Clinton may get hit in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina with Michigan choice

Last month, the Clinton campaign seemed to go along with the other candidates who signed the Democratic National Committee's "Four State Pledge". We heard this from the campaign:



Well, that was a month ago. I'm guessing that there will be some fallout for Clinton in the first four states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina) from the decision in what would appear to be trying to play both sides of the issue. Here's a sample of what is yet to come:



How the DNC looks at the Clinton campaign's choice to cross the line would be interesting in how it plays out.

Some here have pointed out how Clinton's decision to stay on the ballot despite saying it was agreed to send Michigan a message will be good for her. However, how good is it if Michigan is now irrelevant and the delegates will not be able to represent themselves in the convention. Add that her decision can only harm her in at least Iowa and New Hampshire.

Note: this is not a "slam" at the candidate... it's meant for civil discussion on the decision to appear to support Michigan's will to change the order of the primary season while in effect condemning the decision through signing on to the "Four State Pledge", thus going against the DNC's job of maintaining order.

Did I miss something in the pledge that said remove thyself from the ballot?

Surely when Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich decided to respect the Four State Pledge, they were consistent with following through taking the name off the ballot...especially with showing they are in unison with the DNC.

I'm guessing that your opinion wold be driven in a different direction if either Edwards or Obama took the same tact.

I think there is small political risk on both sides, for those who stayed on the ballot they have time before the 1st 4 to explain their position though some voters may hold it against the,

Those who withdrew may have to deal with same problems in the GE should they become the nominee.

this as a "big deal".I dunno.maybe it is.I think Mark Penn is a bigger issue but I have been wrong before.

crossing a picket. that cannot be good. it can be taken many ways but, Florida will question why she is taking a pledge with them but, not Michagan and could be angered by that.
and Unions will see this as something like a person crossing the line of a walk out.

it's nice to have Michigan all to ourselves, speaking from the Detroit debate. Many non New Hampshire Democrats for years have been seeing nothing sacred about New Hampshire and RESENT the fact they think they can always be kingmaker. Tell that to Union members who see Duncan Hunter seeking their votes because he is skeptical of Free Trade and no Democrats knocking on their door. And Democrats will not be using the primaries to organize for November. Don't underplay the Republican base in Michigan outstate. They are stronger than you realize.

We don't understand why the legislature passed the law saying our primary had to be so early or why Gov. Granholm signed it, but we are tired of being called a swing state but having a primary that means nothing.

Many Dems are thinking of voting in the Republican primary instead. There's also talk of crashing the convention and making them seat our delegates. Yeah, that's what we need this election. :eyes:

The only people raising a ruckus are the politicians and newspaper columnists from those states.

:shrug:

is pretty P.O.d about it:

http://iowatrueblue.com/Blog/tabid/36/EntryID/152/Default.aspx

October 10, 2007


Dear Iowa Democratic Leaders:

As former Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, I spent significant time protecting our state’s historic, significant role in choosing the Democratic nominee for President. This year, the Democratic candidates for President each signed a pledge agreeing to protect Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses by not campaigning in states, like Michigan, that are actively seeking to undermine Iowa’s status by moving their state’s contest to compete with the early states.


Yesterday was the deadline for candidates to petition the Michigan Secretary of State to have their names removed from the state’s January 15th primary -- a primary that is not in compliance with Democratic National Committee rules. I’m pleased the candidate I am supporting, Senator Barack Obama -- along with Senators Biden and Edwards and Governor Richardson -- successfully removed their names from the ballot.


Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign, however, indicated her name would remain on the Michigan ballot, saying it was “unnecessary” to have it removed. Needless to say, this news begs a rather disconcerting question: If Senator Clinton intends to fulfill the spirit and letter of her pledge to the Democrats of Iowa, why would she want her name on the ballot in Michigan ?


As an Iowan who has seen firsthand the importance of the Iowa caucuses to our nation and our party, I’m asking my fellow Iowa Democrats to call on Senator Clinton to fulfill both the spirit and letter of her pledge by pursuing every available legal recourse to have her name removed from the Michigan ballot. I believe Senator Clinton should honor her word to Iowa Democrats.

Sincerely,


Gordon Fischer

Chair, Iowa Democratic Party

2002-2004

so I can better understand the situation, rather than forming my views based on people's interpretation or opinions. :toast:

this crap!! Bill Nelson is so DINO and kisses any ass that will further his future! I've seen him many times standing with candidates and then turn around and buddy up to Repukes!!!

Couldn't wait to say how much he respected Mel Martinez after he won the Senatorial Election, but was out campaigning with Betty Castor BEFORE the election! Then saying how he was looking forward to working with Mel! Now, I guess he's loving working with Crist too!

Yeah, "stick your finger in the air, Nelson!" Too bad some Bob Graham didn't really rub off on him! And of course, Bob was his God for a while too!

(except neocons) or changing the rules after the game has begun. A new lineup for 2012 will be promised and a face saving solution will be found.

Only Hillary avoided an amateur mistake of locking yourself out.

and the primary is locked in by law. Unlikey a solution can be found. Wonder if together Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina equal Michigan's 17 electoral votes.? / Its not that the Mich. leadership should entirely compromise. The DNC is involved too. HOW about take a lesson from the Republican ELectoral playbood. They are not taking Michigan for granted. There were there yesterday and will still participate in Michigan's GOP primary, even those the Michigan GOP race was advanced ahead of the H.H. GOP primary. Maybe that should be what we consider before penalizing a state. Did the GOP do likewise.

Since Michigan's primary isn't going to count. Zero (0) delegates will be awarded after the primary. So in the horse race to select our nominee, Michigan isn't going to mean anything at that time. Hillary even said so herself. And the delegates won't be seated until the convention, long after the nominee has been determined.

New Hampshire, California, Iowa, South Carolina and MONEY is what it takes for this absurd system to select a president. A enfranchished Michigan delegation would have little more influence anyway. MIchigan and Florida are making a needed statement. Screw em and stay home. / Why bother to send anyone at all. Lets just let NH wave the Michigan banner for us , if they want to, and work on local issues. It's a B.S. , undemocratic method of selecing a presidential candidate anyway. The money going to Denver, would better be spend on state legislative races. NOt going at all makes a needed statement. The whole thing is contrived and just a show. When has a candidate who did not raise the most money for TV ads, not get the nomination.

You seem to be forgetting that Michigan and Florida did not just jump past New Hampshire by moving up their primaries. They also jumped past the following states which followed the rules and scheduled their primaries to take place on the earliest valid date:

Alabama
Alaska (caucus)
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah

That is a whole HECK of a lot of electoral votes to discount in favor of Michigan's 17.

Besides the rules are After Feb 5 any state can do anything they want. No holds barred. And Michigan, Florida did fight for those states too. Calif holds it's primary that day. Feb. 5. Whoever wins Iowa, Hew Hampshire and has the money to go on to do their media thing in Calif. IT's Over. Many Michigan leaders are sick of four or five states determining the selection process for the whole country. Maybe Illinois gets to go to Denver, but they are just as disenfranchied as Michigan. After Calif., who cares how Ill. goes.

can still say no to Hillary. That's the only thing we've got left. I like Kucinich a lot, and wish that the deck wasn't stacked against him, and other candidates like Richardson.

Hillary can probably even afford to loose either NH or Iowa. Win one of them , plus California and it's all over. California rarely goes against whoever puts on the best tv spots. And Hillary has a pretty creative ad campaign.

his Iowa boots on the ground are in disarray. I don't think he stands a change. He is overwhelmed.

Hillary breaking the pledge sets her apart and not in a good way.

If a presidential candidate doesn't show solidarity with his/her party's set of rules even though he/she signs a pledge saying so, then what do we call that person and what kind of character and trust should we have with he or she?

Ya know the one they discovered after Richardson beat them to the punch.

If my opinion lines up with anyone, so be it.

I was referring to this"


"This is an extension of the pledge we made based on the rules that the DNC laid out to protect the role of the early states in the nominating process," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said. "We still hope that Michigan Democrats adopt a process that meets DNC rules and, if so, look forward to fighting for the votes of men and women across the state."

She will refrain from campaigning and spending money in MI or FL just like the other candidates.

This was not about solidarity. This was a candidate stampede after Richardson executed an interesting political ploy by withdrawing his name on Monday.

Michigan violated the rules. Obama, Biden, Edwards, and Richardson made sure there were consequences. Clinton did not "technically" break any rules but her staying in the Michigan race conveys political cowardice... par for the course, imho, about how Clinton has run her whole campaign. Her avoidance of giving straight answers, trying to offend the least amount of people instead of making bold proposals, etc. more of the same... sigh.

This was a political move by Richardson that the others were afraid of getting caught flat footed on.

This isn't a right or wrong thing, there are only shades of gray, but don't be so defensive. Clinton is not breaking any pledge but she is NOT PROACTIVELY helping the DNC reign in these rogue states that are breaking the rules. NOT being proactive is Clinton's forte, in my opinion. What original idea has she ever had? I'm not saying she's not smart, she is. But she is too politically cautious, in my opinion. In the words of Biden: "A President is supposed to lead."

"In my opinion. In the words of Biden: "A President is supposed to lead."

Did Biden actually file paperwork to withdraw his name from the ballot?

does it mean???

Instead, we got your "guess."

Michigan Democrats are claiming New Hampshire had agreed to hold their primary after the Nevada Caucus. That was not good enough for them. No state was to supercede New Hampshire. Much of the nation is fed up with that arrogrance. New Hampshire violated the DNC agreement first, so say Mich Dems. / Still the comment by the Iowa chair is almost equally arrogrant. Iowa is not guaranteed first run status. I had hoped Iowans played fairer than New Hampshire. Next time around, the rest of the state might not agree to Iowa's claim. For this year, it is ok. They did not move their caucus the way New Hampshire did.

Yes, NH agreed to hold their primary after the NV caucus. And what was not good enough for them? MI can claim that NH "violated the DNC agreement first" all it wants, because NH hasn't moved its primary.

Why is that fact escaping people?

Regardless. NH has no claim to perpetual first up status/ to be accepted by the rest of the country. If fighting that claim is divisive. So be it.
$$/.From MI DNC committee members to Howard Dean.


the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic
nominating convention as follows:
• at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
• at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
• at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
• at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.
The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries to
select their delegates after the opening of the “window” on February 5,
2008.
Michigan Democrats, while disappointed our state was not selected
as one of the four “pre-window” states, announced we would abide by the
DNC calendar, unless New Hampshire or another state decided to ignore
the rule establishing that sequence and that calendar.
On August 9, New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, with the
support of the state’s Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the
New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the
DNC rules. This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and
in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that
they would hold their GOP primary on January 19.
One of New Hampshire’s purposes was to push the New
Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC’s rule had
scheduled for January 19. New Hampshire’s transparent action reflected
its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately
after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar.
Those of us who fought hard to loosen the stranglehold of New
Hampshire on the process saw you stand by silently.
But when the Florida legislature changed the date of the Florida
primary to a date before the window opened, you promptly determined to
punish Florida Democrats by threatening to not seat their delegates if they
abided by their legislature’s decision. You still maintained public silence
about the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s decision to violate the DNC
rules, a decision, again, which was supported by New Hampshire

http://www.michigandems.com/Levin-Dingell%20Letter.pdf

Truth: MI moved its primary. NH didn't.

It's a tactic. MI did what it wanted to for their own reasons, not because of anything NH did.

and hell our vote won't mean shit anyways. I still think this criticism is sort of silly. She has not campaigned here and she pledged that. I don't recall her promising to withdraw from the ballot as well.

As for playing both sides of the issue - that's just classic Clinton. She gives herself enough wiggle room for anything.

There's a monumental absurdity at the center of Tuesday's decision by most of the major Democratic presidential candidates to drop out of the Michigan primary: that New Hampshire and Iowa, two states that lack Michigan's industrial economy, ethnic diversity, urban issues and environmental richness, somehow matter more in deciding the nominee for the world's biggest job.

This is madness, an affront not only to Michigan but to voters across the country who are forced to let residents of two small states winnow the field.

The cruel irony for Michigan voters is that this is just what the state hoped to avoid when its political leaders, in a rare show of bipartisanship, agreed on an early presidential primary.


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/OPINION01/710100324/1069

I'm just confused about the whole thing, but I sure don't like the candidates writing our state off. I'm writing in Gore.

And I'm still waiting for one of you legal eagles to cite the rule Hillary has broken by failing to withdraw from the Michigan primary.

In fact, this was a cheap political stunt by an also-ran (Bill Richardson) that was quickly joined by the "me too" crowd (Edwards, Obama, et al.) each of whom is terrified of standing up to the party elite.

Or are you just going for shock value?

A minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one.

Care to explain that little jewel? At the same time, would you tell me why you're calling voters in another state "petty and nasty?"

Your accusations and name-calling are bizarre.

Where have the voters of IA or NH earned the bullshit you've hurled at them? How are the voters of IA & NH pressuring candidates to pull their names from the ballot? Certainly in a case like this, candidates are making their own choices for their own reasons.

The IA, NH, SC, & NV Dem party heads ASKED candidates not to campaign in states that broke the rules that every state agreed to. No one was asked to pull their names from ballots.

This thread is a bunch of speculation by politicians and posters about almost nothing. IA and NH voters have had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS but you've taken it upon yourself to condemn them and call them "petty and hateful."

You can hate Dean and the DNC, the 50-state strategy, and the reality that we currently need small states to start off the primary process--but there's no reason for you to shit all over Dem voters in other states. They did NOTHING to deserve it.

From post #17 to this very thread:



And of course Ia and NH voters had something to do with this: the candidates that withdrew their name did so to curry favor with the voters there.

"reality that we currently need small states to start off the primary process"

Michigan is a swing state with 17 electoral votes. NH has 4. Who needs whom? :eyes:

While you're completely right that that letter does call for HRC to pull her name from the ballot (something I don't support), it's still the action of the party, not the voters. (btw, it's post #26.) The candidates make their own choices for their own reasons, and I'm still not sure we know exactly what's going on with this situation.

If I did something (even something stupid) to ingratiate myself to, say, the DU admin, does that make EarlG petty and hateful? Is elad responsible for my actions? Casting other Dem voters as villains doesn't help your cause.

And yes, we do need small states to start the primary process. States with lots of EVs and swing states play a huge role in the general election and that's when the candidates fall all over themselves to be in those states, as it should be. The primary has a different purpose than the general, and the approach isn't the same.

Given current campaign financing structure, large markets are a poor choice for early primaries. In a "big state," only the most-funded candidates could begin to compete. No Dennis, no Chris, no Joe, no Mike, and no Bill. Only the wealthy, only the corporate-backed candidates could ever hope to win in that situation, and that's not good for the process or the country.

It's fine to resent and disagree with the strategy, but there are reasons for having small states begin the primary process. There are real changes that need to be made, but the actions of FL and MI look an awful lot like poisoning the well for the rest of the country.

Or are you just here to insult me? :shrug:

for no other reason than for where they live and vote.

But they're not even on your radar. Demanding that voters in Michigan not get to vote is pretty insulting too. :eyes:

Money rules. She knows she can now say, I sort of participated in your primary ; so , when Nov. comes she will hope to have a love fest with Michigan. Wonder if Hillary will step on Mich soil should Granholm endorse her. ? Bet she will.

If I was an Iowan and Biden kept on campaigning in Michigan, I just don't see why that would make me support him less. If I was undecided, it wouldn't impact my choices either. This is a remarkably stupid non issue. Frankly, I don't see why any state or candidate needs to bend down and kiss Iowa or New Hampshire's ass.

If any state desires to move their primary I say more power to them. Protecting a few so called historic primaries is BS.

The state Committeewoman responds to Dem withdrawls. Good for her.
From the "Michigan Liberal." http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=94FF88FB96F8E3C375FC3AE367E5008C?diaryId=10357


Political leaders of both parties are pushing for the state Legislature to place the names of four Democratic presidential candidates back on the Jan. 15 primary ballot, trying to undo the damage to Michigan's political clout when the candidates removed their names from consideration this week.
Democratic National Committee member Debbie Dingell and state GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis both support the idea; Anuzis said today the Republican leaders of both chambers of the Legislature are on board. ...
"We have to be prepared to play hardball," said Dingell, the wife of U.S. Rep John Dingell, D-Dearborn, and a prime mover in the bid to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire

Republicans should avoid conplacency, though. Democratic voters, now having nothing better to do on Jan. 15, might find themselves wandering over to the Republican ballot to see what kind of mischief they can make.

Michigan might be the only state to go for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

Democrats could be poised to take the White House next year. But it'll be much harder if the Democratic Party insists on flipping a rude gesture in the direction of a large Midwestern industrial state such as Michigan.

It has been said the Republican Party has no heart.

But it http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1192201239316670.xml&coll=7&thispage=2appears Democrats have no head.