Loiseau, a 29-year-old nurse and Obama supporter in Wesley Chapel, didn't bother voting in January because she knew Florida had no delegates. Loiseau said it would be unfair to count the election now.

"I blame the state of Florida, the Democratic Party. They knew the rules and they could have followed the rules like the rest of the country, but they chose not to,'' said Loiseau, a nurse.

Other key findings in the poll:

• Obama has gained strength in Florida since the January vote, with Clinton's lead down to 9 points, 46 percent to 37 percent. Clinton holds the advantage among white Democrats, by 33 points, and among Hispanics, 20 points, while Obama leads among African-Americans, 74 percent to 12 percent.

• Florida Democrats point blame for the primary debacle in several directions: 28 percent blame Republican leaders in the Legislature, 25 percent blame Dean and 20 percent blame the Florida Democratic Party.

• The state party's decision to scrap a proposal for a do-over primary by mail looks wise, as fewer than 1 in 10 Democrats said they consider that the best solution. Only one in four said they would trust a mail-in election to show the will of the people.

• The marathon primary appears to have hardened feelings among Obama and Clinton supporters in Florida, with 52 percent saying the process has hurt Democrats' chances in November.

The telephone survey of 600 registered and frequent Democratic voters in Florida was conducted March 15-17 for the St. Petersburg Times, Bay News 9 and the Miami Herald. The poll was done by Schroth, Eldon & Associates, whose clients primarily are Democrats. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Both candidates voluntarily signed oaths that they would not campaign in Florida, and there has been a battle for perceptions ever since over whether the contest was meaningful without active campaigning.

The poll suggests that most Florida Democrats think it was.

Only 15 percent of those surveyed said their main interest in the Jan. 29 election was the Amendment 1 tax reform initiative, while 43 percent said the Democratic primary was the big draw and 40 percent said both were equally important to them. Likewise, 56 percent said the lack of campaigning had "no effect at all" and 16 percent said it had a "major effect."

Even if many of the Democrats who say they may not back the party nominee in November as a result of the delegate mess eventually soften, the Times poll underscores the serious implications in a state notorious for dead-heat races.

"I would not want to be Howard Dean watching a Florida recount with a thousand-vote (spread) and seeing 23 percent of the Democratic votes having gone to John McCain, (and) meanwhile I refused to compromise to seat the Florida delegation,'' said Eldon. "Because if that happens, Howard Dean will be the new Ralph Nader."

But before Democrats worry about the general election, they have to resolve the nomination.

More than one in five supporters of Obama and Clinton said they would not be satisfied if the other candidate won, but half said they would like to see either Clinton or Obama wind up as the vice presidential candidate.

That prospect was much more appealing to Clinton backers — 59 percent like the idea of Obama as a running mate. Only 42 percent of Obama supporters like Clinton in the No. 2 slot.

Male Florida Democrats narrowly prefer Obama, and Democrats under 49 support him over Clinton. But the former first lady leads handily among older voters and women, and she leads Obama among white men.

Obama is strongest among Democrats in the conservative Panhandle, where 44 percent back the Illinois senator and 42 percent the New York senator, even though it's a statistical tie. In South Florida, where Clinton was 16 points ahead in a January poll, her lead has shrunk to three percentage points — 45 percent to 42 percent, also a statistical tie.

In the Tampa Bay area, though, Clinton leads Obama 48 percent to 30 percent.

Count Raymond Alonzo, an 81-year-old retiree of Valrico, among the enthusiastic Clinton supporters in the bay area disgusted by talk of Florida's primary not mattering: "What's the point of having an election if it's not going to count?"

Adam C. Smith can be reached at [e-mail] or [phone].


http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article423340.ece






C:\Documents and Settings\kathy\My Documents\My Pictures

[gayron]

12. He does not want the votes to count

Because he would be in a small lead or behind clinton. I tell you what, here in FL if they do not count our votes, we will make sure he looses FL. I live here.

[Inuca]

13. And I am sure that you speak for ALL floridians, right? n/t

[gayron]

73. I do

He will never win here, not in a primiary nor GE!

[Inuca]

91. Congratulations

you must be very well connected

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. So if he's the nominee, you will vote for the republican?

GET THE FUCK OFF MY DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND!

[rocktivity]

14. Hillary needs at least 65 percent of the vote in ALL the remaning contests

just to catch up with Obama. MI and FL won't give her that.

:headbang:
rocknation

[kennetha]

18. Nonsense.

Another disingenuous bit of Obama propaganda parading as fairness. If Michigan and Florida were seated tomorrow, Obama's overall delegate lead would be about 60, his "pledged" delegate lead would be around 100. Who cares? Because Obama has 100 more delegates the supers are supposed to flocked to him en masse like lemmings without an independent voice.

Nonsense. A delegate is a delegate. A vote is a vote.

[wileedog]

27. A vote is not a vote

when one candidates name is not even on the friggin ballot. What kind of democracy are you practicing exactly?

How can anyone even suggest seating MI or an invalid vote in FL with a straight face is beyond me.

[kennetha]

34. Your candidate TOOK his name off the ballot

as part of a strategic calculation. And THEN he explicitly URGED his supporters to vote uncommitted. Many did -- something like 40%. That's a pretty good guage of Hillary's, Edwards', and Obama's relative strength at the time.

Do you disagree? (I bet you do) Why? (Cause it's inconvenient for you and your candidate, I'm guessing. But of course you can't admit that.)

[SoonerPride]

43. and YOUR CANDIDATE SIGNED A PLEDGE NOT TO PARTICIPATE.

Get that?

SHE IS A LIAR.

You still can't repl to that because it is a FACT.

[wileedog]

77. And your candidate said

"This clearly doesn't count."

And now she wants it to because she desperately needs the votes.

Do you not see the hypocrisy (I bet you don't). And why? (Cause it's inconvenient for you and your candidate, I'm guessing. But of course you can't admit that.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. He took his name off the ballot at the request of the DNC.

This is not, essentially, about Hillary v. Barak. It is about the feud between the DLC and the DNC. The DLC has tried to become the Democratic establishment, and to a large degree succeeded - but were thwarted when McAuliffe was replaced by the Dean insurgency.

Since the DLC's raison d'etre is to keep power out of the hands of insurgents and populists, and in the hands of the conservative, corporatists wing of the party, this showdown was inevitable.

This fight will break the party. There will be no kiss & make up if the DLC torpedoes Dean and the DNC. The left will abandon the party, and the right will go to the republican because they don't care about principles, only about winning. The centrists will oversee the last days of the Democrats and in two cycles will have gone the way of the Whigs.

FUCK the DLC.

[rocktivity]

110. But she'd STILL be behind.

And she'd STILL have to win by at least 30% the rest of the way if she wants to have any kind of a legitimate case to plead before the superdelegates. They have to re-apply for THEIR jobs in November, too!

:headbang:
rocknation

[kennetha]

15. Obama Supporters are often so Disingenuous

Look, the calculation to take his name off the ballot was a purely political calculation to try to enable him to blunt an anticipated Clinton victory there -- especially when it looked like Hillary might win IA and NH. But of course she didn't win IA.


Look back at what was being said about the MI situation at the time.

The Democratic National Committee has asked candidates to bypass the Michigan contest because the state broke party rules by moving up its presidential primary before Feb. 5, but Clinton has said it would be foolish to take her name off Michigan's primary ballot and sacrifice her chances against the Republican nominee in November 2008.

http://www.wsbt.com/news/michigan/10674161.html">Michigan Gov. Granholm Endorses Hillary Clinton For President

If you read closely, you'll notice that "the rules" did not require these candidates to remove their names.


Some people thought it was smart politics (not moral superiority) to remove your name from the ballot because (a) Hillary was going to win Michigan anyway and (b) it would win you favor with NH and IA voters.

Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware - joined by John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - declared yesterday that they would not be candidates in the state's primary. Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Chris Dodd of Connecticut - who, like all of the Democratic candidates, have pledged not to actively campaign in the state - chose to remain on the ballot.
The decisions serve political purposes for many of the candidates. Clinton, who has been well ahead in the polls in Michigan, may end up with a strong showing that gives momentum to her campaign, even if the DNC follows through on its threat to refuse to seat convention delegates

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/10/five_democratic_hopefuls_pull_names_off_michigan_ballot/">Five Democratic hopefuls pull names off Michigan ballot

[RaleighNCDUer]

96. Do you even read what you write?

Obama was NOT worried about Hillary's pending victory in IA. He had his people on the ground there and KNEW he was going to win it. It was she and her followers that were deluding themselves about her 'inevitability'.

This is all about the DLC trying to seize control of the party, the way the neocons seized control of the republican party. And like the neocons, they don't care if they gut their own party in their bid for power.

FUCK THE DLC

[scheming daemons]

29. "Replicating her earlier margins"? How does she do better than 55-0 in MI????

:shrug:


You think she'd win MI by 55% over Obama again?

[kennetha]

31. Obama urged his supporters to vote uncommitted

So did Edwards. 40% voted uncommitted. I think that's a pretty good guage of their relative strengths at the time.

[scheming daemons]

33. Um...no..... Michigan turnout was VERY low........

because, as even Hillary said in October of 2007, "the Michigan Primary doesn't count for anything."


A new primary would have incredible turnout..... and that would be bad news for Hillary.

[kennetha]

37. Let's put your hunch to the test

I bet at this stage Obama is such damaged goods with working class whites that Hillary does even better in MI.

[SoonerPride]

40. Too bad you won't get to find out.

Because the Michigan Senate doesn't want a re-vote and they were especially turned off when Clinton showed up yesterday touting her plan to have her cronies fund a re-vote. So they killed it. Because of her involvement, THEY KILLED IT.

[scheming daemons]

93. Michigan has a relative high AA population for a northern state......

..Obama would win there.


But I wouldn't mind putting the hunch to the test. Don't blame Obama for the Michigan legislature's failure to have a revote.

Obama's not stopping them.

[SoonerPride]

38. Then how come Clinton doesn't want Obama to get the uncommitted votes?

She only wants to take HER votes in clear violation of her signed PLEDGE.

SHE IS A LIAR.

[kennetha]

39. Gosh, Obama folks are fearful

The rhetoric on this bespeaks a fear, I think, that they are losing control of the public narrative and with it their moral claim to the nomination. Turns out politics is just politics after all.

[SoonerPride]

41. Gosh, Hillary is a liar who is violating her signed pledge.

Get around that.

[adoraz]

42. MI was a fair vote is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard

great idea! lets give Hillary over 50% of the popular vote and delegates and give Obama nothing because he wasn't on the ballot!

Yes it was a strategic move for Obama to take his name off the ballot. No shit. Everything is done by strategy.

The fact is, rules are rules. Thats all there is to it.

There is no way in hell they will give Hillary the votes and delegates from MI and give Obama nothing.

[kennetha]

44. Let's see

One candidate decides to run in a state and gets some votes. Another candidate decides not to run in a state and gets no votes. And the candidate who decided not to run says to the candidate who decided to run "You shouldn't get any votes because I decided not to run."

Wow! What logic!

[dionysus]

47. clearly thinking isn't your strong suit...

[SoonerPride]

48. All candidates signed a PLEDGE.

You still haven't replied ONCE on her violation of her signed pledge not to particiapte, thus making her a LIAR.

Can you just accept it and move on?

Hillary Clinton is a LIAR.

[dionysus]

46. and having fraudulent primaries count would make hillary look good!?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Orsino]

49. Sure. Just ignore the ballots with only one candidate listed, Comrade.

Can we please stop pretending to have forgotten the pledge?

[SoonerPride]

51. I've only posted about the pledge 10 times

.....and this one won't even reply.

She could at least admit Clinton is a liar and that she's ok with her lies.

Instead she does the head in the sand nonsense.

[kennetha]

57. The pledge

Didn't require them to remove their names from the ballot. The pledge did not rule out any subsequent petition to the credentials committee. The pledge wasn't enforced by the DNC. It was a pledge to NH and IA. So what's your point in constantly citing this pledge as a reason for not seating the FL and MI delegations?

My guess is more self-serving logic by another drinker of the Obama kool-aid.

[SoonerPride]

62. The Pledge said they wouldn't PARTICIPATE. And she signed IT!!!!

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 ensure 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 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.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't know much clearer it needs to be. She said she wouldn't participate in the MI and FL primaries and now wants to participate in them by accepting the outcomes fo the bogus votes. SHE IS A LIAR.

[kennetha]

66. Jeepers

What do you think "participate" means here. Why are you placing so much weight on that word.

Again, this is just more self-serving logic on your part. Why can't you just admit that your only interest is in seeing Obama nominated. That you'll do anything and say anything to see that happen. You have no real objective argument against seating the votes or re-voting. Again, the credentials committee has it within its power to vote to seat the delegations. DO you really think this "pledge" would prevent them from doing so? Only pure power politics is at play here.

[SoonerPride]

71. I think participate means what it means. PARTICIPATE.

Worse than "what the meaning of is is" your ability to parse words.

Particpate = take any part in. Involved in. Part of. In.

They all agreed not to be a aprt of, in any form, and for ALL TIME any early votes in MI & FL.

There is no gettign around it.

She is a liar who is breakign her signed PLEDGED word.

"I will not participate" until it becomes convenient for me to do so, was not the pledge she signed.

It is crystal clear what was meant.

And that she is a liar.

[Orsino]

74. The weight's on the word because it's used in the damned pledge.

Whether or not you consider a signed pledge binding, or whether you care to parse the word "is," a ballot with only one name on it is worthless in a primary race.

[MethuenProgressive]

50. Because they've heard of Pastor Wright, would be my guess.

[Iceburg]

55. Kick for democracy -- this needs to be resolved ASAP/nt

[rodeodance]

59. HILLARY IS STANDING UP FOR THE VOTERS--BO IS DISSING THEM

[snappyturtle]

70. It's called consequences. Sen.CLinton dissed the DNC. n/t

[kennetha]

72. The DNC had nothing to do with the "pledge"

That was an IA and NH thing. The DNC did not require or ask or encourage candidates to remove their names from the MI ballot.

[SoonerPride]

79. But when Clinton signed the pledge and went back on her word, she is now a liar.

Period.

[rodeodance]

102. she said she would not campaign. Did she? NO. you lied

[snappyturtle]

107. The pledge stated that a candidate would not campaign or

participate. She participated in leaving her name on the ballot.

[snappyturtle]

106. I'm well aware it had nothing to do with the pledge...which was

just among the candidates. But over-all Hillary is saying to hell with the rules that were plainly outlined before MI and FL decided to set themselves up to vote before other states because they're so-o important. :sarcasm:

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. HILLARY IS STANDING UP FOR THE DLC

and doesn't give a crap about the voters. If she did, she would not have engineered this fiasco from the start.

[wileedog]

100. Why didn't she stand up for them

before they 'voted' for her?

[rodeodance]

60. rec

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. I think he is more worried about the overall popular vote totals

He knows no matter what happens he will end the primary season having won more pledged delegates, even if the momentum and national polls all start running against him. He doesn't want Hillary to win the talking point of winning the most overall popular votes during this primary season. That is really where Michigan and Florida can hurt him.

As it stands Hillary can make a good case for why the Florida popular vote count should be included in tallies, that breaks no DNC rule since no delegates are seated when one does so. It is easier for Obama to argue that the Michigan totals have to be thrown out since he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. Up until now he had a good case there, however a revote undermines all of that and gives Clinton a valid basis to close the gap on popular votes and maybe overtake Obama fair and square. Obama would rather stand in the way of a new election that allows Michigan's voters a fair say in who wins the Democratic nomination than risk losing the popular vote talking point.

[SoonerPride]

67. It's not up to Obama since the Michigan senate killed the idea.

Trying to blame Obama for the decisions of others is laughably inane.

[NYDem Observer]

65. The Big Problem

Many of the Obama supporters who voted in Michigan voted in the GOP primary because their candidates name wasn't on the ballot, those people who voted in the GOP election cannot vote if they were to hold new elections. That certainly is not fair.

[kennetha]

69. Not fair to whom?

To the democratic voters of the democratic party? Or to OBama who seems to need to count on non-democrats to give him the democratic nomination?

I don't really want non-democrats choosing our nominee. Why do you? Oh, I know why! Not on the basis of any principle, because it's only non-democrats who want your guy to be the democratic nominee.

[SoonerPride]

76. To the disenfranchised voters.

Let all DEMOCRATS re-vote, not selectively hold out Dems while letting IN repuiblicans.

That is ridiculously stupid.

and that is why the Michigan senate, not Obama, killed the idea. It was dumb.

[olkaz]

80. Did you even read the post?

Democrats voted in the Republican primary in order to screw them up.

Just like they are doing to us now with Hillary.

Under the current proposal, the privately funded, quickie election would prevent those people from being able to vote. That's not fair to them.

[NYDem Observer]

81. Last time I checked I was a democrat

Just because your candidate can't pull democrats and independents alike Obama shouldn't be punished for it.

[Orsino]

82. This is a ludicrous argument that advocates disenfranchisement...

...while pretending to oppose it.

How many names should there have been on a ballot that you'd consider fair?

[truebrit71]

78. It has everything to do with the fact that the primaries in those states were NOT legitimate...

..spin in anyway you want, neither one of those primaries were legitimate in any way, shape or form...

The ONLY reason HRC want's them to stand as crooked and messed up as they are, is because she KNOWS that's her only chance to get anywhere close to Obama...

Or are you suggesting that if MI and FL had gone heavily for Obama she would be arguing this passionately for the delegates to be seated...If you ARE suggesting that please PM me as I have a very nice bridge to sell you...

:eyes:

[kennetha]

83. Voters voting are not legitimate.

Right out of Bush V Gore.

Wow!

[SoonerPride]

84. Single name ballots only work in DICTATORSHIPS

All hail the great leader who got 100% of the vote.

[rodeodance]

86. Dodd and DK kept their names on also

[wileedog]

101. You're joking right?

You're not really that stupid are you?

[SoonerPride]

103. Sadly, whoever it is must be. They show up as "ignored" on my screen

So whoever it is has a history of being too dense to bother with.

