-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/michigan-and-florida-chose-to-break.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
There are some real differences between the people of Michigan and the "leadership" of the democratic party here.
Personally, all I've seen is people who already have an agenda trying to use Michigan for their benefit.
Personally, I would rather see our delegates not seated at all than to go with any idea that outsiders are coming up with.
Remember 40% of people who voted democrat in the primary went out in a snow storm to vote uncommitted rather than to vote for Clinton. She didn't "win" this State, that's just a useful lie the media spreads to keep things stirred up.
If we had a full re-vote tomorrow I doubt she would win the State.
Better y'all just stay out of Michigan politics and let the people who actually live here deal with this.
They both could have left their names on the ballot in MI. IN fact the state dem party asked all candidates to leave their names on the ballot. There was no DNC rule that required anyone to remove their name. They chose to remove their names for two political reasons.
1. to curry favor with the voters in Iowa.
2. because they both knew Clinton was going to win in MI and they removed their names to make her victory there appear less legitimate.
>
> the 40% in MI who voted uncommitted were actually voting for Edwards or Obama. Both of those candidates ran stealth campaigns in MI asking their supporters to go out and vote uncommitted.
>
One wonders just how you know this to be true? Mind reading?
As one of those 40% who knows a good number of others here who voted uncommitted this was not the case. Most people who I know here in MI voted uncommitted as a protest against the whole process.
No one from any campaign asked me or anyone I know to vote that way. Around here (West MI) it was much more of a grass roots movement to vote uncommitted because we didn't like the way we were being pushed into a Clinton or nothing choice.
The whole "stealth campaign" idea is just more propaganda. It didn't happen, at least not around here. Sorry.
> 2. because they both knew Clinton was going to win in MI and they removed their names to make her victory there appear less legitimate.
>
Without a real vote that's just wishful thinking. Personally I doubt that Clinton could win here.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a...
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...
Someone said that the decision to move the Democratic Florida primary forward was made by the Republican-dominated Florida state government. Sounds fishy, but I was wondering if anyone had any information about this.
Meanwhile, CSPAN is going to re-run Rev. Wright's speech to the National Press Club and you shouldn't miss it. Except for a couple of callers, every single response to it earlier on CSPAN agreed with his remarks, and several mentioned the cutting and pasting of the most "radical" and emotional ones by the press was offensive and misleading.
I found myself not being able to disagree with anything he said--and I'm not even religious by any means. It's simply history and common sense that he relates--too bad that this corporate-run country can't handle the truth.
Nothing, however, on the hate, anger and outright lying by preachers in rightwing churches (or even mainline white ones) who have their noses up the ghost of white supremacy.
I'm so disgusted with these so-called "experts" I could absolutely scream. They'll do anything to avoid the will of those of us who could give a damn what color Obama is...next thing you know, Rev. Wright will be an apostle of the devil.
The corporate press executives have a big decision to make.
That half hour Q&A that followed Rev. Wright (perhaps one of the most brilliant and entertaining speakers I've heard since Mr. Obama) was certainly a new low point for journalism in our nation's capitol.
The trifling, accusatory, jingoist questions asked by "the working press" (certainly a contradiction of terms) will join the ABC debate as another gigantic act of self-immolation.
This perhaps historic television news moment drips with The Fierce Urgency of Now and the pathetic intellectual impotence that values cash and position over principle.
Next, the reason that Michigan moved ahead in the primary date was because Florida and other states moved ahead, but ONLY Michigan and Florida were punished.
Now, if you want to punish voters in Michigan, go right ahead! I'm a Michigan voter and willing to vote for either Clinton or Obama UNLESS our delegates are NOT seated.
Take my primary vote away and I won't vote at all in the General.
Might as well take the first amendment out of the Constitution...along with others this regime has trashed.
How low this country has gotten...
Elitists?
Take my primary vote away and I won't vote at all in the General.
Change the rules in midstream to benefit one candidate and I won't vote in the General. So, I guess we'll cancel each other out.
So, Michiganians and Floridian Democrats should just not have exercised their Constitution right to vote?
How democratic of you!!!!!!
He said there will meetings ending, May 31st that would decide how to solve this problem AND he said no matter what the credentialing committee decides there will be some that won't like it.
another lie from Queen Hillary.
Stop mixing up the agreements and where the changes came from. You are deliberately distorting the history of this.
Hillary wants to change the rules now that she is losing.
Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel did not removed there names. There was no coercion to remove names.
What is your thinking?
would invalidate my ballot. My only choice was to vote uncommitted to cast a
vote for any of the missing names. Remember at that point, the ballot was much
fuller and no one was very confident as to who would really garner the
uncommitted vote.
In a message dated 4/28/2008 12:09:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:
In addition, Obama's election lawyer made a very good point (aside from the notion of privately funded elections - our elections are funded with public dollars, which is why constitutional strictures can apply in a sense). His lawyer stated that there would be a problem in a place like Michigan for those individuals, knowing their votes wouldn't count, who crossed over to vote Republican. Would we then have to rerun the GOP primary because of people who did crossover? Would they get to vote again in essence being able to have voted twice? What about people who voted for Hillary or whoever? Do they get to vote again, in essence having a re-vote? That then begs the issue of people who voted in earlier primary states (me, for instance, who voted for Edwards). Should we get an opportunity to vote now that we know it's only down to Clinton and Obama?
Maybe Senator Obama just didn't want to be seen with Kwame in his current troubles?????????
So, we really need to understand the landscape here.
I don't give a damn about a revote or what O's lawyer's say.
That is exactly the point Howard Dean made on Meet The Press. The party leaders of both states knew the rules, had discussion about what would happen, and then went on to do it anyway. This is why he said the voters are the ones that suffered because these state's politician decided to test the DNC. When asked about why the rules were needed Dean said something this big needs rules to keep it organized an orderly. All states EXCEPT Michigan and Florida agreed.
Donna Brazile and Howard Dean created this mess. The took a gamble assuming that the race would be decided long ago. They never imagine Florida and Michigan would be the decision makers. Donna Brazile and Howard Dean are entirely responsible. They should be punished severely.
Hillary wants to change the rules now that she is losing."
Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot. He was not forced.
The candidates voluntarily chose not to campaign in Florida.
And Hillary Clinton did not break any rules. Not in Michigan, Not in Florida.
She broke her pledge -- but she didn't break any laws or rules. Not one.
However, I'm "logging off" this topic from this point forward. We need to direct this energy to defeating McCain and the GOP, not each other.
Here's Dean from Meet the Press:
"That is not my call. . . . Either of these candidates, if it's time for them to go, they'll know it."
take there name off the ballot...it has been said, and I believe that there
was an agreement between the candidates at the time that all of them would
do so...when it came right down to it, Hillary played it her own way...I
almost voted for her in the Illinois primary and I'm glad now that I
didn't...she's no more entitled to that job than I am...she has chosen the
scorched earth policy where the Democratic party is concerned and it will
ruin her political career in the end...there is no way she can stand up now
and complain about disenfranchised voters when she knew full well what the
rules were...again, more double talk and bullshit form Bushlike Hillary.
All the names were there when I voted in Michigan.
Kind of casts a different shade on things, doesn't it????
Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Biden were also on the ballot in the Michigan Dem primary in January 2008.
I was NOT just Clinton and Other.
Therefore, it was JUST Obama who voluntarily removed his name. My assumption is that he didn't want to be seen campaigning with Kwame Killpatrick, who has been indicted for perjury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(...
I have a question for you. Why are you specifically following my comments?
Instead of leaving your readership uneducated about the DNC rules and who has or hasn't broken any rules, you should be educating them instead. Here are some facts based on the actual rules of the DNC:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/24/a-talki...
Thank you for that link and I agree with you, educate people to the process
On another note, no, your state does not guarantee you the right to vote in a primary in your constitution (unless I missed the part of the Michigan Constitution that does. Article I lists the various rights and civil liberties...nothing about elections. Article II directly addresses elections...nothing applicable there.) You may want to actually read your state constitution, not to mention chapter 168 of the Michigan election law. In particular section 168.613a reads as follows (looks to me as if the secretary of state should have canceled the election on January 15, 2008 as the law required because the DNC said it would not accept the results of that primary):
---------------------------------
168.613a Presidential primary; time; use of other method to select delegates; notice to secretary of state; determination; limitation on participation; conduct; application and interpretation of rules, regulations, policies, and procedures.
Sec. 613a.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a presidential primary shall be conducted under this act on January 15, 2008, and on the fourth Tuesday in February in each following presidential election year.
(2) Not later than 4 p.m. on November 14, 2007, the chairperson of each participating political party shall notify the secretary of state if his or her political party will be using a method other than the results of the January 15, 2008 presidential primary to select delegates to his or her respective national convention to nominate a candidate for president of the United States in 2008. At 4 p.m. on November 15, 2007, the secretary of state shall determine, based upon the information provided by the participating political parties under this subsection, whether the participating political parties in this state will be using a method other than the results of the January 15, 2008 presidential primary to select delegates to their respective national conventions to nominate a candidate for president of the United States in 2008. If the secretary of state determines that all participating political parties are using a method other than the results of the January 15, 2008 presidential primary, the secretary of state shall cancel the presidential primary that would otherwise be held on January 15, 2008, and any ballots for that presidential primary shall be destroyed. Upon request of the secretary of state, the chairpersons of the participating political parties shall provide the secretary of state with the information necessary for the secretary of state to make the determination required by this subsection.
---------------------------------
The bottom line is this: frankly, as it appears in the law, this Michigan's fault, nobody else's. Funny how Hillary didn't seem to care when she didn't think she'd need Michigan.
PS - As you'll note, T_W, yes Michigan did set it's primary at January 15, 2008. In fact, that statute states explicitly that it is to be held on the fourth tuesday in February, except for 2008, when it was to be held on January 15, 2008.
Anyone who says otherwise is either out-of-touch, senile or lying.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/PriPresBa...
http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?dia...
and perhaps this from the Obama website:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/h...
You think our votes don't count? The more you reinforce that thinking, the more likely it will happen to you someday.
In 2000 you were all shouting, "Count the votes!" Today, because you don't like the outcome, you don't want to count all the votes . . . you can't have it both ways.
Change the rules and allow a revote. How shall we do that? Primary? Caucus? I reiterate from before...who gets to vote? Registered Democrats? Registered Democrats who didn't vote on January 15? Registered Democrats who crossed over to vote Republican (they get to vote again...and we have to subtract their vote from the GOP candidate they voted for)? Do those who already voted in the Democratic Primary on January 15 get to vote again? Do they get to vote for a different person? Do they have to vote for the same person? Who should be on the ballot (all those who were on January 15; only Barack and Hillary)? If someone voted for Hillary or Barack then, do they get to revote now? How do they prove for whom they voted? Do we have to revote the GOP primary, too (for those Dems who voted in the GOP primary by crossing over, but who want to vote in the Dem primary now?) Then...what about the people in all the states who have voted and voted for someone who was in the race at the time they voted but not now? Do they get to revote? Is that an equal protection issue? Why should a person who voted for Kucinich (which is, in essence, a vote for nobody) in January get a "do over" and vote for Hillary or Barack now? And while we're at it, I voted for Edwards, and I'm from New York. I want a revote because I want the opportunity to vote directly for Barack or Hillary.
By the way, yes, as I articulated, there are reasons to not go ahead with the vote, which I articulated above. All of my questions were dead on, but I will summarize them for you (because you don't seem to want to answer the ones I posed).
But you and other Obama surrogates are spewing outrageous crap to be blaming Flordia Democrats for what the Republican legislature did by setting an early primary date.
All the Democratic candidates were on the ballot. None campaigned. But about 1.7 million Florida residents took the time to vote. Hillary won. She is entitled to have those delegates seated and the Florida vote to be added to her popular vote total.
It's amazing that Democrats still complain about what happened between Gore and Bush in Florida in 2000. Yet you in the far left wing want to disenfranchise 1.7 million Florida Democrats.
I know how they feel. The Democratic caucuses in Kansas were rigged so that most Democrats in the state could not participate. Obama won activist-controlled-and-dominated caucuses but Hillary probably would have won a primary in which all Democrats had an equal opportunity to vote.
If you are really concerned about voting laws and rules, you ought to check around and see how many of the caucuses had provisions for military personnel stationed overseas to cast ballots.
With Obama Democrats working overtime to disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan, we will never again have to hear the silly "disenfranchise" argument from the left ever again. You know that if these states were going for Obama, you would be singing a different tune about counting every vote.
-----
Actually, Michigan polling shows it's for Obama, Florida Clinton. I don't care who's ahead. There are rules here that need to be adhered to. Personally, I would be saying the same thing, no matter what. It's Hillary who's not, however. And I will reiterate my concerns from a legal perspective of having a revote, from a previous post:
Change the rules and allow a revote. How shall we do that? Primary? Caucus? I reiterate from before...who gets to vote? Registered Democrats? Registered Democrats who didn't vote on January 15? Registered Democrats who crossed over to vote Republican (they get to vote again...and we have to subtract their vote from the GOP candidate they voted for)? Do those who already voted in the Democratic Primary on January 15 get to vote again? Do they get to vote for a different person? Do they have to vote for the same person? Who should be on the ballot (all those who were on January 15; only Barack and Hillary)? If someone voted for Hillary or Barack then, do they get to revote now? How do they prove for whom they voted? Do we have to revote the GOP primary, too (for those Dems who voted in the GOP primary by crossing over, but who want to vote in the Dem primary now?) Then...what about the people in all the states who have voted and voted for someone who was in the race at the time they voted but not now? Do they get to revote? Is that an equal protection issue? Why should a person who voted for Kucinich (which is, in essence, a vote for nobody) in January get a "do over" and vote for Hillary or Barack now? And while we're at it, I voted for Edwards, and I'm from New York. I want a revote because I want the opportunity to vote directly for Barack or Hillary.
Super delegates were NOT introduced in the 90s
And, seating the delegates from MI anf FL doesn't break or even bend any rules. The DNC has always had procedures to follow to have those states re-instated.