Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'll be in Ind. for Obama tomorrow- did Obama's campaign ever oppose

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jsmirman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 12:21 AM
Original message
I'll be in Ind. for Obama tomorrow- did Obama's campaign ever oppose
a revote in Michigan and Florida?

Lanny was spinning that along with a bunch of other stuff on CNN tonight.

What is the truth on this issue?

I was in a living room tonight with about six undecideds and got to give them a good 7-8 minute breakdown of why I support Obama. They asked excellent questions and were very cool. Great experience.

Anyway, I'd like to have all my facts in order when I'm out there tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. When did Hillary 1st decide that caucuses where "undemocratic?"
When did she 1st decide to do something about it?
When did she decide that MI should be seated?

That is what I would like to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. Obama opposed a revote that was going to funded and run by Clinton backers.
And I don't blame him. Howard Dean offered both states a caucus, which would be inexpensive and wouldn't require the full voting apparatus of the states. The Clinton campaign refused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. This is and has always been up to the state legislatures.
The truth is both FL and MI's state legislatures declined Hillary's rich pals financing a re-vote because they considered it unseemly, giving the appearance of them trying to buy the election.

Obama has followed the rules all along. It is Hillary and her ilk trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, and lying every step of the way. Lanny is a smarmy lying POS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. sure he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KSinTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. It opposed buying votes or usurping DNC's powers
First of all, primaries are state run. Both states made the decisions they did knowing fully the consequenses.

Floridian
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5217293&mesg_id=5217293

Michigander
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5150010&mesg_id=5151239

Secondly, Obama said he would abide by the rules of the DNC. Primaries belong to the party (which is why the Supreme Court refused to hear a Florida lawsuit).

"Sen. Clinton, I have to say on this, has been completely disingenuous. She said, when she was still trying to compete with the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count," he said.

"Then, as soon as she got into trouble politically and it looked like she would have no prospects of winning the nomination without having them count, suddenly she's extraordinarily concerned with the voters there."

"I understand the politics of it, but let's be clear that it's politics," he added. "I want the Michigan delegation and the Florida delegation to be seated. And however the Democratic National Committee determines we can get that done, I'm happy to abide by those rules."

The Clinton campaign has been increasing its criticism of Obama, even challenging the Illinois senator to back the seating of a full Michigan delegation.


Thirdly, any attempt by the candidates to back financing such a re-vote would have the taint of "buying votes." Obama's campaign pushed against doing this. The states wanted someone, anyone, to pay for their debacle and the 48 states that got it right threatened to stop supporting the DNC if they spent their donations on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mythyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. As a campaign issue the whole FL/MI issue is moot. Here's why:
Edited on Tue May-06-08 01:04 AM by mythyc
This never fails to get the crickets from Hillary acolytes. She and they always LIE and claim that the pledge she and all of the other democratic candidates signed was simply not to quote unquote "campaign" in Florida.

Not true. Follow the sequence of events and you'll see that at every step it was clear that HRC condoned and vowed, legally, to uphold the DNC's decision to BAN Florida and Michigan's votes:

.

1) On August 31, 2007 DNC Chair Howard Dean sent the following letter to the Democratic Pres. Candidates:

"As the leader of the Democratic Party, I strongly urge you to adhere to the 2008 Delgate Selection Rules. ...

The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules adopted by the full DNC at its August 2006 meeting clearly provide that only 4 states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- may hold their respective contests prior to February 5, 2008. The finding of Non-Compliance included a 100% loss of pledged and unpledged delegates."


.

2) On September 1, 2007 -- the very next day after the DNC issued its ruling on Michigan and Florida -- HRC's campaign released this OFFICIAL statement:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calender provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."


repeated for emphasis, they "pledged to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

there's a difference between campaigning and the nominating calender.

.

3) Here is the actual pledge that HRC and all of the other Democratic candidates signed on the Michigan and Florida ruling:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.



_____________________________ __________


HRC and her surrogates etc, stress the word "campaign" in that pledge, but note which word comes immediately after that: "I shall not campaign or PARTICIPATE..."

A link to this, and much more on the Florida/Michigan issue: http://www.iowademocrats.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/1097190/pid/315102

.

4) and Finally: on October 11 She said the following about having her name on the Michigan ballot:

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

A youtube of that clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsmirman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thank you so much to all who responded with information
on my way out to log eight hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Secret_Society Donating Member (466 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. He refused a plan offered by the Michigan legislature
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. What plan was that? Do you have a link? Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC