Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan

Pandering to Iowans. In the words of Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder and chief editor of dailykos, candidates who removed their names from the Michigan ballot were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire:

Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

Part of running for office is getting your name on the ballot. In fact, it's step 1.

The economies of Iowa and New Hampshire receive a big cash injection every four years (heck, John Edwards never closed his Iowa shop after 2004) and it's understandable they relish the Democratic and Republican primary schedules.

Office space rentals. Car rentals. Campaign staffer housing. Print shops. Catering costs. Restaurant business. Hotel rooms rented by local, national and international media. Cash, cash, cash these states receive from this position in the schedule. If I lived in New Hampshire, I wouldn't want Michigan to vote before us.

If candidates wish to curry favor with Iowa and New Hampshire party bosses by allowing them to keep their first-in-the-nation caucus and primary rotation schedule, and risk the ire of Michigan voters, fine. Remove yourself from Michigan's ballot. It's a risk you are willing to take, and running for office is a marathon of risks.

But now we see with Obama it was no risk. In fact, he got more delegates out of Michigan than he would have if he kept his name on the ballot. His campaign and supporters argue it was "unfair" that he chose to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire by removing his name from the Michigan ballot. So they took four of Hillary's delegates and gave them to Obama.

Unbelievable. This will come back to bite him in November. It may or may not cost him enough to lose the G.E., we will wait and see. But if you want to curry favor with Hillary's voters, don't swipe Hillary's delegates when you're already ahead by a comfortable margin.



Display:


Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 1)

Whatever.


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:17:23 PM EST

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 2)

So you have no argument.

Basically Hillary was the only candidate who refused to pander to elitism because she was the real Democrat in this race, standing up for the working class, the urban diaspora, the Catholics, the needy. The FDR coalition. The Jackson coalition.

Obama was the mugwump. He won the backs of his Republican friends in states like Iowa, good-government reform types that belong better with the Bull Moose party.

That is why he chose to pander to those elitists, and why his victory is preconditioned on the basis of overturning the popular vote.


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (1.50 / 2)

No, I'm just tired of intellectually dishonest bullshit.

Which part of THEY. BROKE. THE. RULES. do Clinton supporters NOT understand?  Apparently all of it.

I'll tell you what's no lie, however.  The pledge that HRC signed and the numerous times she said Florida and Michigan wouldn't count.

When you get past those arguments, talk to me.  Until then, these arguments are nothing but noise from a base that doesn't know how to lose graciously.


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 2)

What rule did they break? They broke no rules.

Or are you saying the entire Rules & Bylaws Committee broke their own rules today?

Secondly, HRC signed a pledge saying she wouldn't campaign in those states, and she didn't. She never signed a pledge to take her name off the ballot. And there was widespread expectation at the time, that the delegates from those states would eventually be seated. When HRC said they wouldn't count, she was referring only to the status quo at the time. No one was really expecting MI & FL not to be seated, not even the Obama campaign.


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 2)

I don't know, why don't you go back in time and ask the Harold Ickes of August 07 to explain it to both you and Harold Ickes.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 2)

When Michigan broke the rules in 2000, all the major candidates (that is, Gore and Bradley) took their names off the Michigan ballot.

When Michigan broke the rules in 2008, all the major candidates took their names off the Michigan ballot... except one.

You can argue that HRC's decision to keep her name on the MI ballot was "smart politics" if you like... but in my mind that's a weak and unconvincing argument.  (The argument that HRC is winning the popular vote is even weaker, IMHO - convince me that Obama has zero supporters in Michigan, and then we'll talk.)


by forbes on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What rule? (none / 0)

Actually, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel had their names on the ballots as well.

But that doesn't tell me which rule HRC broke, which is my response to LTWolf's hysterical, slanderous accusations.

I asked LTWolf a simple question, LTWolf has not been able to reply.


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've stated you'll never vote for him. (2.00 / 2)

Why do you care what happens to a party you've already decided not to support in November?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM EST

I am open to voting for him (2.00 / 1)

But if it were held today he hasn't earned it or demonstrated he wants it. He hasn't even asked for our votes. He just asked us to believe.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:19:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am open to voting for him (2.00 / 1)

He's not going to beg for your vote. If you think McCain would be a better president than Obama, vote McCain or stay home. If you feel Obama would be better, vote Obama.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tip O'Neill: Ask for their votes. (2.00 / 3)

The great Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill learned this the hard way - he lost a district he'd won for years and years. He later asked one of the district women party activists from the district why  he lost - she said "you never asked" for our votes.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He never made that mistake again. n/t (2.00 / 1)


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip O'Neill: Ask for their votes. (2.00 / 1)

If you think McCain would be a better president than Obama, vote McCain or stay home. If you feel Obama would be better, vote Obama.

There's no need to rationalize this.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tip O'Neill: Ask for their votes. (2.00 / 1)

It's not a logic problem. It's called politics.


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The politics of rationalization. (2.00 / 1)

If you don't believe Obama has sufficiently "asked for your vote", give your vote to McCain.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are voters beyond the blogs (2.00 / 2)

who think this way.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Says the person who refuses to vote (none / 0)

for Obama because he doesn't feel he's been sufficiently courted.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The politics of rationalization. (2.00 / 1)

Yo Firewall,

There's a reason why Warren Harding was the last Presidential candidate to campaign from his front porch, even though he won in a landslide.


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:37:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're still rationalizing. (2.00 / 1)

Look, if you'd rather see McCain win than Obama, have the guts to stand by your decision instead of trying to shift the responsibility for the way you voted elsewhere.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're still rationalizing. (2.00 / 1)

WTF are you talking about? I have no said anything about how I would vote.

What I am saying is the notion that Obama should not ask for votes but instead wait for everyone to make up their own mind on their own won't win him the election. That's about the darnedest fact there is. Sorry if you can't accept it.


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "you" is general. (2.00 / 1)

The facts are that people who think McCain would make a better president FOR WHATEVER REASON will vote for McCain or stay home.

The rest will vote Obama. In the end, it doesn't get any simpler than that. In your words, sorry if you can't accept it.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're forgetting about (2.00 / 1)

the concept of a campaign, but whatever. I can see this is getting nowhere closer to the inside of your cranium.


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've fallen back on ad-homs. (2.00 / 1)

I still don't get the need to rationalize one's voting choices. Why try to make it seem as if someone else forced you into voting one way, instead of taking responsibility for your vote?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're still rationalizing. (none / 0)

And I think he will start that process on Tuesday, from what he's said. When he can actually campaign for the general election without getting attacked for it, he'd be happy to campaign for the general election.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama asking for your vote (none / 0)

What kind of ask do you expect?

What kind of ask are you holding out for?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama asking for your vote (none / 0)

I thin the type of ask that's giving on both knees. Catfish wants her ring kissed.
From a Hillary supporter: We laughed as that became our mantra - "Barack can't win!"..... ....."he can go to hell and i'll pay for his way there."
by Cochrane on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's next - will he ask for her popular votes (2.00 / 1)

too? Will he ask that the uncommitted popular votes be added to his column?


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:33 PM EST

hmm (1.66 / 3)

hey, why don't we stop this nonsense and unify around cleaning this site up.

Lets go troll rate all the racist filth posted by mcsame trolls pretending to be disgruntled Hillary fans.

What's that???

OH, you already uprated all of those comments? Ok never mind then, as you were.


by Is This Snark on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We should rate the comment (2.00 / 1)

not the user. And how on earth do you still have an account here? I didn't think you were a person, but an automatic script that appended an "Is this snark?" comment to every diary comment.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:30:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We should rate the comment (none / 0)

Why do you, alegre and TexasDarlin still have accounts here?


by gchaucer2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

great illustration (2.00 / 2)

of how/why Clinton lost.

She didn't pay attention to what was going on, thought she had everything figured out, but at the end she made a simple yet fundamental error.

Like you. I'm clearly not IsThisSnark yet you attributed all of his posts to me.

On the other hand, you uprate racists comments.

Not the user, the comments.

Wonder what comments 14 and 23 say.
http://catfish2.mydd.com/user/catfish2/r atings


by Is This Snark on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's 14: (2.00 / 1)

Why do the Obama people keep defending the indefensible?

Judging Obama by his past we know that he is a black bigot by his membership in a bigoted race based organization.

I am a liberal and I do not support bigots.

Why do you?

catfish, you're kind of a racist. I don't think Obama actually wants your vote.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (2.00 / 2)

Some dipstick gave me 17 troll rates this morning so I couldn't re-post.

I saw several nasty comments in the hidden comments last night uprated by catfish.


by Is This Snark on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah you are the awesome one (2.00 / 1)

The other one is really annoying.

Also As I said before if I knew who you were before the "snark" purge I'd go back and uprate all of your stuff as you are very quick witted.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is not my comment. (2.00 / 1)

Here is my comment #14:

It sure is. (none / 0)

Could not agree more.

by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

My usernames have been catfish1 and catfish2.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is not my comment. (none / 0)

That's your uprate. Uprating bigotry's no better than posting it.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How is that bigotry? (2.00 / 1)

Calling somebody a bigot is bigotry? Recognizing bigotry where it exists is bigotry?

I can totally understand why that kind of talk goes on in black churches. But I also see that it stereotypes ALL whites as walking around feeling entitled. Many whites do live with a built-in privilege that many even most are not aware of. But it does mean ALL whites do not care about blacks or do not want to see a black man elected president.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is that bigotry? (2.00 / 1)

1. Declaring Obama to be a "black bigot."

2. Declaring the entire UCC to be a "bigoted race based organization."

If you don't see what's wrong with both of these statements, 'nuff said. I'm not even going to address the strawmen in your post.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well I didn't write the comment (2.00 / 1)

if I truly uprated it, and I don't see a link to the proof that I did, it may have been in haste.

But in their own words, they are a church that places the well-being of blacks above all others. Nothing wrong with that, but in their own words they are a race-based organization.

But in preaching hatred of whites and preaching resentment of Hillary Clinton - Wright, Moss, and Pfleger are bigots. Sorry but that's how I see it.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You were the only Clinton supporter who did. (none / 0)

1. http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/31/2 33029/928/192#192

2. Can you provide proof (actual proof, and not hearsay) that the UCC "places the well-being of blacks above all others"?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You were the only Clinton supporter who did. (2.00 / 1)

Please note I have no problem with the church being a race-based organization. I have a problem that its preachers encourage resentment of whites without acknowledging any whites who do not fit this stereotype. I havfe a big problem with a church that encourages resentment and hatred of Obama's political opponent and Senate colleague in a presidential race. She has every right to run against him for president.

Trinity United's About Page:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

  1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
   2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
   3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
   4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
   5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
   6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
   7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
   8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
   9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
  10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

Click here to read about Dr. Wright's talking points for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You were the only Clinton supporter who did. (none / 0)

Where does it say ABOVE whites?

You sound like you are afraid of black people helping each other rise above the circumstances imposed on them by whites who indeed DID have the white interest above all others.


by Is This Snark on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please stop being so dishonest (2.00 / 1)

You either read my comment but want to repeat charges that I am racist even though you know it is false, or you didn't read my comment.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

?krans siht sI (none / 0)

.noitseuq suoireS

A***


by adrienne4dean on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:55:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

?krans siht sI (none / 0)

.noitseuq suoireS

A***


by adrienne4dean on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

?krans siht sI (none / 0)

.noitseuq suoireS

A***


by adrienne4dean on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

?krans siht sI (none / 0)

.noitseuq suoireS

A***


by adrienne4dean on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

?krans siht sI (none / 0)

.noitseuq suoireS

A***


by adrienne4dean on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

?krans siht sI (none / 0)

.noitseuq suoireS

A***


by adrienne4dean on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 1)

This may or may not cause Armageddon, we will wait and see.


by BlueGAinDC on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:19:15 PM EST

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 1)

get over it.

if you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

(politics is a game....after all)


by citizendave on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM EST

Re: Or What was that? (1.00 / 1)

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen?

She ran a crappy campaign then tried to cheat her way to the nomination.  Everyone saw that early when she did her "victory" lap in Florida back on Super Tuesday.


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:21:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Winning the second half is not a crappy (1.00 / 0)

campaign.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It sure is. (1.00 / 0)

Could not agree more.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too much game cheating (1.00 / 0)

loses you votes. It's the best game there is.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too much game cheating (2.00 / 1)

cheating involves breaking the rules. which rules were broken?


by BlueGAinDC on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stealing delegates from her (1.00 / 0)

to give to him. Interpreting "uncommitted" as a vote for a certain candidate.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stealing delegates from her (2.00 / 1)

So, the DNC cheated on behalf of the Obama campaign? Huh?

And how do you steal from zero?

No one interpreted anything. The decision was a compromise. Plain and simple. By the way, the Clinton campaign's proposal counted uncommitted as Obama delegates. so are they the ones who cheated?


by BlueGAinDC on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

rofl (2.00 / 2)

what rules?  You only like the rules that favor Obama.  If all the rules were followed he would get no delegates from either MI or FL and SC, NH and IA  delegates would also loose half their votes.


by Teacher1956 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rofl (none / 0)

That's up to the DNC not MI & FL.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rofl (none / 0)

Unaware of the concept of waivers, eh?


by Reeves on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rofl (2.00 / 1)

So a legal system that gave the wons of millionaires a "waiver" every time that they committed a crime but punished everyone else with jail time would be perfectly legit, right?


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rofl (none / 0)

duh, neither would hillary


by citizendave on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rofl (none / 0)

If all the rules were follow, NEITHER Clinton nor Obama would get delegates.

SC, NH and IA are exceptions to moving their primary up, they wouldn't be penalized.


Obama in November.
by Artemis Jax on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rofl (none / 0)

Sorry, but those rules would actually favor Obama too (reality sometimes favors Obama).

Clinton netted 24 delegates from FL and MI with the DNC decision.

Obama got 13 delegates out of SC, they tied in NH, and 1 out of Iowa, for a total of 14 delegates.

If you took away all delegates from FL and MI, and cut SC, NH, and IA in half, you get +24 for Obama from the former, -7 from the latter.

Under what you call the rules, Obama gets 17 more delegates.


by BlueGAinDC on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 2)

Kos has as much credibility on these things as Jerome, for what that's worth.  He's just a blogger with a very large soapbox.

Anyway, no delegates were "stolen" yesterday - both were entitled to 0.


by rfahey22 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:20:28 PM EST

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 1)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=3134

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:31:22 PM EST

And they did. (2.00 / 1)

She did not campaign in Michigan:

...Obama spokesman Bill Burton offered a reminder that the primaries in Michigan and Florida will "have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest" because the states won't have any delegates at the national convention.

Not so fast, says the Clinton campaign. In a memo just circulated in response, the Clinton campaign denies the charge that it's planning to campaign in Florida; says the Obama campaign is pushing the Michigan-doesn't-matter line only because its efforts to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" isn't working; and seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all.

"While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And they did. (none / 0)

All the more reason it's invalid. If a candidate is barred from campaigning, the election is a sham.


by Reeves on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From the beginning, it was a half-delegate (1.00 / 0)

punishment.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the beginning, it was a half-delegate (none / 0)

No it wasn't.

That was just the MINIMUM PUNISHMENT.

There was never any agreement about 50% delegation from the beginning.


Obama in November.
by Artemis Jax on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Glad you agree, half-delegate punishment. (1.00 / 0)

Two swing states should get the minimum punishment seeing as how the voters had nothing to do with this, and Democrats want to win in November.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Glad you agree, half-delegate punishment. (none / 0)

Actually, I disagreed.

Your comment said that, "From the beginning, it was a half delegate punishment." That's a lie, and an easily disproven one.

From the beginning, it was said that the states were to be stripped of ALL delegates. Half delegates was the MINIMUM punishment but that was never actually given.

Hopefully, now YOU agree.


Obama in November.
by Artemis Jax on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 1)

A "special role in the nominating process" does not equal a license to disregard the rules from the beginning.

And second of all. Hillary Clinton abided by her pledged, which was understood as not campaigning in said state. It did NOT require removing her name from the ballot or asking the DNC to lessen the penalties later, which was going to be expected anyway.


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did Obama abide his Florida pledge? (2.00 / 1)

Hmmm:

Obama says he did not campaign in MI or FLA, but he failed to say a week before the SC primary he took out air time for a campaign ad on the CNN channel that aired in millions of homes, including FLA. This ad also ran after SC before the FLA primary.

Oh well. Water under the unity bridge.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Obama abide his Florida pledge? (none / 0)

So you advocate that Florida secede from the Union? Very interesting!


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Obama abide his Florida pledge? (2.00 / 2)

Nor their Michigan pledged.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton:

The Obama Campaign is not participating in the Primary and has not instructed supporters in Michigan whether or how to vote.

"Michigan Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit city council member Monica Conyers, taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote. They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver." [Washington Post, 1/9/08]

"Clinton is alone among major candidates to leave her name on the ballot. Now, supporters for her foes are seeking revenge. Few analysts doubt that Clinton won't win, but that has not stopped her opponents from trying to cut into Clinton's vote total by mounting a last-ditch push for Democrats to vote `uncommitted.'" [Detroit News, 1/15/08]

"There is confusion among voters and Mr Obama is urging his supporters to choose "uncommitted." [Economist, 1/14/08]

And did the media ever call out the Obama campaign on their inconsistencies?


by Beet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did Obama abide his Florida pledge? (none / 0)

This is the argument that makes no sense here. We can count all the Michigan Hillary votes because clearly the uncommitted votes were for Obama.

But we can't count the uncommitted votes for Obama, because they voted uncommitted.

My personal solution was to give the uncommitted votes to Obama, give the Hillary delegates to Hillary, in both Florida and Michigan, at full strength, with the caveat that if so much as a whisper about the "popular vote" came from the Hillary camp, the delegates got cut to 1/10 of a delegate each.


by Geiiga on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Al Gore and Bill Bradley were panderers! (2.00 / 2)

Who cares? She was given a gift she didn't deserve yesterday. Quit complaining about the RBC doing what the representatives of MI asked them to do.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:35:55 PM EST

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (none / 0)

Part of running for office is getting your name on the ballot. In fact, it's step 1.

I imagine Step 2 is making sure the ballot your name is on actually COUNTS.

But that's probably pretty inconvenient for you to ponder, so I'll give you this instead.

They stole NOTHING from Clinton. MI had ZERO delegates. Only after the RBC approved MI's plan of attributing delegates were there ANY delegates at all to distribute.

This "Stole 4 delegates" crap is an alarmingly false meme.


Obama in November.
by Artemis Jax on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:38:12 PM EST

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (1.00 / 1)

Just so you know, I'll never vote for the Obama, the empty suit!


by LA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:42:05 PM EST

Interesting. Curious as to why? (1.00 / 0)

Everybody has their own reasons. Yours might enlighten others. Thanks for stopping by.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting. Curious as to why? (none / 0)

Cause he's an empty suit!  Racist and that Donna Brazile!  Rezko!

Pretty much.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (none / 0)

The committee agreed on the proposals that the two states put forward.

Wholecloth.  Obama had the votes to split Michigan 50/50 but chose not to; instead, he deferred to the states.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 2)

Great point.  Well said, catfish.


by MMR2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:50:15 PM EST

Iowa and Michigan (2.00 / 1)

Talking to the bloggers here can be a true drag on one positive outlook on life. I'm sick of the media, and the constant bickering of Obama supporters constantly attacking Hillary and puffing up their preferred candidate. I'm sick and tired of Donna Brazille and the rest of the MSNBC and CNN hacks. The horror of a human being, Mareen Dowd, is also a very unpleasant surprise during this campaign. I'll tune in to Hillary, if and when I see her on the news or visit her website. Obama--without Hillary in the picture--would be very hard vote to make this November. Good luck on getting him elected!


by Check077 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:58:34 PM EST

?krans siht sI (none / 0)

.noitseuq suoireS

A***


by adrienne4dean on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM EST

Re: Having it Both Ways: Iowa and Michigan (none / 0)

History is a bummer, ain't it? Especially when someone is around who remembers. How much is the kos guy gettingdo you think? Will he get a job like Singer? I guess we will know soon.


by linfar on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:56:34 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.