MI Primary- If you were on the ballot, you were "participating"

[NJmaverick]

There is a misconception being perpatrated by the Hillary people, over the MI primary, as to why Obama withdrew and Hillary stayed. Now I am offering the FACTS for all to see. Anyone read this pledge and not see how you could keep your name on the ballot, if you had the ability to take it off? It's clear Obama was HONORING his word and Hillary was not.


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.


http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/09/can-clinton-still-get-edge-out-of.html

[mcctatas]

1. There you go again...

you and your silly facts;)

[NJmaverick]

3. Guilty as charged

[Occam Bandage]

2. I'd like to know what they think "participation" means.

[redqueen]

4. I could have sworn I read a snippet of the DNC rules which said

that candiates should remove their names from those ballots.

[NJmaverick]

5. That woudl stand to reason, since keeping one's name on the ballot

would clearly be participating in that election.

[TahitiNut]

52. Obviously, since "campaigning" is cited DISTINCT from "participating."

If "participating" means nothing more than "campaigning" then there is no meaning to the use of the word. Michigan's ballot procedures permitted removal of names from the ballot while Florida does not.

It was absolutely clear to me, as a Michigan voter, that Hillary Clinton - as the 900lb. gorilla of the campaign - played a game of "I dare you" to the Four States ... feeling she was too powerful a candidate to be subject to the Four State threat. Thus, she triangulated as usual, knowing that an aborted FUBAR of a primary in both Florida and Michigan would yield her the biggest bang for the (zero) bucks and leave her in the MOST advantageous position. So, she played one side of the street in eradicating ANY delegation (through her surrogates) AND pushing the Michigan primary up (through her surrogates!) ... and then posturing herself as the "Rescuer" afterward. It's Munchhausen's-by-Proxy Politics in spades. Despicable.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. wouldn't it be posted here

500 times a day if it existed?

[redqueen]

9. Like the evidence that though Bill didn't talk to Rush, he talked to

an equally noxious gasbag?

Probably not. Details get lost in the ruckus.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. You really don't think

it would come up in the hundreds of threads on this subject?

I think if there were ANY evidence that the DNC expected candidates to remove their names, we'd see it touted here ad infinitum.

[redqueen]

19. No. Remember how long people were saying that there was no agreement

that delegates wouldn't count? That it wasn't in the agreement? And copies of *an* agreement were posted an infinitum to prove it.

In reality, there was another version of the agreement, the one used in Florida, which did specifically state that the delegates would be stripped.

I had a lengthy back-and-forth with someone on this very subject. I wouldn't be at all surprised if plenty of people still had the mistaken impression that there was never any agreement signed by her campaign which plainly stated that delegates would be stripped.

Just because it's the truth doesn't mean it gets beaten to death. Mostly it's the tabloid stuff that gets beaten to death. Details like these are 'boring' and people seem to prefer to go along with conventional wisdom than bother with them.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. You presented

one version of the pledge which was published in a student newspaper. It doesn't match any other version of the pledge which appears anywhere, not even the DNC site.

If there were anything at all from the DNC claiming the candidates were expected to remove their names, it would be very well-known here.

[redqueen]

I found this after a quick look around. Only one person's word...

but he seems to be someone who's aware of DNC rules... this is a snippet from a discussion panel.

"There’s the fact that Hillary Clinton’s name and the uncommitted slate was the only thing that was on the ballot in Michigan because the Democratic National Committee asked the other candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot. So, here you have the institution itself asking people to pull their names off the ballot."

(Fellow panel member says: "Not the other ones; they asked all of them.")

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/dnc_rules_commi.html

[MonkeyFunk]

42. Yes

that's a blog report that shows one person characterizing it that way. That's not really evidence of anything.

How about a quote from Howard Dean, or a DNC press release? THAT would be evidence.

[redqueen]

44. It doesn't matter anyway. She won't win, even with the delegates. (nt)

[rinsd]

47. Same guy thinks Hillary was the only one on the ballot when she wasn't.

Also if the DNC had requested this do you really think Dodd would ignore the DNC?

Or that Kucinich who obviously wished to remove his name when everyone else did would be so late and unprepared?

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. First Super Delegate of Today Endorses for Obama - From Michigan!!!!

I know he's from Michigan and what that means but anyway still good news


Oakland County superdelegate endorses Obama
5/20/2008, 3:43 a.m. EDT
The Associated Press

PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Democratic superdelegate Eric Coleman has endorsed Barack Obama for president.

The Oakland County commissioner issued a statement Tuesday saying he met with Obama during the Illinois U.S. senator's visit to Warren last Wednesday.

The Associated Press count Monday showed Obama with 1,915 delegates and U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with 1,721 out of the 2,026 needed for the nomination.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fpolitics-1%2F1211269146202160.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

[TahitiNut]

53. Michigan's "superdelegates" have no seat, either. It doesn't "count."

:puke:

[MonkeyFunk]

7. No.

there was no requirement or expectation that the candidates remove their names. It's your characterization that being on the ballot was "participating", but nothing from the DNC or Howard Dean backs up that assertion.

Why have these same arguments every day? This is probably the thousandth thread on it. Find something new.

[NJmaverick]

11. What backs up your counter assertion? I have offered factual evidence

as well as assertions by a Clinton SD that they were all asked to withdraw. What do you have, other than a burning desire to see your candidate by the nominee?

[MonkeyFunk]

15. You haven't offered any evidence

that the DNC expected the candidates to remove their names. You have one blog report that characterized it that way.

You're asking me to prove a negative. That's silly.

You claim that the DNC expected or asked the candidates to remove their names - just show us where they did that.

[NJmaverick]

18. If you define evidence as only things that back up your beliefs, then I agree

if you use the traiditional definition of evidence, then you are wrong.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. No

I'm asking for evidence that contradicts my belief.

I believe the DNC did not ask or expect the candidates to remove their names from the ballot. Show me some evidence to the contrary. One blog report saying one superdelegate characterized it that way isn't sufficient.

If the DNC did in fact ask them to remove their names, there should be a record of it.

[yodermon]

54. Is the "Michigan Daily" good enough for you?

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2007/10/10/Government/5.Dems.Want.Off.Of.State.Ballot-3023633.shtml

The Democratic National Committee asked the candidates to withdraw from Michigan's primary after the state legislature moved it Jan. 15. Democratic Party rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada from holding their nominating contests before Feb. 5.

by By Scott Mills, Daily Staff Reporter. Take it up with him if you don't believe it.

[rinsd]

55. Considering how many fuck ups there are in that article maybe we should.

Richardson filed the day before.

Biden issued a statement & filed paperwork.

Kucinich filed paperwork that got messed up.

All these things were known at the time Scott Mills wrote the article.

I find it very hard to believe that Chris Dodd who was the 1st to sign the 4 state pledge would ignore a DNC request to remove his name from the ballot.

Not a single candidate cited a DNC request when they made their statements regarding removing their names from the ballot with the Obama campaign citing their own interpretation of the pledge.

[sandnsea]

25. Yes there was

Edwards, Obama, Richardson and Biden all withdrew their names in order to make it clear to Michigan that they supported the DNC rules. Classic Hillary, she stayed on the ballot knowing full well she was going to claim victory because she didn't give a crap about Iowa or the purpose of first states. She was looking to Super Tuesday and a big state win that only required a lot of money and teevee time. And I suspect we'll have these arguments until Hillary's supporters get it through their head that Hillary is trying to steal the election by claiming MI & FL, especially Michigan. It's unreal that anybody would support counting votes when your opponent wasn't on the ballot.

[Yotun]

10. There is no logic in including Michigan and Florida

The facts are simple. Delegates and the popular vote are metrics for the election of the democratic nominee for the presidential race. Michigan and Florida voters KNEW that their votes would not count towards that election- therefore those elections were NOT for the election of the democratic nominee for the presidential race. You cannot say that the result of an election for A, would be the same as the result of an election for B. Michigan and Florida were primaries under very specific preperceptions and conditions- the people in those states were aware of them, and the results reflect the will of the people in an election following those conditions. Now Hillary wants to say that those elections are representative of the result that would have arisen in a completely different election under completely different conditions. It is obious that had the election been one in which the voters were aware that their votes would count fot the actual nomination, there would have been a greater turnout for Obama.

Hillary included her name in Michigan for a very simple reason. She believed at that point that she would win, because the polls showed her with a huge advantage everywhere, and she was at the time running with the inevitability strategy. If she won, she knew the election would mean nothing, but she could include the states in the list of 'states I won', making that list longer, and suppoting the inevitability view. If she lost, well they meant nothing, so she's just ignore them. THAT'S the only reason she included her name, and the fact that she is doing just that, including the states in the 'states I won' list, proves it. It is all about low-class political strategy of impressions, rather than anything to do with enfranchisment of voters. If Hillary truly cared about enfranchisement, she would not be mentioning that the race would be over in her favor in February, before million of voters had their say. You cannot logically say that she included her name because she cares about enfranchisment, without running into a logical contradiction- that is simply not a viable position or a fair minded person.

All the other candidates removed their names because of honoring their pledges and the rules, and placing principle above political gains. What would Obama have to lose? IF he lost, well the state doesn't matter- if for some reason he happened to win, all the better for him, for he could also spun it and include it in a 'states I won' list. But he is above that.

[MNDemNY]

12. And in Florida???

Truth is Edwards and Obama had their names removed from the ballot in order to fend off a perceived loss. A political decision.

[NJmaverick]

16. That is completely FALSE, as is your Florida comment

in Florida the only way you can remove your name from the ballot is to sign that you are not running for President. It's really sad how badly the Clinton people have distorted the TRUTH and the FACTS of this issue.

[MNDemNY]

29. Well, I'm not a "Clinton person"

What of Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel???they were on the ballot as well.You can argue the point of whether or not to seat them, but your assertion is just false.Obama and Edwards made a political strategic choice to get off the ballot. Also, enjoy your ride on the "High Horse " to defeat in November.

[NJmaverick]

32. Kucinich tried to get his name off the ballot, but screwed up the paper work

now you are down to 3 people that went back on their word, so they could hedge their bets. Now stop repeating the lies that honoring a pledge you signed, is some how political. The TRUTH does matter.

[MNDemNY]

34. You are the one attempting to rewrite history.

Get over it. Neither Obama or Clinton can beat McLame....it sucks.

[NJmaverick]

36. You make all these false claims, but you offer ZERO proof to back any of it up

which is pretty telling

[MNDemNY]

45. If you pulled your head out of the sand you could do your own damn research.

I will not waste my time disproving your claim.

[NJmaverick]

51. You don't have an option, because there is no proof to back up your false claims

[Blondbostonian]

17. Horseshit

Just keep repeating your talking points.

[MNDemNY]

20. both campiagns admitted as much.

So, eat your horse shit.

[NJmaverick]

22. No they didn't

[MNDemNY]

23. neener-neener.

[VolcanoJen]

14. It depends upon what the meaning of "participating" is.

;-)

[hayu_lol]

30. Sigh...four of the candidates left their names on the ballots:

Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich. So, Obama and Edwards through their own inexperience and/or stupidity, made a play to gain them some attention. The play cost them dearly.

It also cost the voters of Michigan by the way. This continuous claim that Hillary was the ONLY candidate to leave her name on the ballot is false...has been false. Had Obama looked ahead and had he known what he was really doing, he would have gotten his actual share of votes.

A revote was barred by Obama, not Hillary.

Kucinich actively campaigned in Michigan...but then Mr. Looney Tunes frequently does what he wants despite anything else that might apply.

The OP here should at least find the DNC rules he claims goes into details about what Participation means and give us all the link.

Four candidates left their names on the ballot and should receive the delegates they would have received.

Who in their right mind, running for the presidency, would remove their names from a major state's ballot?

Produce the link to the DNC rules so that we can all run over there and check it our for ourselves....

[NJmaverick]

35. 3- 1 tried to get it removed and failed (Kucinich). They all went back on their word

While Obama, Richardson, Edwards and Biden all HONORED their pledge. Really it goes to the CHARACTER of the nominees, more than anything else.

[rinsd]

49. Dodd was the 1st signer of the 4 state pledge and felt removing names from the ballot was a stunt.

Obama before Iowa & New Hamshire voted took his name off the ballot in MI.

After Iowa & NH voted, his surrogates ran radio ads in MI to urge his voters to vote uncommitted and he ran TV ads.

The pledge no longer mattered to him.

It was a political stunt aimed at kissing Iowa & NH ass that Obama jumped on after finding out Richardson was doing so.

Stop making it into something noble.

[PBS Poll-435]

21. Is this your 2nd or 3rd OP today?

[NJmaverick]

24. 2nd this falsehood that you and others were perpatrating was so bad

it needed it's own OP. I wanted to know WHY Hillary stayed in, when she was suppose to drop out. Then I heard all this nonsensical rantings from the Hillary camp, I just had to set the record straight. Facts and the truth do matter, no matter how much the Clintons and their supporters say otherwise.

[PBS Poll-435]

26. Please post one more before the results come it today.

Thanks!

[NJmaverick]

28. I don't take requests from the Hillary camp, I do what is best for our party

and our nation.

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Sure ya do. The *HOPE* is overwhelming me.

I need some fresh air.

[slinkerwink]

33. And thank you for setting the record straight!

[NJmaverick]

37. You're welcome! I have heard the Hillary people on TV telling all sorts of lies

on this topic. It's important that the truth be known.

[Romulox]

27. I notice you ignored my response to you regarding this point on another thread. I'll repost it.

Contract drafting 101: Say what you mean.

"Participate" is ambiguous, and leaves reasonable observers to differ in its meaning.

If the pledge was meant to require the pledgees to remove their names from the Mi/Fla ballots, the drafters knew how to say so, in clear, unambiguous language. They chose not to. Which tends to negative the inference that this removal was central in the minds of the drafters of the pledge or the candidates who signed it.

PS: This "pledge" wasn't issued by the DNC, which makes a bit of a jumble of the argument that the DNC required Obama and Edwards to remove their names.

[NJmaverick]

38. No participate is pretty clear, if you have your name on the ballot you are doing so.

THat is not ambiguious unless you have a motive to try and make it so. The fact that Hillary didn't honor her pledge, while Obama (and most of the other major candidates) did so, points to Hillary's lack of character.

[Romulox]

39. Nonsense. Open a dictionary, look up "participate". It will say nothing about ballots.

"Participate" is ambiguous w/r/t to the issue of ballots at very best. If an attorney had drafted this pledge with instructions to draft a document that required the signers to remove their names from Michigan's primary ballot, he would be guilty of malpractice.

Your argument, such as it is, amounts to little more than proclaiming your interpretation is obvious. The very fact that you started this thread demonstrates it is not.

[NJmaverick]

41. Maybe you should take your own advice and look up the word

2. participate - become a participant; be involved in; "enter a race"; "enter an agreement"; "enter a drug treatment program"; "enter negotiations"


If you name is on the ballot you are PARTICIPATING in that election.

[rinsd]

48. So Obama participated in both the FL & MI races.

He ran TV ads in FL and his surrogates ran radio ads in MI.

[Romulox]

56. Enter a race = / = "not remove name from a ballot"

And btw, CAPS DON'T MAKE THINGS MORE TRUE. :hi:

[rinsd]

46. So what would urging one's supporters to vote Uncommitted via radio ads by surrogates be?

Would that be campaigning AND participation? :shrug:

This is the script of the John and Monica Conyers radio ad, which will be broadcast on Detroit-area stations. Monica Conyers is president pro-tem of the Detroit City Council.

MALE: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS CONFUSING. I WANT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA BUT OBAMA'S NAME IS NOT ON THE BALLOT.

FEMALE: THERE IS NO ONE ON THAT BALLOT I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.

MALE: WELL, THESE FOLKS CAN HELP US. EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS, WE NEED YOUR HELP.

FEMALE: HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR OBAMA ON TUESDAY?

Rep. Conyers: YOU CAN'T. YOU CANNOT EVEN WRITE IN OBAMA'S NAME. IF YOU DO YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT BECAUSE OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN CHOSE NOT TO PLACE HIS NAME ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES. BUT YOU CAN VOTE UNCOMMITTED

Councilwoman Conyers: IF AT LEAST 15% OF THE PEOPLE VOTE UNCOMMITTED, THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MUST SEND THAT PERCENTAGE OF DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION UNCOMMITTED.

Rep. Conyers: MY WIFE AND I ARE VOTING UNCOMMITTED. WE WILL WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO MAKE SURE THAT UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES GO TO THAT CONVENTION TRULY UNCOMMITTED SO THAT OBAMA CAN COMPETE FOR THEIR VOTE.

MALE: THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS. I WILL JOIN YOU AND VOTE UNCOMMITTED ON TUESDAY.

FEMALE: ME TOO - AT LEAST MY VOTE WON'T BE WASTED

Councilwoman Conyers: THIS TRUTH IN POLITICS MESSAGE WAS PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF MONICA CONYERS

[NJmaverick]

50. What one has to do, when one of the candidates is dishonest and went back on her word