Probably a dumb question, but:

Why did Hillary get to leave her name on the ballots in FL and MI when all of the others took theirs off?
Isn't that "participation"?

If there was going to be one candidate on the ballots, why not leave all of them on?

That is all.

to get off the ballot in MI you had to request it be removed. All the candidates except for 3 did this.

it was too late to remove their names.

The state wanted the candidates on the ballots so taking the names off was not an easy process.

is that in florida, If you remove your name from the primary, you are removed from any GE ballots as well.

I have also heard it said that to be removed in FL, you have to quit the race. Or alternately that the state determines who to put on the ballot and does not take requests for removal.

And then there is the time factor, so at the time the pledges were signed, it may well have been too late to remove their names from FL anyhow, but I am less sure of that one.

Any one of those would explain why everyone was on the Florida ballot

all the candidates were on the ballot, but I only saw tv ads by Obama. That was explained as "national" advertising. Any of the candidates could attend fund raising (which Hillary and Obama did along with others), but they could not have public rallies or things like that...

...removed theirs. Obama's name was on the FL ballot.

four remained on the ballot.

Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel were on the ballot.

Kucinich didn't file the proper paperwork in time.

Kucinich also, incidentally, campaigned in Michigan in direct violation of the pledge.

Biden, Dodd, Edwards and Obama (not sure about Kucinich or Gravel) chose to take their names off the MI ballot in support of the DNC and in support of each other. Hillary chose not to.

the assholes in government in MI & FL were angry that the DNC didn't pick their states as early states and wanted to have early input on who the nominee was.

Yes, the FL leadership wanted an earlier date even though most of us regular voters had no awareness of the details. Once the state legislature began playing with dates, the GOP put some important constitutional tax amendments on the same ballot as the primary. By that time, even if the DNC asked FL to change to a different date, many of the local state representatives wanted the Democrats to show up and vote for the constitutional amendments, so they didn't want a separate (later) date for a Democratic primary (according to my local state rep., that was the main story). The Republican state legislature wasn't going to change the primary date anyway.

There was lots of early confusion about the reaction of the DNC, but almost all the local paper and tv coverage was over the taxes, insurance, and constitution with little mention of primary dates except buried on the back pages.

Once the DNC "punished" FL, it became a big deal down here. Most voters are simply pissed-off and don't really care what date the primary occurs. This has the potential to lose the general election (again) because of Florida...but who knows?

I believe was the exact quote. Classy.

these votes were not going to count, and acknowledged that, and now she wants to make it appear that she's all concerned that "all the votes be counted." Well, if she'd done better on Super Tuesday, would she have been expecting Obama to stay in the race to let all HIS supporters know that he's not a quitter, and to let all those other voices be heard?? I doubt it.

As were Kucinich and Gravel.

but fucked up the paperwork

so we have three unethical, one incompetent?


Kucinich campaigned in Michigan, so I don't see how he was "ethically" bound by the pledge.

Theirs, not hers.

are unethical?

do you know why his name remained on the ballot?

She was the LAST (on Sept. 1, 2007) to sign the Four State Pledge. There was no way that the Four States would deny her access to their primaries and caucuses. The same could not be said of the Seven Dwarfs - Obama, Dodd, Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Gravel, and Richardson. Richardson, Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Kucinich - in a 'show' of fairness and equity - removed their names from the only ballot (Michigan) where it was permitted. (Kucinich's campaign screwed up the paperwork.) Thus, the ballot choices in Michigan were Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, and Uncommitted ... or go vote for Romney in the GOP Primary.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/edwards-obama-sign-four-state-pledge/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html

It should be noted that Clinton EXPECTED to do well in both Florida and Michigan - if only in name-recognition ... and her surrogates were a part of the problem, at least in Michigan. The fact that nobody could campaign here gave her the basis for triangulation - she could posture for the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada ... and then use the FUBARs as a last resort ace-in-the-hole.

It should be carefully noted that the constantly insinuated equivalence between Michigan and Florida is, at best, obfuscatory. The actions leading to their early primaries were very different and the players had a different mix of motives. The GOP played a somewhat larger role in Florida's debacle than Michigan's - even though they played a role in both.

The Wikipedia treatment of the Michigan Primary FUBAR is relatively fair and comprehensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008

To hurt Clinton in Iowa and insure the votes in Michigan would always be invalidated. Clinton didn't so much as "leave her name on" as Obama contrived to take his off. A slick maneuver.

"Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa."

http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264

As usual.

Even by the exit polling in Michigan, without any campaigning, Obama would've received 35% of the vote to Clinton's 46% if the names were left on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008

Obama worked to keep the votes invalidated in the future - averting an 11 point loss early in the primary - Thanks for that.

Also scored points in Iowa with this tactic. Slick.

Yep, it was plotted by wicked Senator Obama back in October 2007. And they forced honest Senator Clinton to leave her name on the ballot.

good grief:crazy:

A pledge was signed amongst the candidates not to campaign in the two states in deference to NH and IA.

Hillary did not campaign in either state, although Obama did run commercials in FL.

Hillary was actually respecting the voters of FL and MI by keeping her name on the ballot. She knew their voices needed to be heard.

Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot to try and hurt Hillary in IA and NH, it was a political calculation on their parts.