[truebrit71]

90. Were all the candidates on the ballot in MI? I didn't think so...

...nice strawman though...

:eyes:

[AX10]

88. Obama is just a politician.

He is lying when he says that he is above it all.

[SoonerPride]

92. Well, we sure know Hillary is a liar who is violating her signed pledge.

Don't we?

[AX10]

111. She held up her end of the deal by not campaigning in those states.

Obama however, ran TV ads in Florida.

[rodeodance]

99. ***see this post about MI: "KO and Chuck Todd Misrepresent Hillary's Statement About Michigan: "

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject KO and Chuck Todd Misrepresent Hillary's Statement About Michigan: Media Matters Where Are You?
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...5164088#5164088
5164088, KO and Chuck Todd Misrepresent Hillary's Statement About Michigan: Media Matters Where Are You?
Posted by McCamy Taylor on Wed Mar-19-08 07:32 PM

On Countdown moments ago, increasingly partisan Keith Olbermann and always partisan hack Chuck Todd deliberately misrepresented remarks that Hillary Clinton made last fall that were reported in the Washington Post. They read a small excerpt from the article and interpreted that quote as meaning that Hillary stayed on the ballot last fall, because she felt that the Michigan vote was essential if she was going to win the Democratic primary.

Here is what the article and Hillary really said in the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7101100859.html


"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

Speaking in the first primary state, Clinton said she understands concerns about her refusal. Rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden took their names off Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot this week, and Michigan's hope for nominating clout all but evaporated.

Clinton's comment reflects an optimism she will win her party's nomination to face the Republican nominee in November 2008. She said any snub to Michigan could hurt her _ and all Democrats' _ chances to defeat the Republicans there.

Clinton was prompted by a caller who said, "It strikes me that this is politics as usual, where politicians say one thing and do something else."

Clinton brushed aside the comment.

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



Rather than attacking Clinton as an opportunist, maybe KO should applaud her for having the foresight to think about the Party's chances in the fall. In the state of Michigan, one theory is that Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson dropped from the Mi ballot in order to court Iowa voters who were anngry at Iowa's early primary. Sen. Dodd did not drop off the Mi. ballot and has given as his reason the same explanation that Hillary gave the WaPo---he did not want to alienate Mi voters from the Democratic Party. Sen. Dodd never expected to win the nomination. He is simply someone who shows good sense.

KO and Todd lied when they omitted the line which I have highlighted in bold from their description of the WaPo article. It completely changes the meaning of that interview, showing that Hillary was concerned about the Democrats' eventual fall victory over the Republicans, not her own nomination

Media Matters never ever reports on KO's distortions, but this time I wish that they would.

Addendum, the rest of the article is recommended for those who insist that the ruled were "No Dems on the ballot"

The Democratic presidential candidates already had pledged not to campaign in Michigan because the state had broken Democratic National Committee rules by scheduling its primary ahead of Feb. 5. The rules ban states from holding their 2008 contests before Feb. 5, except Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The candidates are allowed to visit Michigan to raise money and can send their spouses to campaign, but they can't run advertisements, hold rallies or do most of the other things that would help give them a leg up on their opponents.
Wh

[texshelters]

104. I like the way people can read Obama's mind

It seems to me that Obama wouldn't mind a fair re-vote if that were possible. All the polls show he would lose a few delegates in his lead, but still be far ahead afterwards.

If the vote could be fair, and verifiable, he would support the primaries. However, keeping the vote as they are is insane an undemocratic, and that is what Clinton proposed because she would rather win without competition. How is different from the accusation the he doesn't want a re-vote. He want to win, oh my God!

At least Obama said that he would respect the DNC decision on the re-votes. That doesn't sound like an outright rejection to me.

Tex Shelters

[spooky3]

108. You are exactly right, at least about the re-vote stance.

I can see how candidates could take a principled stance about seating the delegates based on the previous votes but do not believe there is a principled stance to be taken against a re-vote. The wrong done in disenfranchising these voters for actions they could not control, the disproportionality of the punishment, and the cost to the Democratic party of doing so in the general election must be weighted in any "principled" discussion. One could object due to cost, but it sounds as if that issue has been overcome in MI and may be possible in FL.

I am surprised that what seems so obvious and important is receiving so little media attention - oh wait, no I'm not.

[kennetha]

109. I think even the stand against seating the delegates is disingenuous

It's purely political. The people voted. They voted their consciences. They did so freely and in Florida in very large numbers. I don't really see a principled argument for punishing or disenfranchising the voters.

And as to Obama not being on the ballot in Michigan. That was his own strategic choice.