"Well, that was his choice"

Hillary Clinton is now saying -- not via a surrogate, but in
her own voice -- that because there was a concerted effort to
get people to vote uncommitted in Michigan, the results of the
Jan.29 beauty contest there should stand (as a real primary).

The sheer dishonesty of this is mindboggling.  It was dishonest
enough for her to leave her name on the ballot in the first
place.  But to compound the sin by alleging that the resulting
outcome was somehow fair is simply beyond the pale.

Seating Michigan's delegation as determined by the
Jan.29th beauty contest would not only be ratifying
an illegitimate result, it would be completely under-
cutting the party's ability to govern itself or enforce
its rules.  Lots of people don't care about the latter,
but as someone who has served on local and state party
committees and been a party activist for over two
decades, I personally do care.

I was originally pro-Edwards and anti-Obama.
After Edwards dropped out I was still anti-Obama.
North Carolina had precinct meetings last night as
the first step in our process (to be followed by the
county, district, state, and national, conventions),
and I personally had planned to have a daily diary
detailing evolution of the race here, up until I finally
made a decision (between Clinton and Obama).

Frankly, however, the decision has been made for me.
Anybody who is arguing for MI or FL to be seated without
a do-over on the grounds that the existing result is
legitimate simply does not understand
right and wrong in a democratic context.
And anybody who is getting ready to be nominated
and supported by the DNC, but thinks that it is OK
to ratify flouting of their directives in this way,
does not understand right and wrong in a Democratic
context either.

Tags: August, credentials, Denver, DNC, Hillary, Michigan (all tags)



Re: "Well, that was his choice"

she said have a revote or let the result stand.

i would think that is reasonable.

by lori 2008-03-12 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

The DNC asked candidates to take their names off the ballots there. Obama was simply following the rules, a concept that is foreign to the "do anything say anything" Clinton campaign.

by animated 2008-03-12 02:01PM | 0 recs
The DNC did no such thing...

...And I challenge you to produce one shred of evidence to show that they did.

by Andre Walker 2008-03-12 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The DNC did no such thing...

It was posted on Drudge.  And that should be enough right.  Twice BO and his hit men have attacked and question HRC based on something posted on Drudge.  So, a priori it was posted on drudge so it is a fact.


by giusd 2008-03-12 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

Please produce such a request.

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-12 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

No, they really didn't.  He removed his name so as to suck up to the voters in Iowa because he was going to lose Michigan anyway.  This also ensured that when the delegates were eventually seated (as they were told would more than likely happen), he could use the argument he is using now - "my name wasn't on the ballot"  (waaahhhhh).

Like the title of your post - it was "his choice"

Sorry that tactical decision didn't work for him, but does Hillary get a re-do on a state where she didn't campaign?

by cmugirl90 2008-03-12 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

BO does NOT want a revote. Read his campaign's latest on MI today!

by JHL 2008-03-12 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

What does that have to do with anything? He'll still go along with what the DNC and state party decides to do to handle the situation. He played by the rules, and will continue to do so.

Trying to justify Clinton's disingenuous behavior and comments on the MI and FL situation by claiming that what Obama "wants", not what he does, is equally valid is a false comparison.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

The belief that taking your name off the ballot in Michigan was a rule is a complete myth. Not only Hillary, but also Dennis Kucinich kept his name on the ballot. There is no legitimate reason why his name was taken off the ballot. It was merely a political strategy.

by HillaryKnight08 2008-03-12 02:20PM | 0 recs
Dodd was on it, too.

by lombard 2008-03-12 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

There's many legitimate reasons to remove your name from a ballot in which the rules have stated that the results were not valid, that the candidates all agreed not to campaign in, and in which the only reason to keep your name ON the ballot is to try and garner votes that could conceivably make a difference down the road - in direct disregard to the original point, which is that the contest was invalid in the first place. Richardson, Edwards and Biden all removed their name from the ballot along with Obama. I'm not sure how you can claim that removing his name from the ballot is the result of political maneuvering for advantage when there simply isn't any advantage to doing so.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

There was an advantage to give a wink to IA and NH voters and to prevent the delegates from being seated and this very argument taking place.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-12 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

The belief that taking your name off the ballot in Michigan was a rule is a complete myth.

Well, it's false, but that's hardly the same thing
as a complete myth.  People had to agree not to
campaign there, and suffer loss of any delegates
earned if they did.  The other people's decision to
take their names off were made in good faith.
HRC's to leave hers on was fundamentally dishonest;
it was an unapologetic attempt to gain an unfair
advantage.  The rules are not actually relevant to
this issue re the candidates; the relevant rules
are re states (FL & MI).

This is just a simple question of right and wrong.

by IvoteMay6th 2008-03-12 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

You attack Hillary for being dishonest, but you forget that two other Democrats left their name on the ballot. Were they dishonest, too?

by HillaryKnight08 2008-03-12 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

Read today's position--- all of the sudden Mr. BIG man O is opposed to mail-in ballots. What a damn hypocrite!

by JHL 2008-03-12 03:48PM | 0 recs
That's a little different.

If I had just read the diary, I would have come away with the impression that she was arguing against a re-vote, and instead let them stand as they are now. If she's saying if we can't get a re-vote, then they ought to stand as they are, that's a little different story.

by georgiapeach 2008-03-12 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

by JHL 2008-03-12 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

Ultimately, it's not up to the Clinton and Obama campaigns to settle this. It's up to Florida, Michigan, and the DNC. So direct your anger at one of them rather than Obama.

by animated 2008-03-12 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

the millions of people who voted in mich and fla have to be taken in consideration by the super delegates as the will of the people

by awayer 2008-03-12 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

Its not his job to float ideas of what MI should do now that they've screwed themselves out of a valid primary. He has repeatedly stated that he'll support the decision of the DNC and the state party so long as the matter is solved in a fair and equitable manner. There are more than enough people working on a number of solutions for this already.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 02:18PM | 0 recs
Hilllary Campaign today:

"We think there are two options: Either honor the results or hold new primary elections"

We Obama rejects the first option, but why is he rejecting the second option?

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-12 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilllary Campaign today:

Because he's holding his breath until someone gives him his way and suggests a caucus.  He's trying to run out the clock.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-12 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilllary Campaign today:

Have any proof to back up that statement? Or are you attributing intent without cause?

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilllary Campaign today:

No, but that would be smart of him if it works because that's where he does better. Also, if he can get his way, why not try it?  I don't think it will work, but he has to try any shenanigan he can.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-12 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilllary Campaign today:

Why does he "have to try any shenanigan he can"? He leads in delegates and the popular vote. Clinton can't surpass him even if the rest of the contests gave her a 60/40 split. You're attributing cause without anything to back it up, and you admit it.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilllary Campaign today:

And he can't win the number needed either. For anyone who thinks he isn't and won't play politics because "he's above that" and "Clinton plays dirty" is just naive.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-12 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilllary Campaign today:

No, superdelegates will have to play a part. That still doesn't negate the fact that Clinton cannot regain the lead in either popular vote or the delegate count. When it comes to making a case for the remaining superdelegates that both sides will need to pass the mark, Obama is much closer on his own steam than Clinton is. There's no way to spin that into anything other than second place for Clinton.

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Hilllary Campaign today:

Clinton CAN still regain the popular vote lead--- eh hem... PA, Puerto Rico, and the revotes in FL & MI. She'll bury him in popular votes, that's why HE wats to disenfrachise voters just like Bush did to crush a re-count before Gore even went 1 vote ahead in FL in 2000. Yeesh

by JHL 2008-03-12 03:52PM | 0 recs
does anyone

really think Hillary would not be fighting hard to KEEP them from revoting if these were two Obama states?

id even go so far as to say most of her supporters would still be on her side in that case as well.

im an Obama supporter and strongly in favor of a re-vote in both states.

i wish Hillary supporters would also denounce the possible use of superdelegates to overturn the popular vote, which is equivalent to disenfranchising every single voter in every single state. a far more undemocratic prospect then leaving out FL/MI, but i guess many define that as whatever helps her.

by falseintellect 2008-03-12 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: does anyone

BUT BUT BUT BO is no average human being.  He is some kind of transforming figure who will change the world as we know it.  He is ABOVE politics.  He is some kind of super duper man.

Funny i can't think of a single specific plan he has for anything i have heard at either a debate or one of his speaches.  HOPE HOPE HOPE or maybe just empty suite.


by giusd 2008-03-12 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: does anyone

That's also funny, because not only is his full policy and plans laid out on his website, but he's continually spoken at length in both town halls and in speeches about the details. How many speeches and town halls of his have you actually bothered to watch? (Without plugging your ears, that is.)

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: does anyone


His web site.  Written by someone else and place don his web site.  A true visionary.


by giusd 2008-03-12 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: does anyone

Are you honestly suggesting that Obama's policy plans were entirely ghostwritten by other people without even consulting with him? That he zero input on the policies he lays out? Are you that willfully deluded?

You didn't answer my question - before you said he never talks about policy, how many of his speeches and town halls have you actually watched?

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: does anyone

Almost every debate.  And every debate he gets clocked when the debate turns to policy.  Didnt we just spend 8 years with i guy we voted for because he was more likable.  Come on. BO may be one of the most under qualified dem candidates of all time.  Zero experience as governer, two years in the us senate, I dont count the last one and half years since he has done nothing but campaign.  I found his disucssion of policy weak.

His entire campaign is talk talk talk and i am really good looking.  Funny we never see the guy smoking.  But he wasnt around to vote in 2002 so he is somehow going to change the electoral map.  Do you know who BO and his campaign remind me of. McGovern.  

He is an empty suite and imho charles black will cut his legs off.  But america has changed and suddenly wants to elect a liberal democratic senator.  I guess those last 40 years went by and no one noticed how many dems have won the presidency or the popular vote????

Do you want to know what i think.  I think McCain is going to clock BO and not only will i have to suffer through 8 more years of this shit but BO and his crowd will do nothing but blame the Clintons and/or the racist voters.  


by giusd 2008-03-12 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

were you even awake then?

1- they took their name off in MI to embarrass her with the Iowans,when she said she wasn't going to, it  was their choice.

there was no DNC rule that said they had to remove their names in MI, thats a Obama myth-lie.

2-do you forget that the obama forces{which included Detroit's mayor} spent huge money running radio ads tellinng obama supporters to vote against Hillary in MI's primaryran a urban GTV program -

and Hillary didn't run ads an didn't have people campaign for her.


go read the Detroit paper for the days before the vote to see.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-12 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: "Well, that was his choice"

Obama supporter, Rep. John Conyers and his wife ran radio ads telling people to vote uncommitted to support Obama. In fact, uncommitted won in that district.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/01/09/voters_face_confusion_in_mic hi.html

by gomer 2008-03-12 03:55PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads