home

Oct 2007: Clinton Camp On MI

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:53:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Katie Bird at RiverDaughter reminds us of what the Hillary Clinton camp said about Michigan in October 2007 when she decided to keep her name on the ballot (along with Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel):

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said it would be foolish to rebuff an important swing state, especially since doing so could alienate Democratic-leaning independents who could be favoring her. But she is also taking a risk that staying in Michigan will not hurt her in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Those states, all sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee to vote first, forced the Democratic candidates to sign a pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Clinton advisers said that even though she was staying in the Michigan race, she would not campaign there.

(Emphasis supplied.) BTW, the removal from the MI ballot was an Obama campaign stunt (done to gain advantage in Iowa and discredit the Michigan contest) created after the 4 state pledge was forced upon the candidates. It was, in the words of the Obama campaign, an "additional commitment," and not required by the 4 state pledge.

< Donna Brazile's DisUnity Schtick | Dean's Fumbles On The Popular Vote and MI/FL >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Oct 2007: Clinton Camp On MI | 68 comments (68 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Is there any evidence Obama gained (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    any advantage in IA and/or NH be removing his name from the MI ballot?

    Don't know how you would prove it (none / 0) (#3)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    Did he mention it in his stump speech in IA and NH? Or did his polling in those states improve immediately afterwards?

    Another school of thought is that he did it to delegitimize the MI contest. And I think we can conclude that if that were his goal, he was successful.

    Parent

    Oct. 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:45:57 PM EST
    >>>>Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.
    http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264

    Parent
    I hate the 4 state pledge (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:32:38 PM EST
    And resent that the leading candidates signed it. I may understand they felt forced, but standing up to pressure and still taking the right stand is a rather important characteristic for President (or it should be).

    I hope Reid feels like a real loser for his part in such an undemocratic move.

    This is about judgement (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mexboy on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:41:17 PM EST
    Obama claims to have superior judgement.

    Well he made a judgment to take his name off of MI and now must embrace the consequences of that superior judgement.

    I think this should matter as much as the speech he made about Iraq.

    Lots of opinions - and few from Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Rayne on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    Really, how many of the people here in thread are from Michigan?

    Do you really know what happened, who it was that effed up the Michigan primary?

    I see a lot of chatter here that claims Obama's campaign made a fundamental error about the Michigan primary.

    Excuse me?  Who exactly was it that promoted an early primary at all, that invoked the penalties the DNC -- a committee of representatives from every state including Michigan -- voted upon??

    My vote as an Edwards supporter was jacked from the moment the proponents of the early primary went to work, and that's exactly what they had in mind all along.  Any decision Obama's OR Edward's campaign made was after the fact.

    I will never forgive the proponents of the early primary -- who overwhelming backed one candidate -- for denying me and the rest of my fellow Edwards' supporters our vote, let alone costing our state millions of dollars for a piece of crap useless primary, and the loss of revenues that would have come from campaigning.  There is no making this right by us, ever.  You might do well to ask yourselves if a candidate's supporters could do this to a state, in an attempt to earn favor and future appointments with that candidate's administration, exactly how else will they f*ck up our country?

    I may not be (none / 0) (#55)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    from MI... but I have a stake in this too!!

    If the rules remain the same... whatever happens in MI & FL may play out in the future.

    This needs to be settled in a fair manner to the DEM voters.

    BTW.. Why should an opinoin only count if some one lives in MI? If that is the way it goes... then no men can have an opinion that counts for any women issues.... not very sound logic.

    Parent

    Riverdaughter is a Couple Quotes Short (none / 0) (#1)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    The game is easily played.  Russert busted Rendell on Meet The Press this morning, finding quotes about MI that wholly contradict both the October 'camp' quote, and their current position.  Not that any of this matters. Quotes, schmotes.  The delegates will be divided equally between the two candidates and seated at the convention.  

    Sure (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    Psst, Harley, pols are pols.

    Obama is God on Earth for you I take it.

    How about this, how about we think about what is best for the Democratic Party, not what is best for Clinton or Obama?

    Harley, do you know when I started talking about Florida and Michigan? you think it started yesterday?

    You think it has anything to do with Clinton?

    Parent

    I'm all For That (none / 0) (#6)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    By all means, let's all start thinking about what's best for the Democratic party.

    Parent
    Dividing delegates equally between the two (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    sure isn't.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    You're not going to get the revote.  We don't want to 'disenfranchise' the delegation.  This is the only way they'll be seated.  I'm not sure what else you can expect.

    Parent
    Huh (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    Do you think that apportioning delegates equally despite how people voted (or how they would vote in a re-vote) is enfranchising voters?

    Awesome. Let's divide all the pledged and supers 50-50 and have a bowl-off to decide the nomination.

    Parent

    Despite How People Voted? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    That argument might fly in FLA, but it doesn't work in Michigan.  That's why, lacking a revote, you'll have to seat them 50/50.  (Florida might be seated in a way that reflects Senator Clinton's success there.)  Look, I understand this was meant to be part of the Clinton Hail Mary strategy.  But it's simply not going to happen.  At some point, you need to deal with the real and move forward.

    Parent
    How people voted in MI (none / 0) (#32)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:54:46 PM EST
    and polls at the time tell you that 50-50 is not fair.

    I advocate a re-vote, but that doesn't mean that the previous vote lacks information about voter preferences.

    You think no one in MI would have voted for Edwards? Uh, ok.

    Parent

    Well, Sure (none / 0) (#35)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:03:24 PM EST
    But the information is outdated and based on an election that wasn't actually an election.  You can't make assumptions about voter preference when not all of the candidates were on the ballot.  And polls 'at the time' are not dispositive either, as those same polls looked a lot different when the state's actual/correct primary date rolled around.

    It's one big mess.  And the mess can be credited directly to Gov. Granholm and anyone else who  tried to game the process by moving the primary up.   It you want to blame someone, you might start there.

    Parent

    Not interested in blame (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    I'm interested in fixing it so that whoever wins is seen as legitimate by both camps, we won't have defections of Obama or Clinton supporters in any state, and Dems would have a fighting chance to carry MI and FL in November.

    Parent
    Granholm approved a revote (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    Obama blocked it. Obama is to blame NOW.

    Parent
    Pols are Pols, Right? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:14:18 PM EST
    Granhom tried to move it up in order to assist the Clinton campaign.  The Obama campaign knows that Senator Clinton has no chance without revotes (and little then, to be honest).  Folks are throwing elbows just like you said they do.  Each campaign acts according to self-interest.

    But a quick question.   In one previous revote proposal, anyone who voted in the Republican primary would be disqualified from voting in a revote.  That includes a healthy number of Obama voters.  Were you for or against that part of the proposal?

    Parent

    Does it actually include (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    a "healthy amount of Obama supporters"?  I haven't seen any convincing numbers to show that people who may've crossed over for the Republican primary would have overwhelmingly voted for Obama in a Democratic primary.

    IMO, if you voted in the Republican primary, you voted in a primary.  You cast your ballot knowing it would only count in one primary.  Plenty of Republicans have jumped into our primaries and caucuses to try to cause mischief.  They knew what they were doing.  It would be stupid to say they should be able to then cast a vote in a Republican caucus or primary as well.

    Excluding people who voted in the Republican primary from a revote makes more sense than not doing so.  It follows a set of basic principles by which we run elections.  Caucuses may also disenfranchise, but they do so in a different way - at least they still follow the one person, one vote (but, uh, sorry if you can't make it) principle.

    Parent

    I Saw Numbers at 20 Percent (none / 0) (#56)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:29:27 PM EST
    Which seems plenty healthy.  And given that the reason they voted in the GOP primary -- Obama wasn't on the ballot -- it seems, well, unfair to exclude them from the primary their candidate is actually in.  And, of course, designed to help out Senator Clinton in that same revote.  That's why I was curious about Big Tent's opinion.

    Parent
    Where did you see these numbers? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:41:46 PM EST
    I looked for exit polling, but didn't see any that addressed this point.

    Parent
    I know you weren't asking me, but (none / 0) (#42)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    how do you know that a healthy number of Obama voters voted in the GOP primary? I doubt that there were very many, but I don't have anything to really base that on.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    Obama get the elbow for blocking the revotes. that's the way it goes.

    I care about the Dem Party and I hit folks who hurt it. Obama hurt it by blocking revotes.

    Parent

    Not an election? (none / 0) (#68)
    by IzikLA on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:27:57 AM EST
    Are you really serious?  A lot of people voted in this so-called non-election.  I will agree with you that it is one big mess.  It is unfortunate that there is no perfect solution.  However, a 50/50 split is not a solution at all, I'm sure you can figure out why.  Clinton earned 55% of the vote and those delegates should be seated.  Sorry about the rules and everything but I happen to believe that when the race is this close the votes must count more than the rules do.  If you want to make it semi-fair, let's give 45% to Obama, an over-representation of the votes he actually received, even as Uncommitted.  

    Either way I think it is important that we include the vote totals from MI & FL in the popular vote totals and stopped pretending that those votes that were cast do not even exist.  If that was done this whole election might take on a whole new light.

    Parent

    A REVOTE (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:35:43 PM EST
    is possible even now, IF Obama would agree to it. The reason it did not happen is because of Obama. He could MAKE it happen if he fought for it now.

    Parent
    Voters Not Delegation (none / 0) (#19)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    It isn't about disenfranchising the delegation. It's about disenfranchising the voters. Any seating of the delegation that isn't based on the will of the people is a slap in the face to the people.

    Do you really think that 1.7 million Florida Dems voted because they cared whether the delegates got to sit at the convention? Or did they vote because they wanted their vote to matter?

    Parent

    If you seat them 50/50 (none / 0) (#26)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    then obviously it is as if they were never seated at all.  Why should they even be there?  They'll have no impact.  Is there great food at the DNC convention or something?  They might as well just go to a ComicCon.

    Parent
    What gets me (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    about seating the MI delegation 50/50 (or ignoring FL and MI, period) is that that is a very slippery slope.  Anyone arguing that the MI delegation should be seated 50/50 is discrediting the voting process and subverting the purpose of the delegates, period.  What delegates mean is already crumbling away, largely because of what the DNC decided to do here by denying representation to MI and FL.  

    50/50 is completely arbitrary.  And that is not something we want to associate our voting processes with.  Again it is a slippery slope that the DNC should avoid for the sake of its own future as a respectable political organization interested in the American people.

    Parent

    Obama personally should say how he arrived at that (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ellie on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:06:25 PM EST
    BO, TeamO and his other followers should explicitly outline how they can tell which of the votes they're snatching satisfactorily "belong" to him.

    Really, let's see some leadership on this, particularly on that guy who's been firmly above the fray. (And he created the fray.)

    By leadership, I mean upfront, affirmative leadership. Something more than the existing variations from fans on the theme of how much they hate HRC ergo they can comfortably and arbitrarily grab those votes.

    Parent

    There are two options. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:35:14 PM EST
    A revote, or a 50% penalty placed on the original primaries, with Michigan sending a delegation of "uncommitted" delegates which in all honesty would probably go over to Obama anyway.

    The original primaries were genuine elections, with a penalty of 100% nonrepresentation hanging over them.  Lighten the penalty.  After all, real ballots were printed.  I assume the primaries were paid for as they would be if the delegates actually mattered.  Polling places were the same.

    Parent

    The Burden of Proof is on Him (none / 0) (#59)
    by blogtopus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:15:13 PM EST
    He is the candidate who wants to either a) Disqualify the voting process or B) Take what is ostensibly not his (the Uncommitted vote). He has to prove a specific disadvantage THAT HE DID NOT CREATE FOR HIMSELF if he wants to change a person's vote to Obama from Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, etc.

    Parent
    What's the face-saving solution? (none / 0) (#5)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    Obama cedes on counting the original votes or pushes for a re-vote. Short-term advantage Clinton.

    Clinton accepts 50/50. Short-term advantage Obama.

    Doing nothing about it until after the primaries. Short-term advantage Obama.

    Where is there room for compromise in this? In such a hotly contested race, at such a delicate moment, who can afford to take the long (and principled) view? Especially when the one who gives in will inevitably be judged as less of a "fighter."

    Better yet, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    the DNC goes back to the original 50% penalty for both states and the candidates stay the heck out of it. Everybody takes a slight hit except for the actual voters. And they need to do it now, cause the longer this drags out the more incompetent Democrats look.

    And I'd tell FL and MI that they can send half their normal number of delegates to the convention, not send all of them with each vote counting 50%. That just doesn't look right--one person, one vote.

    Parent

    Dean is really chicken-livered to (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    require an agreement between the candidates as a pre-condition to any resolution.  

    Parent
    Still the wrinkle in Michigan is (none / 0) (#16)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    that "uncommitted" was the competitor who did best against Hillary, not Obama.  Obama could have Dodd's and Kucinich's delegates because they are supporting Obama and were on the ballot, but it is impossible to estimate who the rest in the uncommitted category should go to because remember Edwards voters voted uncommitted too.

    Parent
    Has MI held their state convention yet? (none / 0) (#23)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    Seems like Senator Obama and Edwards (if he decides to do it) could go make their case to the uncommitted delegates at their state convention and get them locked up for the national one. I agree that ignoring the Edwards voters is a really dangerous precedent in both primaries.

    Parent
    I don't exactly know (none / 0) (#49)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    where they are in that side of the process.  Thing is that the Edwards factor is a sticky mess because he hasn't endorsed either candidate.  I don't really think he should go unless he endorses and has someone viable to give them to.  The problem would be figuring out how many if there were any at all.  There really doesn't seem to be any clearly fair solution to Michigan unless you consider giving Clinton all of hers, and sending the rest of the delegation as uncommitted, but that doesn't even work because figuring out who the people would be to fill those delegate seats would be a big fat fight which brings us back to sqaure one with no good peaceful solution.

    Parent
    I'm a big a Hillary supporter as anyone (none / 0) (#10)
    by ChrisO on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    but I have to say that I'm leaning toward the idea the Obama's supporters at least have an argument when it comes to Michigan. The agreement was to not "participate" in the primary. I think it could be argued that Hillary was "participating" by leaving her name on the ballot. Doesn't change my thinking about Florida, though.

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:34:42 PM EST
    Your argument does not even require refutation. NO ONE interpreted the 4 state pledge in the manner you are positing.

    This is what is absurd about the argument. NO ONE removed their name from the ballot as a result of the 4 state pledge. Obama organized (only Edwards, Biden and Richardson joined him; current Obama supporter Chris Dodd, Clinton, Kucinich and Gravel did not) what HE termed "an additional commitment" - removal from the MI ballot (but not the FL ballot, the 4 state pledge did not require removal from the FL ballot obviously so it could not require removal from the Mi ballot).

    Your acceptance of this argument is interesting, but ultimately the argument is patently absurd.  

    Parent

    Absurd or Not (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:41:17 PM EST
    Every time Senator Clinton claims a victory in Michigan, or suggests the MI pop vote should count, she looks like someone given to exaggeration and, uhm, misstatement.  And given the way the last few weeks have run, that's something she simply cannot afford.  Perception is all in this, and the perception is that she was the only name on the ballot, and that to claim victory there is, well, patently absurd.

    The latter was proven rather easily when Rendell attempt to explain
     why it's 'harder to run against yourself' than an actual opponent on MTP today.  It's just not a very effective argument.  

    Florida is another story.

    Parent

    Perception is (none / 0) (#27)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    through the eyse of the beholder.

    Sen OIbamam took the "HIGH ROAD" in taking the additional step of removing his name. Now he wants to take the"LOW ROAD".

    If there is not a revote, then MI needs to be seated as stands.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    Obama supporters have been dishonest about the 4 State Pledge.

    As opposed to the Obama campaign itself, which has not trafficked in such lies.

    Parent

    Obama's mischief behind the scenes (none / 0) (#33)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    related to MI ballot.....
    http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264

    btw - do you have a list of Obama's numerous "misstatements"?  
    Here are but a few...

    http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4480868

    Parent

    That pledge was a bogus political (none / 0) (#51)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:52:22 PM EST
    move and it was also a very BAD political move.  Honestly, politicians who take their names off of ballots no matter how illigitimate an election is considered to be at the time don't really deserve to get delegates as far as I am concerned.  I was an Edwards supporter and I thought that he made a really, really STUPID move taking his name off of that ballot.  I have no more sympathy for him on that front than I do for Obama I am sorry to say.

    So people can argue about a bogus pledge until the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that Obama and Edwards were fool enough to choose not to be counted while their opponents were smart enough to participate.

    Parent

    But why wouldn't that cover FL too? (none / 0) (#15)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:35:44 PM EST
    Wasn't the four state pledge supposed to apply to both? They all had plenty of time to get their names off both ballots without jeopardizing the GE if they though that was what the agreement stated.

    Parent
    If you take your name (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    " off the Florida ballot they have to drop out of the race entirely under Florida law."

    And Edwards still has his name on the FL ballot also.

    Parent

    No, the Florida Dems (none / 0) (#45)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:39:09 PM EST
    gave the candidates until October 29th to request that their names not be submitted to the state in the first place--Obama et al pulled their names off MI on Oct 9. Florida only requires an affidavit that you won't run in the general once your name has been submitted by the FDP.  

    Parent
    You posted (none / 0) (#48)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:41:36 PM EST
    while I was responding. Didn't mean to just repeat what you said. Now I seem like a parrot. :D

    Parent
    Basically, it shows that Edwards and (none / 0) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    Obama were willing to pull this political stunt in MI, but not crazy enough to repeat this stunt in another important state like Florida.

    Parent
    Florida (none / 0) (#46)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:40:05 PM EST
    After the names were submitted to the state by the FDP they couldn't remove their names and still be in the general.

    But they could have removed their names prior to that as far as I know. I've seen nothing which says they couldn't have asked their name not to be submitted nor any indication that any campaign bothered to try.

    Parent

    No one from the Obama camp has argued that (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:37:59 PM EST
    the 4 state pledge required removal from the ballot. It is a fallacious argument spread by dishonest Obama supporters. NOT by the Obama campaign itself.

    Parent
    The actual pledge says (none / 0) (#63)
    by ChrisO on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:54:41 PM EST
    "...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,..."

    Whether any campaign is arguing the point or not is irrelevant. My point is simply that seeing the actual wording of the pledge contains the phrase "shall not campaign or participate.." convinces me that Obama's supporters have a point when they argue whether Hillary violated the pledge. I don't doubt that Obama's posturing on this is all for political advantage. And I'm certainly not arguing that the answer is to dismiss the voters of Michigan. But it's intellectually dishonest for me to just knee-jerk oppose every point made by an Obama supporter simply because I like Hillary. I think it's hard to argue against the idea that the use of the word "participate" at least gives Obama supporters an arguable point.

    Parent

    I could never figure out (none / 0) (#18)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:39:55 PM EST
    why Edwards would even consider going along with taking his name off the ballot. What was he trying to accomplish?

    Win Iowa (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Ahhh (none / 0) (#24)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    Keep them happy even if he had to give up a swing state to do it.

    Parent
    Perhaps someday it will become clear (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:00:31 PM EST
    to me why any candidate thought a candidate's chances in the IA caucuses would be benefited by reoming the candidate's name from the MI primary ballot.  

    Parent
    I don't think that anyone could (none / 0) (#53)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:57:30 PM EST
    come up with an argument for doing that that I would be able to buy into.

    Parent
    It probably didn't help, but editorials (none / 0) (#54)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:12:13 PM EST
    in the Manchester Union Leader prior to the NH primary accused Clinton of cheating and worse because she kept her name on the ballot.  Really silly crap but it may have effected some voters?

    Parent
    Why should everyone pay for TeamO's tactical error (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ellie on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    I wondered this "aloud" in a previous thread but haven't on my own nor paying close attention to the dissections here and elsewhere found a rational, straightforward answer. (The more I see of this process, the more baffling, bordering on bizarre it becomes -- and that's without the backroom dealing and back-biting that would have the Doges of Your Average Renaissance Era Viper Pits like Venice throwing their aristocratic hands up in disgust and going out for wine and platters of linguine.)

    All of the Dem candidates have made savvy or bad choices in their respective campaigns. For better or worse they have reaped what they've sown and in the case where a particular choice has cause blowback, they have sucked it up.

    In ALL of those cases, they have accepted the impact on their respective outcomes, gone back to the drawing board if necessary, and moved on.

    ONLY Obama has had this mad crush of media, party friends ("out" or stealth), hired guns and followers dedicating an obscene amount of resources like air-time to saving his ass for HIS poor choices relating to FL and MI.

    They really would rather jeopardize success in the GE and, sadly, the dismal job ahead of restoring lost constitutionality and common sense to democracy to save his stumble to the White House.

    I'm beyond disgusted on this point, and I've watched the gaping maw of President Stompy devour just about every good and positive thing in its path to power his personal War on Whatever on his loping journey into the history books.

    I don't think it's so much that (none / 0) (#61)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:24:38 PM EST
    Obama needs to be "protected" from his tactical error, as that there is a basic framework for the election the candidates can all trust. Wisely or unwisely, the DNC rules committee determined in advance the early primaries in Florida and Michigan would be unsanctioned; the candidates and indeed everyone involved need to able to make their decisions on how to campaign based on that. Otherwise, no one would trust the DNC's decisions again (and presumably the primaries would move back into December), plus if we start the practice of rewriting the rules after a contest has begun, there will be tremendous temptation in the future for the powerful to use that in there favor. It's the whole "rules" argument that everyone here is undoubtedly gotten bored with by now, but that's what it boils down to.

    Parent
    I don't know how many times this has to be stated (none / 0) (#64)
    by ChrisO on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:56:51 PM EST
    but both a revote and seating the delegations as is fall completely within the rules.

    Parent
    I did not mean to imply that holding (none / 0) (#65)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:33:14 PM EST
    a revote would be against the rules. The DNC has specifically said otherwise multiple times. When I read the original question, I assumed it was asking why the delegates couldn't just be seated as is along with all the other delegates, which may have been a mistake interpretation on my part.

    If I understand things correctly, seating the delegates as is will be within the rules once the delegate committee is formed and they decide to do so. That's what everyone is expecting to happen.

    Parent

    Other candidates didn't get the Dem trust exercise (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:56:53 AM EST
    there is a basic framework for the election the candidates can all trust

    Why didn't, say, Chris Dodd's choices get exposed to open-ended trust vetting and rule tweaking to make sure -- over and over and over -- that they got all the votes they wanted?

    HRC isn't getting all these do-overs, including the superstar treatment of prominent Dems coaching the media.

    Edwards didn't get this kid glove VIP treatment when he was beset with coordinated right wing attacks early in his campaigning.

    Parent

    Sorry, I'm not sure at all what you're asking, (none / 0) (#67)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:54:07 AM EST
    maybe I'm missing something. I thought the question was why should everyone pay for Obama's error in removing himself from the ballot in the Michigan primary? Why couldn't we just allocate the delegates from the unsanctioned primary between Hillary and uncommitted, and if he didn't get any, well it was his hard luck. I'm not sure what you're asking.

    Parent
    Congrats to Obama for Staying off MI Ballot (none / 0) (#58)
    by MSS on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    If DNC rules said no early primaries -- and all states but MI and FL followed the rules -- why are we fretting about which votes get counted?

    They knew the rules!

    They even laughed about it in the FL legislature ("don't throw me in the brier patch, right?" said the Repub leadership to the chorteling Dem leadership, as the Dem pretended to ask that the primary not be held on the early date).

    I appreciated Obama getting off the ballot, in respect of the rules. I believe that it was too late for him to get off the FL ballot.

    This is a link to a radio interview (none / 0) (#60)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:01:10 PM EST
    that's been posted before. I'm reposting as it's relevant to the topic at hand, but I suspect most people here have already seen it. There's material both Hillary and Obama supporters can use. About 20-25 minutes, Hillary is asked why she left her name on the ballot, and gives basically the same answer as above; she was concerned about not rebuffing an important state. She also made the much quoted remark that there was no reason not to stay on the ballot, as it was clear the results were not going to count.

    One question I have is was there any reason beyond wanting to please the four early states for the candidates to sign the four state pledge? In particular, did the DNC ask them to? I still think whatever the motivations, it wasn't unreasonable for the candidates who chose to to remove their names after signing an agreement not to participate, but leaving that alone, what lead them agree to sign the agreement in the first place?

    Answering my own question, (none / 0) (#62)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:58:30 PM EST
    or at least attempting to, I found this link to the text of the full pledge, which includes a letter asking the candidates to sign it, signed by among others Harry Reid. So I guess that means the DNC had some say in this, although the candidates didn't have to sign it, and neither Gravel nor Kucinich did.

    Parent
    Oct 2007: Clinton Camp On MI | 68 comments (68 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment