Clinton 2007 Audio: Michigan Won't "Count for Anything"

This is the released audio of Clinton speaking late last year in an interview and specifically noting that Michigan is "not going to count for anything".


It really is amazing how things change once she realized that she needs to slash and burn the process in order to win...


Any ideas on what changed her mind?  Why did she tell Michigan voters that their votes wouldn't count?


Listen to the audio here: Jabberwonk

Update: Her full quote: "It's clear. This election they're having is not going to count for anything."

Vote in the poll...

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Michigan (all tags)

Comments

12 Comments

Re: Clinton 2007 Audio

Uh, she didn't tell Michigan voters that their votes wouldn't count.

Isn't this kind of a moot point if Michigan is going to re-vote?

by Steve M 2008-03-14 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton 2007 Audio

What is this besides telling people their votes won't count: Michigan is "not going to count for anything".

by campaignmonitor 2008-03-14 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton 2007 Audio

Yes, she told the listeners of some New Hampshire show that the election in Michigan was not going to count for anything.  What you said in the diary was false.

by Steve M 2008-03-14 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton 2007 Audio

When a candidate makes any statement, they are speaking to the state and the nation.  She was speaking to Florida voters, and Arkansas voters, and New York voters, and Michigan voters.

by campaignmonitor 2008-03-14 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton 2007 Audio

Look, you flat-out lied, claiming she said it to Michigan voters when she didn't.  I am not going to go round the mulberry bush with you on this one.

by Steve M 2008-03-14 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton 2007 Audio

So she can say one thing to one group, and then the opposite to another group a few months later when it's politically expedient? I thought Obama was the only one who did this./snark

by NewOaklandDem 2008-03-14 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton 2007 Audio

I know, it's shocking, isn't it!  Never before in history have political candidates pandered to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Do you remember when Bill Richardson said that Iowa's first-in-the-nation status had been decreed by God?  I'm guessing he didn't export that message to the other 49 states!

by Steve M 2008-03-14 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton 2007 Audio

Richardson's comment was pretty funny.  All said, though, this primary seaon is getting quite crazy.  Might be time for a break.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-03-14 02:01PM | 0 recs
Is that really all she said? I don't think so...

Ah, but is that all she said?  Or is that the snipet that you want us to hear?

Why not listen/read the whole comment?  Shall we....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859. html

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

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

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

Thanks for your diary.

by TxDem08 2008-03-14 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Is that really all she said? I don't think so
Not sure I understand what you're getting at.
by oregonkcg 2008-03-14 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Is that really all she said? I don't think so

So, you have successfully convinced me that she stayed on the ballot for a respectable reason. But she did say that it would not count. And now she wants it to count badly. Can you explain that as well?

by marcotom 2008-03-14 03:56PM | 0 recs
What's the point of this?

If the DNC had stated that the results wouldn't count, and she simply recites that DNC position, what exactly does that mean?  The discussion today is about a REVOTE, not the original vote.  I don't get the point.  Are you trying to say she didn't WANT the results to count?  Or that she didn't CARE about the results?  The context of the interview CLEARLY shows that's not the case, and thanks the the TxDem08 for providing the all-important context that's so disingenously missing from the diary.

Personally, there is a much greater case to be made for Florida's votes to count as originally cast.  Everyone was on the ballot, and well over a million people voted.  It was a legitimate contest. Obama even had national ads that ran in the state on cable.

In either state, however, if the position of Obama and his supporters is that these states shouldn't have legitimate primaries so delegates can be seated appropriately, then that equates to denying democracy.  I wouldn't want to be the candidate with that view.

by DaTruth 2008-03-15 03:43AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads