Michigan Vote: McAuliffe Blames the Other Candidates

Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign director, responded a little while ago to a direct question by Keith Olbermann regarding Hillary's contradictory statements on Michigan.  He declared that it is okay for Hillary to claim votes/delegates from Michigan, in spite of her earlier commitment to discount the election, because the other candidates made a political decision to take their names off the ballot.  (So much for honoring the DNC's request.) So it's their fault, not hers.  Wow!  (Btw, why did she stay on the ballot for an election that she claimed would not count?)

For more, "Hillary and the Genie Do Florida and Michigan: A very short play in one act"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/

Tags: clinton, Clinton Campaign, delegates, Democratic Party, McAuliffe, Michigan, popular vote (all tags)

Comments

29 Comments

Re: Michigan Vote: McAuliffe Blames the Other

Please document DNC rules requiring candidates to remove their names from any ballot.

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-13 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Vote: McAuliffe Blames the Other

Clinton swore in the 4 state pledge that she would not participate in MI election.  She broke her word to these states even if not to the DNC.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-13 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Vote: McAuliffe Blames the Other

The pledge by all candidates was not to campaign.

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-13 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Vote: McAuliffe Blames the Other

The word 'participate' was featured prominently in the document.  As something they promised not to do.

by Lawyerish 2008-05-13 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Vote: McAuliffe Blames the Other

I think you have the facts wrong.  The pledge read:

"THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or PARTICIPATE in any state..."

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio ns/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-13 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Vote: McAuliffe Blames the Other Cand

I understand why the Clinton camp had to take this line when the primary was still competitive.

With all due respect to the die hard supporters, the point where Michigan and Florida could change things for Sen. Clinton has passed and continuing to insinuate the presumptive Democratic nominee doesn't care about the people of two important states is needlessly destructive.

by werehippy 2008-05-13 06:26PM | 0 recs
Not one MI pledged delegate for Obama

Jerome has stated several times that Edwards campaign staffers reported that Richardson, Edwards, and Obama taking their names off the ballot was a concerted effort to taint an election which HRC would surely win, and to carry favor with delegates in IA and NH.

It disgusts me.  It's a subversion of the democratic process to claim that he deserves elected delegates from MI.  He purposefully excluded himself from in an effort to remove credibility from an election.

Barack Obama doesn't deserve one single delegate from Michigan because he didn't get a single vote in Michigan.  Maybe if he'd wanted a vote, he should've respected his supporters in Michigan and kept his name on the ballot.

If he can win the uncommitted delegates at the convention, then great.  But these were not votes for Barack Obama, they were votes for uncommitted.

The rules that govern a democracy are more important than the rules that govern the DNC.  The Democratic Party has enough trouble winning elections without pissing all over Michigan and Florida.

Kudos for the diary!  Wish I'd seen it.

by hornplayer 2008-05-13 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Not one MI pledged delegate for Obama

It wasn't an official election.  It makes no difference why he removed his name.  He kept his word not to participate while Hillary lied and kept her name on the ballot.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-13 06:33PM | 0 recs
Yes it was
it was certified by the MI secretary of state- official as can be- unless of course, its 2000 when Republicans didn't want to count votes in certain states. Now its Obama supporters- maybe you can take it to the Supreme Court too?
by linc 2008-05-13 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes it was

The DNC, not the state party or legislature, decides whether the vote is official. They said it wasn't and the media and every candidate, including Hillary, agreed at the time.  This vote was hardly "as official as it could be".  

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-13 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Not one MI pledged delegate for Obama

The vote was certified.

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-13 06:38PM | 0 recs
Fair weather kos
said 'it was a slap in the face' to MI voters for Obama to take his name off the MI ballot.
by linc 2008-05-13 06:34PM | 0 recs
Taint the election?

Seriously, are you going to make this argument?

Wasn't the Michigan election already tainted when the candidates pledged not to campaign or participate and (most significantly) the voters were told that the election WOULDN'T COUNT?

How can you "taint" an undemocratic straw poll?

The "democratic process" was already severely undermined, and the results are bogus to start with.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-13 06:34PM | 0 recs
You know how many times
I have been told my vote will not count? Quite a few, but you know what, I still vote. 2.5 million voters in MI and FL have the same attitude- I would call it a Democratic principle.
by linc 2008-05-13 06:37PM | 0 recs
Heh, there is a difference

between the philosophical "your vote won't count when there are so many voters" and the factual "your vote won't count because the primary leadership refuses to recognize the results."

HUGE difference.  The Michigan and Florida voters were robbed of their democratic voting opportunity by their own state leaders who violated the rules.  And once that happened, the election results themselves cannot honestly be described as "democratic."

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-13 06:41PM | 0 recs
Thats opinion
which is fine. 2.5 million people thought enough about their vote... to vote. That is all that matters in the end.
by linc 2008-05-13 06:46PM | 0 recs
No, actually

What matters is whether the vote itself was democratic.  2.5 million people thought enough to show up and cast their votes in a straw poll (including a ridiculous number of anti-Clinton protest votes in the form of "none of the above"), and that's great, but that doesn't turn the results into democratic results.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-13 06:48PM | 0 recs
If you think it was undemocratic
then you must have the same opinion of caucuses- that, by nature, are exclusionary of voters that do not have the luxury to spend hours caucusing. If Obama, his campaign, and supporters are so bent on excluding the primaries in FL and MI based on ideas of democracy, then we should most certainly exclude the undemocratic caucuses.
by linc 2008-05-13 06:55PM | 0 recs
Separate issue

I honestly can't believe you want to pretend that an election DECLARED MEANINGLESS should have its results treated like democratic results.  That's a neat trick.

Caucuses are a separate issue, personal time and participation are trade-offs in every election, a state that wants to do a caucus is fine by me.  At least caucuses have the benefit of being DECLARED MEANINGFUL prior to their occurrence.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-13 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Not one MI pledged delegate for Obama

I'm trying to be as constructive as possible while keeping it light, so please take this analogy in the manner it is intended.

Do you accept that the following is a valid chain of events: I at this time chose to cast my vote for Sen. Obama in the general election. To refuse to count this vote is to disenfranchise me and all the others like me who chose to vote now and makes a mockery of the democratic process.

If you don't (and of course you don't) then you accept the premise not all events claiming to be votes actually ARE votes. There are rules and social agreements governing what does and does not constitute voting, and simply because a group of people en mass knowingly violate the rules with full knowledge of that fact and it's invalidation of their votes does not change the facts.

Michigan and Florida will be seated in some capacity for pragmatic reasons and only when it no longer rewards them for their violation of the rules we all live by.

by werehippy 2008-05-13 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Not one MI pledged delegate for Obama

You are looking at this from your hillary-tinted glasses here.  She kept her name on the ballot for this very scenario - so that her NAME would be prominent on the ballot and thus she would appear to have more votes (which, of course she did) while at the same time pandering to Iowa and NH when she claimed on TV to a national audience 'i don't care if my name is on the ballot in MI or not, it is clear that this election will not count.'

If she is Soooooooo concerned about the poor voters in MI and FL, where was her voice BEFORE Jan. when her advisor voted to strip the states of their delegates for holding the primary early?  This is such garbage...of course all the candidates want the delegates to be seated and the votes to count, but you can hardly give either candidate the 'votes' they received when one, in fact, didn't receive any!  This was NOT a fair primary in either state - seat the delegates but not at the votes Hillary wants.

by mariannie 2008-05-13 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Not one MI pledged delegate for Obama

Maybe Hillary should start claiming votes she didn't get, too, so that the voices of the voters can be respected.

by hornplayer 2008-05-13 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Vote: McAuliffe Blames the Other Cand

it doesn't matter what we think, this race is with the superdelegates now.

so its all on them, and what they think of what she is doing with FL and MI

by TruthMatters 2008-05-13 06:31PM | 0 recs
Michigan

I don't get why the focus isn't squarely on the fact that voters were told the election wouldn't count.  These voters did not benefit from candidate campaigning or participation, and the DNC and the candidates themselves stated beforehand that the results were meaningless.

So, with that fact in mind, why does it even matter that Obama took his name off?  Even if it was on the ballot, it would be undemocratic to pretend that the results had real electoral meaning after the fact.

Michigan was screwed up from day one, and Obama's name removal neither increased nor decreased the absurdity of an election-turned-straw-poll.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-05-13 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Vote: McAuliffe Blames the

awww man not this shit again!!!!

its over, let it go, Obama is going to win the nomination!!!

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-13 06:42PM | 0 recs
Again, my concern is...

They seem to be hell bent on taking it to the convention. The problem is, when there is a convention fight, we lose.

Doesn't matter who the nominee is at that point. We lose.

She does that, the Clinton legacy is tarnished forever. It will only re-emphasize how we lost seats under Bill.

by IowaMike 2008-05-13 06:42PM | 0 recs
Yep, as they said

Everytime in recent memory that the nominating process went to the convention it ended in a loss.

by xenontab 2008-05-13 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Again, my concern is...

You know, you've made this same comment, nearly the same wording, six or seven times tonight, at least.   It gets boring when one says the same thing over and over.  

by aggieric 2008-05-13 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Again, my concern is...

It is an important point that those clammerring for a convention showdown should seriously consider.

by IowaMike 2008-05-13 07:37PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads