Why did Obama take his name off the MI ballot? I know,

[Little Star]

Good Judgment. :rofl:

[book_worm]

1. so did most of the other democratic candidates who followed the DNC rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. There was no such DNC rule

and "most" of the candidates didn't remove their names - 4 removed their names, 4 remained on the ballot.

[pocoloco]

4. 4 used "good judgment".

[MonkeyFunk]

5. that's just an opinion

and not one I share. I think dissing Michigan for the sake of Iowa was pretty dumb.

[mckeown1128]

24. Why then did Hillary dis Michigan:

NPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

[MonkeyFunk]

29. She kept her name on the ballot, though

Her evaluation of the situation at the time was wrong. It wasn't an insult to Michigan.

Why did Obama diss Michigan?

[mckeown1128]

31. There was NO difference in their handling of the situation..

Hillary basicaly said there was no need to take her name off the ballot because it wasn't going to count...


Now that Hillary had the most votes DUE to her being the only top tier candidate with her name on the ballot... NOW she thinks that it should count. Give me a break.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. All the polls showed her winning Michigan

and exit polls that day showed her winning even if Obama were on the ballot. So she didn't win by being the only top-tier candidate on the ballot.

But nonetheless, if Obama had won FL and MI, you'd all be arguing why they should be counted, and Obama himself would be leading the fight.

[mckeown1128]

50. We don't run elections by exit polls...

Because they can be WRONG. That is why we hold elections (with everones names on the ballot... and rules.... and campaining)


No, If Obama had won FL and MI I would not be arguing that they should be counted. So, please stop ASSuming.

[Little Star]

100. So what are you saying? She was able to snooker your boy

but not Kuch, Biden, Dodd,etc? He was a fool to remove his name when it was fine to keep it on there. He thought he was so friggin smart pandering to Iowa!

[Hugabear]

8. Can I ask you a simple question?

Why wasn't the Hillary campaign trying to get Florida and Michigan resolved before their primaries? Why did she wait until so long after the votes had been cast to decide that those two states should count?

I've yet to hear a simple satisfactory answer for this question.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. because nobody -

none of the campaigns nor the DNC, thought that the race would be so close that MI and FL would matter. Everybody was wrong.

[Hugabear]

13. So basically it's just a matter of convenience

If Hillary were comfortably ahead, her campaign wouldn't be giving a flying fuck about Michigan and Florida.

Thanks for at least being honest.

[virtualobserver]

15. they are only disenfranchised if Hillary is losing

[Romulox]

16. And if Obama was comfortably ahead, he wouldn't be fighting to disenfranchize Mi and Fl.

Your point cuts as wide as it does deep...

[mckeown1128]

26. Obama is comfortably ahead....

and he isn't fighting to disenfranchize MI and FL... When they hold fair elections than their votes will count.

[Romulox]

41. "We are men of action. Lying does not become us."

One of my all time favorite movie quotes. :thumbsup:

Obama needs

a) Hillary out or
b) the Superdelegates to decide

in order to win. Disenfranchizing Michigan and Florida is an attempt to accomplish a).

[mckeown1128]

48. Umm... Hillary has already lost this thing...

And the superdelegates are only going to decide whether to

a) Affirm the will of the voters
b) Reject the will of the voters

Since Hillary has nearly zero chance of catching up to Obama (with or without FL, MI)

It is over unless of course the Super delegates overturn the Primary results.

[Romulox]

54. The same ROOLZ that say Mi and Fla should be disenfranchized say the SDs can make up their own minds

Your "reject the will of the voters" framing is bogus; the ever-so-sacred rules say that they are not bound to cast their votes on any formula. Indeed, there would be absolutely no purpose in having super delegates if they were bound to vote based on the primary results.

At any rate, your argument is severely weakened by abandoning the one-person=one-vote--once you depart from basic democratic principles, any formula can be made to seem "reasonable"...

[mckeown1128]

81. How am I abandoning the one-person one vote princible??

It is all a moot point anyway. Do you really think that Hillary is going to get the 70% of the remaining delegates to over turn the results of the primaries???

[GOTV]

62. Exactly - When there are real elections in MI and FL we should count them....

... pretending that an election that starts with the announcement "These votes won't count but vote if you want to" is legitimate is the laughable flaw in the Clinton argument.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Not really.

voters in those states wouldn't be very upset if Clinton had secured the nomination without those states, because their will would be carried out.

But when their will is NOT carried out, and it could impact the outcome, then they get rightly upset.

But as I said, everybody was wrong. The DNC was wrong, too.

[stillcool]

20. what is 'their will'?

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date. They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------
Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her. “I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5. The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.
"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15.
"We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press
PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.
State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.
The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.
Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the
Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.
The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

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

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.
Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

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

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates
National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."
The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's
historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot. The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates
By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.
The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.
The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

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

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.
Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the
Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar...

Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[MonkeyFunk]

27. posts like that are useless

nobody's going to read all that.

Their will is the will expressed in the primaries held there. Clinton won.

If Obama had won them, you can be damned sure that he'd be fighting to have them included.

[stillcool]

32. maybe you will not read all that...

which isn't really surprising. I believe that there are others who are more concerned with the facts and how all this played out, than in one liners that are all conjecture and spin. However, to make it easier I'll just post this one.

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

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.
Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the
Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar...

Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[mckeown1128]

36. HOW THE HELL COULD HE WIN

His name wasn't on the ballot.... and people were told not to bother voting... WTF... this isn't a freakin solviet style democracy... what ever happened to fair and open elections???

[Little Star]

63. Why did he take his name off the ballot? Link to where

people were told not to bother voting? His pandering to Iowa was his very own poor judgment. Then he told people to vote for non-committed. I agree what ever happened to fair and open elections???

[mckeown1128]

86. Here is a quote and a link to where people were told that their...

vote didn't mean anything (aka it is a symbolic election)

NPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858



Speaking of link... where is your link to support your claim that Obama campaigned for non-commited??

Non-commited again isn't a vote for Obama...so how could that help him. FYI 20%+ of Clinton's symbolic voter's in MI said in exitpolling that they would have voted for Obama if his name had been on the ballot. Which is evidence that the vot didn't reflect the will of the voters.

[Hugabear]

38. You might as well have posted "Facts are useless"

Sorry if you can't bother to concern yourself with the facts, doesn't change anything.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. Nope I like facts

and points made - but arguing by shotgun approach is useless. I'm not going to read 7 articles to understand whatever point he's trying to make. I bet nobody here will read that whole post and the links in it.

[bhikkhu]

96. Agreement "not to campaign or participate" in those elections

I don't blame you for not wanting to read all through the articles, but the crux of it is the candidates agreed not to campaign or participate in the FL and MI primaries. The candidates who took their names off the MI ballot did so because they felt that the DNC expected them to, which is pretty clear in the text of the agreement.

[Little Star]

68. you copy and paste nice.

[stillcool]

103. thank you! Aren't facts great?

I have some more articles if you are interested! Just let me know!

[mckeown1128]

30. You can't "guess" what the will of voters in MI and FL are.

That is why we hold fair elections... you know... elections where candidates get to fully campaign and you know... have thier names on the ballot. FYI 20% of Hillary's voters in the exit polls of MI would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ballot. Who knows how people stayed home because they were told by Hillary and everyone else that the election wasn't going to count.


We can't use fake election results just because "you" want to believe the results are accurate.

[Little Star]

65. Obama took his own name off the ballot and might as well said the hell

with you MI because I'm gonna pander to iowa. Sure, I can guess that MI and FL want their votes counted, lets not be ridicules.

[GOTV]

69. Obama's actions didn't make the election a sham. Telling people their votes don't count did....

... What Clinton and Obama did is irrelevant.

When you hold an election you have to be honest about stuff like the date, the locations and whether the vote counts for anything or not.

Having a stack of marked ballots doesn't mean a fair election was held.

[Little Star]

71. A record number of people in both states voted and their votes

are not a sham. Dean's heavy hand was the real sham. Obama's removing his own name from the MI ballot was a sham to pander to Iowa and just proved he has poor judgment.

[GOTV]

72. A fair election isn't measured by turnout - Care to try justifying a sham election again?

When you hold an election you have to be honest about stuff like the date, the locations and whether the vote counts for anything or not.

If you don't do these things - it's a sham

[Little Star]

78. Stuff like the date, the locations and whether the vote counts for anything or not

were darned well known! Thats why record numbers turned out. Voters also knew there was always the ROOLZ of the credentials committee to get justice.

[mckeown1128]

83. Your right they were known...

people knew the vote WOULDN"T count for anything...



NPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

[GOTV]

89. Ignorance of basic facts may be required to support counting the MI and FL sham elections

[GOTV]

88. They were stripped of delegates - it doesn't sound like you know the first thing about this issue

Who told you the delegates were stripped after the election?

[PassingFair]

77. The "poor judgement" was exercised by the legislators and the MDP in Michigan...

who went ahead and broke party rules DESPITE
the rank and file in the Executive Committees
telling them NO.

No democrat here that I know wanted to break the rules
except for...
the DLC supplied elected officials like Jennifer Granholm,
and the bug up their ass officials who hate New Hampshire,
like Levin and the Debbie Dingell.

[mckeown1128]

82. It doesn't matter if a record number of people voted...

that isn't proof that the vote was accurate. Dean enforcing the DNC calander is not a "heavy hand". It was Hillary who pandered to Iowa when she said this:


NPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

[stillcool]

104. here's a little copy and paste..

just for you...

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates
National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."
The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's
historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot. The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.

[GOTV]

64. Honest elections are how we measure the will of the people. Without that we don't know their will..

... and honest elections aren't those where voters are told their votes won't be counted.

[Window]

22. Absolutely.

Peace:thumbsup:

[Romulox]

14. Think outside the horse race: our votes are not the pawns of the Clinton OR Obama camps...

You can't give away what you don't own--this is a basic concept in the law. A third party can't "agree away" your or my rights.

Therefore, whether or not I get to vote is not up to Hillary, or Obama, or some "gotcha" quote in the media.

[Tyler Durden]

25. THANK YOU Too!

Perfect.

[Nederland]

35. You do not have a legal right to vote in a primary (nt)

[Romulox]

45. Sometimes, morality, decency, and fair play are more powerful than the law

If the Democratic Party stands for anything, it's got to be every vote counts.

This "you don't have a RIGHT to vote" argument is an election day loser. :hi:

[GOTV]

66. "Every vote counts" should be how you START elections - not what you decide afterwards...

... It's not fair to MI or FL to pretend that the no-count elections that were held were legitimate.

They should have real elections, establish the people's will, and then we can all agree to count their votes.

There's no value in counting the votes of a sham election.

[Little Star]

67. That has become abundantly clear in this primary!

Lets just let insiders choose our candidate for the GE and then be good little sheeple and vote for who they tell us to. This is sick!

[mckeown1128]

46. Your right... MI and FL votes are not the pawns of the candidates...

they are the pawns of the DNC... and the DNC doesn't recognize states that vote OUTSIDE of their time slots..

[Little Star]

70. The DNC did a heck of a job Howie! RNC at least were

measured in their punishment. DNC,Kennedy,Kerry,etc were pulling a coup. They were arranging the deck chairs and choosing our nom for us. They have behaved like scum! Now they are mad because we will not sit down and shut up. Well, F them!

[mckeown1128]

84. Stop ranting like a crazed surrogate...

stop throwin out "opinions" and treating them like facts...

1. Please explain to me what Kennedy and Kerry had to do with the DNC rules.

2. WTF is wrong with the DNC enforcing it's own primary calender.

3. Explain how the DNC forced the MI and FL parties to break the rules (and thusly give up their delegates) in order to help a candidate.

4. Do you realize the you Clinton supporter have demonized 90% of the leaders of the Democratic party trying to justify the disenfranchisement of FL and MI voters..



FL and MI voters shouldn't be told by Clinton supporters who they want for president. FL and MI voters deserved a chance to hold an official with in the rules primaries where they knew ahead of time that their vote was going to count. Not a "surprise...the vote really did count"

[Yossariant]

34. Your premise is false. She was reluctant to sign the pledge and was last to do it:

"So -- Clinton signs the pledge. That's a surprise. Clinton's advisers yesterday were telegraphing their intention not to sign...

So Florida and Michigan will be covered by the press as real contests for the Republicans. That makes it more likely that Clinton's victory in those states will be known -- and while the press will certainly apply the no-delegate caveat, it's going to be tough for them not to spread the word that the majority of Democratic voters in those populous states chose Hillary Clinton.

That's one reason why Clinton's campaign probably hesitated before signing the pledge.

The other is that Clinton's strategists disagree with the DNC about Florida's viability in the general election. Clinton's team believes she can win there; the DNC is more skeptical that Democrats can recover. Clinton doesn't want to give Republicans a heads-up there."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/the_jockeying_behind_the_four.php

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Who were the three who wanted to stay on the ballot besides Hill? you know, it doesn't matter

anyway.

Either you believe elections should be fair and free or you don't.

[Little Star]

74. I know Kuch stayed on.

[John Q. Citizen]

87. But he didn't want to. His campaign submitted papers to get off but they were rejected on a

technicality.

TRhe Republican Secratery of State of MI wouldn't let him take his name off.

[Tyler Durden]

23. THANK YOU!!

GOD I'm sick of this "It's all YOUR fault" bullshit.

Some candidate tells their supporters to "game the system" (that is, LIE) and Now it's MICHIGAN'S fault we don't want REPUBLICANS in the DEMOCRATIC Primary.

[mkultra]

28. there was a pledge requested by the DNC that they signed.

[Little Star]

59. Got a link to that rule you speak of?

[Little Star]

73. The PLEDGE, read it and weep.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one’s candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

Pass it on to the others who can not get this correct!

[mkultra]

91. putting your name on tha ballot is participation

Most candidates had thier names removed from MI because of this pledge. It was to late in FL for removal.

[flyarm]

7. PLEASE DO SHOW US ALL THAT dnc "RULE"..CLUE:NO SUCH RULE EXISTS..

Obama, Edwards and Biden removed their names for no purpose other than to manipulate the Iowa and NH votes.

period..

there was no rule whatsoever to remove ones name from the ballot..it was totally volunteer!

oh and team Obama had people cheating and voting in the MI primary for Mitt Romney..yes a republican cheating ploy by team Obama!!..how original...dems now sink to the lowest denominator..for team Obama!

[mckeown1128]

43. Evidence that the Obama campaign pushed a vote for Romney?

A link??? Or just another lie huh.

Here is what HIllary thought of the MI election(and by the same logic FL) Why the switch after she one a nearly uncontested fake primary?


NPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

[mkultra]

75. It was not voluntary

They all where required to sign a pledge of non participation by the dnc. They all signed it.

[Little Star]

79. The PLEDGE, read it and weep.

The PLEDGE, read it and weep.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one’s candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

Pass it on to the others who can not get this correct!

[mkultra]

90. yes, that looks like the pledge

Am i missing something?

[bhikkhu]

93. "Not to campaign or participate" - thanks

Obama and the others took their names off the ballot because the DNC asked them to.

[mkultra]

94. i guess that put an end to the insanity.

[Little Star]

98. WRONG!!!!!! Kuch, Dodd and others left their name on also. Dean

said on TV that no one asked them to remove their names. Obama was just pandering to Iowa, showing his good judgment.

[bhikkhu]

99. They agreed not to participate.

I suppose it could have been up to the individual to decide whether staying on the ballot constituted "participation".

[mkultra]

101. wrong again!. she signed and now she squirms

suck it. your candidate is dead meat.

[mohc]

2. Or maybe

Because he did not want his name being used to legitimize a sham election.

[flyarm]

9. umm No ..that was not the reason!! eom

[DemVet]

6. Why? A fit of idiocy.

[Romulox]

10. Because he was WAY BEHIND in the polls--it was a sop to Iowa that didn't cost him anything

Obama knew he was trailing badly in Michigan, and that John Edwards, not he, was many people's second choice.

He therefore pandered to Iowa by removing his name from the Michigan ballot, hoping he could win favor with Iowa voters by making a "concession" that didn't cost him anything.

It worked, and the rest is history. Those who now say that "it's not fair" that Obama didn't receive any delegates in Michigan ignore the fact that Obama campaign was not the juggernaut then that he is now, and that his victory in Iowa came, in some part, precisely from snubbing Michigan.

[mckeown1128]

42. Ummm... Edwards took his name off too...

so how exactly was Obama running from MI because of Edwards. Also, don't insult the voters of Iowa... they aren't supid like you Clinton supporters would have us believe.... No one made their choice for president nor even a small part of the choice based on whether or not a candidates name was on the ballot in a differnt state. They voted based on who they thought had the best policies and ability to get the job done.

Another thing, Obama was behind in the polls EVERYWHERE when he took his name off of the ballot in MI. So by your logic he should have taken his name off the ballots in EVERY state.


And what part of "the MI and FL primary's weren't accpeted by the DNC" don't you get. MI can hold it's GE election in June... but that doesn't mean it's going to count.

[Romulox]

47. I didn't say he pulled his name because of Edwards; I said he pulled his name because he was behind

The rest of your post is canned, with-us-or-against-us crap. What you hyper-partisan zealots can't understand is that your chessboard is my ruined state. :hi:

[mckeown1128]

53. Umm. your state tried to cheat at chess...

Again... Obama was behind in EVERY state when he pulled his name off of the ballot. So why ONLY MI.

[Adelante]

49. You've got that wrong

Way wrong.

[CK_John]

12. Because making decisions are hard work and Obama doesn't make hard decisions. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

19. He knew he's lose! He a way thankful to have a way out.

Better for his record to not fight than lose. He's following the same plan as when he voted "present". Took real guts. Heaven forbid he gives anyone any ammunition to use against him. He always straddles the situation with one foot in each camp. BRAVE! not

[mckeown1128]

39. That old smear again...

Don't make me post the 8,000 articles written about how the "present" vote is used in Illinois. Typical Clinton supporter lie.

[HooptieWagon]

21. The candidates were asked to remove their names

They did so, with the exception of Kucinich, whose paperwork arrived late; and hillary, who refused to file to remove her name.

Florida was a different situation. The SoS determines the names that go on the ballot.

[Yossariant]

52. You are massively confused.

Kucinich not only kept his name on the ballot in Michigan, he actively campaigned there:
http://pollingplaces.nytimes.com/content.cfm?page=photo_detail&voterID=4370438&photoID=14567813

The candidates were NOT asked to remove their names from the ballot.

Kucinich, Clinton, Dodd and Gravel rermained on the Michigan ballot.

[Lucky 13]

33. Why is Hillary trying to disenfranchise a minority candidate?

Doesn't look good when you try to say an election is fair when the guy's name wasn't even on the ballot. He took his name off at the request of the party and based on the pledge that both of them signed not to campaign there. He THOUGHT he was being a good democrat and doing what was best for the party. He THOUGHT he was doing what all the other candidates were doing. Little did he know some sniveling little weasel would later try to undercut him and use his loyalty to the party against him.

If she had any problem with this, she should have voiced those concerns BEFORE SHE SIGNED THE PLEDGE. Period. You have NO leg to stand on here.

Everyone sees what she's doing and no one is buying it. MI and FL are a dead issue. No one is going to bend the rules for the Princess. So stop acting like spoiled little fucking brats... your temper tantrum will not result in Hillary getting her way.

[mmonk]

40. Why did all the others (who took their name off as well)?

[SoonerPride]

51. Because the election didn't count.

High-larious. I know.

[beandoc]

55. It was a sound political move, based on the rules.

In other words, good judgment (no sarcasm).
He wasn't the brand name, the pre-annointed nominee. Clinton was. It would have taken a lot of time, money, and campaigning in Michigan to catch up to the head start Clinton had going into the primary season.
If the rules were different, and Michigan was going to "you know, count for anything" he would have had to campaign there and try and cut into her lead. But, the agreed to rules stated that those states would not have delegates that determined the nominee and ALL of the candidates focused their efforts on states that would.
I won't disagree that the situation may have helped Obama (and the other candidates not named Clinton), because he was able to focus his efforts on IA thru NV and didn't allow Clinton to short stack the other candidates. By taking their names off the ballots, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson were ensuring that Clinton could not claim victory with any legitimacy. It was a political move. It was a smart move, based on the rules.
Senator Clinton was also being political when she did not argue for the legitimacy of the MI or FL primaries before they happened. It would have a polical mine-field which would have cost her in Iowa thru Nevada. Now her arguments for legitimacy in elections where there was no campaigning and in the setting of her prior agreement with the rules are again political, but very hard to make. I don't fault her for trying given the state of her campaign. I don't agree with the argument, but I try not to be surprised when politicians do things based on politics.

[Little Star]

56. .

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

57. HE HATES DELEGATES!!!! (everybody knows this)

[dionysus]

58. twinkle twinkle, little bot, shill will be the candidate.. not

:rofl:

[Life Long Dem]

60. Explain the mistake?

[zulchzulu]

61. There was this little thing called the Four State Pledge

No, it's not something you spray on your table and wipe off.

Get a clue.

[Robbins]

76. Michigan

Like Florida they broke the rules.Now even If Obama had won I would be opposed In letting them break the rules and have the delgates count.Obama,Edwards,Richardson,Biden all took their name off the ballot because of this.And as Bill Clinton liked to remind people on South Carolina,Jesse
Jackson won Michigan In 1988 so In a fair contest Obama winning was not a crazy thing.

[Little Star]

80. Mr Dean will tell you there are ways to resolve these issues and

one of them is called the credentials committee. The credentials committee is also part of the ROOLZ!

[mckeown1128]

85. And good thing that Hillary doesn't have enough supporters

on the credential committee to disenfranchise FL and MI by forcing them to give her delegates that they never voted for.

[mkultra]

95. Luckily for people of fair mind

The committee is composed of people selected by the candidates with one quarter selected by dean himself.

[AtomicKitten]

92. His honorable sense of fair play and following the rules?

[Mags]

97. cause he is chicken

[mkultra]

102. cause shes morally bankrupt

[stillcool]

105. The same reason John Edwards,

Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich did it?

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates
National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."
The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's
historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot. The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.