Revisiting the Four State Pledge on MI/FL Promises

Judging from the comments the Obama supporters are leaving on TalkLeft, it appears there's a fundamental misunderstanding on what the candidates promised and didn't promise regarding the outcomes of the Florida and Michigan primaries.

Here's the four state pledge (pdf).

It says nothing about which delegates will count or not count in Florida and Michigan. It says nothing about whether a state's primary will count or not.

The candidates merely pledged not to campaign in any states holding a primary or caucus before Super Tuesday, other than Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The text of the pledge is reprinted below:

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 insure 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 rules and regulations of the DNC.

Hillary, Obama and Edwards all agreed to the pledge on September 1, 2007.

Now, can people stop saying that Hillary Clinton agreed the votes in Florida or Michigan wouldn't count or to the non-seating of the delegates? It prohibited only campaigning. Even fundraising was allowed.

The exclusion of Michigan and Florida was a penalty imposed by the DNC. In my view, it was an unfair one and should be lifted. The votes should count as is, the delegates should be awarded and seated.

Big Tent Democrat favors a re-vote of some sort. Hillary appears not to be opposed if that is the will of the party. The party appears to be leaning towards a mail-in revote. When will Obama get on board?

< Wolcott . . . Heh | Why Did Obama Withdraw From the Michigan Primary? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you Jeralyn. nt (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:17:03 PM EST

    Finally, a excellent explanation (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:24:30 PM EST
    I agree. Thank you. This has been my mantra all along. If Edwards (Who I supported) and Barrack took their names off the ballot, that was a mistake on their part. There are no do overs when you are President and make a big mistake. The votes were cast and should stand. And the Obama people who were encouraged to vote for Mitt and did, should not be crying foul. No recount on the butterfly ballots and no recount in Mi & Fla. Let them stand. And don't let a stupid thing like this happen again.

    A penalty they all new about... (none / 0) (#63)
    by howstupidareyou on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:49:14 AM EST
    The exclusion of Michigan and Florida was a penalty imposed by the DNC

    Hmmm. Will it make a difference? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:19:42 PM EST
    Let's be honest. Some people on both sides have a tendency to ignore facts staring them in their faces.

    I think what you are doing is very useful in the sense that you can easily refer to it now; and so can the rest of us. But there are plenty of horses that still won't drink the water.

    Yes, thank you! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:20:03 PM EST
    No. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:34:39 PM EST
    Obama supporters do not understand? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    I have seen Hillary characterized by the his supporters as unethical/horrific because she wants to "break the rules".  I think it is simply another issue to brand HRC as a dishonest candidate.  I hope this clears the air and we can discuss the solutions for those states without the rancor.

    Participate (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:24:02 PM EST
    Sorry for the triple-post. Honestly I'm not doing it for the exposure.

    This part bothers me: "shall not campaign or participate". (emphasis mine)

    Is there a standard definition of 'participate'? Couldn't it possibly be construed to include 'fundraising'? This could be a wiggly word for Obama supporters to still accuse the Hillary camp of wrongdoing.

    Obama held fundraisers in FL (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:32:53 PM EST
    He also talked to the press in Fl (campaiging) and allowed ads to be ran there, hiding behind the "national" ad buy ruse. Funny how Hillary and Edwards weren't forced to run ads in Fl.

    The "participate" language could be used to defend Obama and Edwards removing their name from MI ballot. But they did not for Fl so there goes that.


    Obama fundraised too (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by delandjim on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:50:04 PM EST
    Obama was in Fl fundraising in the fall.

    oops (none / 0) (#38)
    by delandjim on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    I hadn't refreshed my screen and didn't see the above post.

    fundraising was specifically allowed (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:16:24 PM EST
    under the pledge.

    fundraising was expressly exluded (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:21:00 AM EST
    read the rules.

    Just to clarify "campaigning" (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Coldblue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:34:35 PM EST
     and campaign
    For purposes of Rule 20.C.(1)(b), internet advertising shall not constitute "campaigning" in a state unless such advertising takes the form of paid advertising on the website of a publication or media outlet based in that state or on a website or web page targeted to persons in that state, or is paid or unpaid internet communication specifically targeted or limited to that state.

    Having a name on the ballot is not campaigning.

    So is (none / 0) (#46)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:50:34 PM EST
    airing TVAds campaigning? Or because they aired on CNN & MSNBC is not (the "media outlet based on that state seems a bit confusing) ?

    because that's what Sen. Obama did and was the only one to do so.
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, as part of a national buy; but Ads he run.

    All attended fundraisers.


    Dear Mr. Obama, (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:52:00 PM EST
    I HAVE BEEN WRONG in many of my postings, and no one corrected me, proving one is only as smart as the information s/he's being fed.

    So, I'm correcting myself.

    It turns out, while it's true the Florida Governor is Republican, and the overwhelming majority of the Florida Legislature is Republican, it was a Democrat who cosponsored the bill to change our state primary.

    That makes it a bipartisan bill, even if a majority of Democrats opposed it.

    Therefore, I WAS WRONG to blame the Republicans for Florida's primary prattle and battle.

    That having been said, I hope you and your supporters will try to quell any knee jerk reaction to what I'm about to suggest as a solution to the Michigan and Florida vote -- a suggestion not yet made by anyone on behalf of the voters in both states.

    Understand, this isn't about a small band of (mostly) men hammering out rules in back rooms and making ultimatums to demonstrate their level of power.

    This is about Democracy; both ideals and realities.

    It's about the voice of the people. It's about a nation of majority rules trumping committee rules.

    It's about the world watching us, and thinking democracy might not be the way to go, if we refuse to elevate the ballots cast by millions of voters above a dispute over changing a calendar date.

    So, I'm asking you the consider this Florida fact:

    Another primary won't net you more college students selecting the perception of change over the votes of us old ladies knowing if Hillary doesn't win we'll die before breaking the 232 year stronghold of men in the White House.

    Because, regardless of race, you're still a man.

    To us, real change is putting a woman in charge.

    As for Michigan, do you deep down honestly believe those votes will increase for you should a revote be held?

    Think seriously about it.

    You're being offered ALL the uncommitted votes (that's yours + John Edwards + any others), while Hillary gets just hers.

    Then mull over this:

    Since the Florida and Michigan primaries on January 29, you've suffered the Canadian NAFTA stumble, the Powers interview suggesting your plan for Iraq is political puff, the New York Times front page article revealing your top advisors are primarily white while your office staff is primarily African-American, and the perception that the true feelings of your staff is that Hillary Clinton is a "monster."

    All this has cracked your calm facade, while exposing the true nature of some of your advisors.

    So, if the revotes are to happen -- what's your very worse case scenario?

    You lose by a wider margin in both states.

    And, what's your best case scenario?

    You don't lose quite as badly.

    Either way?

    You'll lose Florida and Michigan. Us old ladies feeling scorned are out in force and adament about that.

    Plus, with the revote you'll engender the rage of millions who were forced to repeat the process in order to get virtually the same results.


    Only you can be.

    And, you can even proclaim you're being PRESIDENTIAL when you do it.

    (1) Admit that rules are made to be broken when the voice of the people and the good of the country are at stake.

    (2) Accept the votes of Florida and Michigan as they were counted, with your piece of the pie as they stand in Florida, and all the uncommitted votes of Michigan.

    As a lawyer, you know better than to ask a question of witness if you don't already know the answer.

    A revote for you is like asking millions of witnesses a question without knowing the answer.

    So, step up and tell the DNC you accept the votes of the two states, and you move to allow the delegates be seated and counted.

    If you're really as good as you say, and if you truly believe you'll be chosen as the nominee based on your merits -- you have everything to gain by MAKING A DECISION that no one can make but you.

    However, if, instead, you continue to rely on saying you wouldn't have voted for the war in Iraq -- if you'd been in the position to vote against the war in Iraq -- which you weren't -- as your ace-in-the-hole to be President, then guess what?

    Eventually someone will call your bluff by saying, "Every man and woman in America who voted for Gore wouldn't have voted for the war in Iraq --  if they'd had a chance to vote against it -- which they didn't -- either.

    And, we were ALL making speeches opposing it.

    Ok, maybe not as a young man newly elected to office in Illinois who had superior oratory skills.

    But we spoke before our family and friends, and over poker games, and in bar rooms, and in restaurants, and around kitchen coffee klatches, and on public transpotation, and at social gatherings, and in schools, and while knitting in circles, and the rest.

    That makes you one of MILLIONS who thought the same, and spoke out against the war, the same as you.

    And, also like you, NONE of us had the power, or  were in the position to vote.

    It makes your strongest claim to be President very ordinary; not extraordinary.

    So, take some action while you still have the quickly closing window of opportunity.

    Stand up -- not for the "rules" governing a "calendar" change that hurts the political process and enrages the electorate.

    Instead, stand up for the people.

    Stand up for Democracy.

    Stand up for 5 million disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan who clearly made their choices.

    In doing so, you lead in letting US be counted. You make the choice of our nominee about US.

    Otherwise, ask yourself, what kind of president could you possibly make if you can't even resolve a calendar date dispute, when you're the ONLY person now who can?

    Saying, "I'll do whatever the DNC says" sends a message to the DNC (and superdelegates) that you're willing to be a "puppet" president.

    Americans have had nearly 8 years of the Pinocchio and Gepetto ticket. We don't need or want 8 more.

    So, here's your big chance, Obama.


    Just a thought.

    wow - it's an essay (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:08:52 PM EST
    This deserves to be more than just a comment. It should be a front page essay.

    by the way...don't hold your breath...I don't see him doing that even though it probably inures to his benefit as you suggest.


    Healing the Country (none / 0) (#19)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:03:08 PM EST
    There was a man who ran a campaign based on healing a country, bridging the horizontal divide divide between all races and the vertical divide of economic and social class. He spent 30 years in prison.

    All Barack Obama has to do to lead is to name the distortion and insinuations made by the old campaigning style. All he has to do is say, "There you go again...

    Regarding the FL and MI primaries the mathematicians have shown time and time again that even with seating the FL and MI delegates Clinton is behind by around 100 delegates. Barack Obama is negotiating from a position of strength, of calmness and leadership. He regularly take the higher ground.


    If you truly believe what you write (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:10:11 PM EST
    you would urge Obama to seat the delegates as is. What would it harm him if he is inevitable? It would generate a lot of good will. But the truth is he's behind in both projected delegates and popular vote if the current results from FL and MI are included. That is why he is resisting any effort to include them or risk that they be included in a do-over.

    If Obama ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Alvord on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:27:06 PM EST
    ... were smart he would agree to seating the MI and FL delegates based on the elections that have already occurred. If he doesn't there will likely be revotes in both states and Hillary will have two big wins in her column in early June, the worst possible time from Obama's perspective.

    Mathematicians???? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    Could you name some? Which ones??
    Do you know what mathematicians do?

    I think you mean pundits....or politicians crunching the numbers!!

    Anyway, then if the gap as you say (and I take your word for it) will remain at about 100: what does he have to lose??? He would have everything to gain.

    As for "higher ground" .... He has lied so many times that I rather be on a lower ground if that's the definition of "higher"


    Yeh, I really wanna hear Ronnie Reagan's (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:13:16 PM EST
    famous phrase coming out of Obama now.

    What, did Deval Patrick run out of old speeches?


    Did Obama (none / 0) (#56)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:05:34 AM EST
    just morph from Nelson Mandela to Ronald Reagan in the span of two paragraphs? Wow, bad imagery.

    Just to quibble (none / 0) (#29)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:34:49 PM EST
    HB 537 had 26 Sponsors/cosponsors from the Committee to the floor.

    20 were Republican and 6 were Democrats Committee Members (even if all the the Democrats voted NO, the bill would have gone to the floor)

    Seat Florida Delegates


    Outstanding (none / 0) (#43)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:40:32 PM EST
    i would like permission to cut and paste this to my own blog...phenomenal.  

    As it so happens, (none / 0) (#60)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34:44 AM EST
    I am an essayist , but my blogging isn't polished, so chances of a newspaper op-eding this opinion is remote.

    Also, I don't think the media is interested in resolving this issue in any manner other than making Obama the nominee.

    Yes, as far as I'm concerned, you can lift it -- but only if you lift the portion you want verbatim, and attribute my name with the source.

    Hopefully, it  will prevent nip & tucks from distorting my views and save you from any backlash, while encouraging more people to log on to www.talkleft.com.

    As Martha would say, "It's a good thing."


    If you put that online as a petition (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:11:45 PM EST
    I'll sign.

    Even though I'm not an old lady.  I'm just extremely middle-aged.  For the next several decades or so.


    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:20:12 PM EST
    for explaining this Jeralyn.

    I ahve to say that your solution re. FL & MI seems to me the one that makes the most sense. There were record turn outs and the current polls suggest
    the FL vote will be the same (if not better for Clinton). In MI  they are about even in the polls today. And I it seems to me (at least in terms of delegates) the Jan. vote will be about even. Giving Obama the Edwards uncommitted vote seems more than fair for whatever his supporters seek to balance.  

    So I want to know what is it that justify spending so much more money... It is already gross the amount of money that is spend in campaigns; when there are so many problems and so many programs need funding. The extra spending makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:22:36 PM EST
    someone told me recently that SC also changed his primary date to be earlier than usual in January.
    But I cannot find the right info. nor do I know if this was so. Do you know?
    If this is true (?), could you explain (if you know) what were the considerations for agreeing to SC and not FL ?

    Thanks !

    SC and Nevada did move up (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:28:20 PM EST
    and the DNC decided not to penalize them on the theory that early contests in SC and Nevada would give more African-Americans and Latinos a chance to vote in an early contest, and also begin to break the stranglehold that Iowa and NH have had over the first contests.

    Of course, FLA and MI have a lot of Latinos and African-Americans too, so that can't be a complete explanation....


    That's right (none / 0) (#35)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:42:39 PM EST
    Thanks litigatormon for confirming SC (and NV you say as well) moved up
    their primary.

    But as you also say, FL and MI have indeed lots of Latino & AA voters...
    FL more than either SC or NV I presume (at least Latinos).

    Seems very odd; what could have been the distinction then?...

    Gosh .... (keep shaking my head...).


    And because Harry Reid's son (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:14:49 PM EST
    chairs the Nevada state party, that just may have had some influence with the DNC to give it a bye, too.

    I believe BTD (none / 0) (#39)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:56:21 PM EST
    did a very thorough post about 5 states that were not in compliance on dates and also the rules. Maybe 3 or 4 weeks ago? Anyone else remember?

    I'll search (none / 0) (#44)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:42:22 PM EST
    then. Thanks

    His supporters are also (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:36:38 PM EST
    incredibly ignorant over at america blog. They are claiming Hillary "will start getting vetted now" I thought that started in 1991!

    Get ready for manafactured outrage (none / 0) (#34)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:42:33 PM EST
    over the Hillary vetting.

    Bob in Pacifica? Are you out there? (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:12:32 PM EST
    So, Bob, what do you have to say about all your comments earlier shouting out the notion that

    ALL CANDIDATES including HILLARY CLINTON agreed [delegates] would not count, they will not be seated by the DNC




    Has Hillary been advocating against something she agreed to that [sic] before she had decided to go against?

    Sorry to be so twisty with the language, but that's what happens when you're dealing with a hypocrite. Why did Hillary decide to change her position on Michigan and Florida after those primaries?

    Did she suddenly gain more experience about representational voting? Did her concern for counting every vote suddenly fill her heart? No, it was because she won those primaries. She is being a hypocrite because it's in her political interest.

    Well, Bob, how do you explain all that ugliness on your part?

    Koolaid drinking?  Right-wing Hillary Hate?  Just plain ignorance?  Hmm?

    It is becoming crystal clear (none / 0) (#41)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:33:16 PM EST
    that the caucuses have given Obama many more delegates than if he had been in primary races.  He is the one who is walking away with undeserved weighted votes.  If he won't be generous about this, then I say the Hillary people should present this argument to the Superdelegates as the reason for them to support her.

    Missing Info from Original article (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by scoopenator on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:13:09 AM EST
    You seem to have forgotten this part in your copy and paste.  Your portion was the letter posted on Iowas site. The Florida letter also contains the following:
    Four State Pledge Letter 2008

    Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
    August 28, 2007

    WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.

    WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.

    WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.

    WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the Heartland, East, South and West.

    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.

    WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.

    THEREFORE, I ____ _, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).  Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one's candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question.  It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

    That's an earlier draft (none / 0) (#66)
    by Trickster on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:37:39 PM EST
    The one Jeralyn posted is the ones the candidates signed off on.

    The pledge is inclusive (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    The pledge prohibits "campaigning and participating" in the primaries. Jeralyn's summary misstates this, including only "campaigning." Since the most important part of a primary is the awarding of delegates, how is the Clinton supporters' attempt to get delegates from these primaries not participating in them? Does the awarding of the delegates themselves come from a parallel universe not connected with the voting?

    Here's a definition of "participation":

    "engagement: the act of sharing in the activities of a group; "the teacher tried to increase his students' engagement in class activities"
    the condition of sharing in common with others (as fellows or partners etc.)"

    Here's the definition of primary:

    "a preliminary election where delegates or nominees are chosen"

    I guess that you are trying to bifurcate the election from the delegates. Unfortunately, folks, it's all part of the same thing.

    Nice try, Jeralyn. But even if you want to argue that somehow making a pledge in conjunction with the DNC's ruling which bans "participation" somehow allows the participation when it comes to the bogus delegate count from the bogus primary, what does that say about the level of Clinton's moral position here? Did Clinton agree to something while planning all the while on gaming the system afterwards if the results went her way? That appears to be the level of honesty being argued here.

    Nomination (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:49:10 PM EST
    The bottom line is the nomination is only worth having if it strenghtens the Democratic Party-if it rears the party apart the nomination is not worth it.

    1jane (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:53:47 PM EST
    seriously--does someone else have access to your computer?  A dopplejaner or something?

    Can we all call her "doppeljaner" (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:18:07 PM EST
    now, please?  She's doppeling somebody with this stuff.  It's just sort of . . . eerie to read.

    oh-oh, that one's gonna stick! (none / 0) (#59)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:15:37 AM EST
    Yes, and implying that your opponent (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by tree on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:39:13 PM EST
    broke the rules and is trying to steal the election, when in fact no rules have been broken, and your opponent is operating within them, is a subtle attempt to win the nomination by threatening to tear the party apart. The Obama campaign should cease and desist with that line of talking points, or cede the nomination to someone who isn't making threats like they are.

    Slip of the fingers (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:51:15 PM EST
    The bottom line is the nomination is only worth having if it strengthens the Democratic Party-if it tears the party apart it is not worth it.

    Yes, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:25:27 PM EST
    So, Obama should just withdraw and solve this problem the honorable way ...

    Is that what I hear you saying?


    Probably more effective w/o this (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:24:16 PM EST
    lead in:

    Judging from the comments the Obama supporters are leaving on TalkLeft, it appears there's a fundamental misunderstanding on what the candidates promised and didn't promise regarding the outcomes of the Florida and Michigan prim

    maybe less incendiary, but not less true (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:30:45 PM EST
    that has been the Obama Talking Point today: Clinton is trying to break the rules.  I saw it from Obama surrogates on all the talk shows, news shows, etc.  I read it in all the articles and I keep seeing it repeated (and repeated) here.  They are putting it out there that Clinton is breaking the rules to win.  They are saying things like, "Obama did not campaign in MI or FL," implying of course, that Clinton did (she did not).  They are saying Obama will abide by whatever the DNC decides, implying Clinton will not.

    So, at least on TL, we have this cleared up now.  


    Too clever by half (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:43:02 PM EST
    for the transcendant campaign of change and unity, which is clearly saying whatever it takes to convince people that Obama Truth is the Only Truth; I am starting to feel like I did when the Bush administration would send out everyone it had - Cheney, Rice, Powell - to deliver their war-is-the-only-answer message - the more people heard it, the more people believed it was true.

    So, when the DNC decides on mail-in re-votes, Michigan and Florida agree, and Clinton agrees, Obama is going to go along - graciously?  Seems more like he will be the last one to the party.

    I just wish they would make a decision already.


    Huff Post says its "imminent." (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:47:37 PM EST
    Both campaigns have to agree (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:22:32 AM EST
    to a revote. I doubt Hillary would agree to a 50/50. Obama is the one holding it up.  He wants marbles he didn't win.

    Yes, I've heard (none / 0) (#25)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:24:08 PM EST
    the false "Clinton campaigned in FLA" assertion a number of times, both on the internets and on TV, including from Obama surrogates.

    Another misleading assertion about FLA and MI is that the candidates were promised that the FLA and MI delegations would never be seated at the convention based on the original primary votes.  It has always been true -- and Howard Dean has recently confirmed this, repeatedly -- credentials committee at the convention could retained the right to seat the FLA and MI delegations.  The right of the credentials committee to do so is also part of "the rules." That being the case, petitioning the credentials committee to seat those delegations is also consistent with the "rules."

    In taking their names off the MI ballot, Obama and Edwards were not acting under compulsion; they did so voluntarily, to ingratiate themselves with Iowa and NH voters.  They took the risk that at some later point in time, the MI delegates would be seated.  Perhaps they hoped that the absence of their names from the ballots would prevent that from happening.  But that was a hope, not a guarantee, and not a rule.

    Having said all that, at this point I favor a re-vote just to end the bickering about what is or isn't fair.  What I really think is fair is that the FLA votes should count, and that something sort of compromise should be worked out about MI. The one thing that shouldn't happen is that MI and FLA have no votes at the convention.


    Moreover (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:36:40 PM EST
    I ahve pointed out a few times before; Obama was the only candidate to run TV Ads prior to the FL primary. These aired in CNN & MSNBC and were part of  a national buy.

    Noone campaigned in FL (both went to fundraisers) Obama didn't break any ban but the fact remains
    he did run TV Ads in FL.

    So, he was known and he was exposed to the FL people. 1.7 M people voted. The change in date was imposed to them by the Rep. legislature to no fault of the state Dem party.

    Come on.... This is whole FL mess is absolutely absurd and it hurting noone but the Dem. party in November. The importance of FL in the GE cannot be stressed any further.

    Time for someone to step up an impose some degree of sanity.

    Maybe George J. Mitchell should be brought in to mediate this and put an end to the nonsense.

    Enough already...



    Sorry (none / 0) (#32)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:37:26 PM EST
    I keep mis-typing "have" in my posts.

    I mean of course  "I have"


    I read that Rasmussen did a poll of (none / 0) (#42)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:40:10 PM EST
    FL and MI voters within the last few days and found that Hillary would sweep Florida as before and MI would be a tie. More evidence to show that the costs of a redo would be wasted.

    Exactly ! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:44:10 PM EST
    I agree; wrote sth. similar below.

    wasted? (none / 0) (#49)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:40:35 PM EST
    Disenfranchising voters in FL and MI is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    It can't be a waste to do anything that says that the voters in FL and MI count.

    If Obama was truly the unifying presence that he claims to be, his campaign would suggest that the delegates chosen in FL and MI are seated. His only other option is to have some type of revote...and the wasted money at least stands for something.


    I am suggesting the vote in Florida stand. (none / 0) (#50)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:49:39 PM EST
    How do the officials deal with Snow birds, and crossover voters?  The GOP should not be allowed to vote again there.  How does the state of Florida  handle these issues?

    Another point: (none / 0) (#14)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:48:56 PM EST
    The Pledge was issued by the 4-State (IA, NH, NV and SC) Democratic Party Chairs and had nothing to do the National DNC.

    Obama would have had to file a false affidavit (none / 0) (#48)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:26:03 PM EST
    According to this website prepared before the Florida primary by the Florida democratic party:

    Can a presidential candidate remove their name from the ballot in Florida?
    Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Thurman, Senator Geller and Representative Gelber submitted to Florida's Secretary of State the names of our Party's presidential candidates for placement on the January 29, 2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot. State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn't running for President.

    So, Obama would have been compelled to file a falsely sworn affidavit to withdraw.

    This was answered before (none / 0) (#54)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:16:03 PM EST
    It applies only to those name that were summitted for certification (Oct 31, 2007)

    On Oct 9, 2007, when Obama withdrew from the MI ballot he could have also told the FL DNC Party not to submit his name for cetification without doing the affidavit thing and without any future GE penalty being imposed.


    The Florida Legistature (none / 0) (#57)
    by glennmcgahee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:42:47 AM EST
    The Republican legislature forced the date change by attaching the schedule to an initiative that would ban e-voting. We all knew we had to get rid of the ridiculous Diebold -type voting machines and move back to paper ballots. That was the bill that passed with the new primary schedule. Thats the only reason you saw Democrat legislators vote for it. We tried to remove the scheduling provision. They tried to have the schedule restored to the original date by amendment, but it was overruled by the Republican majority. We saw the results from South Carolina, we knew who Obama was. We saw his ads on TV. We were told by our leaders to go vote, that our delegates would be seated. So we voted. We knew who we wanted. Nothing would have changed the outcome. We've heard preachers like Obama before. We do not fawn over rhetoric. But the entire narrative of the race would have been different going into Super Tuesday if our results had been recognized. To this day, when 5000 people in a state give Obama a "win", 1.7 million voters make no difference?

    Florida / Mich (none / 0) (#61)
    by andrys on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:15:43 PM EST
    1.  I'd noted that Edwards and Obama had removed their names in Michigan but left them in for Florida.  To me, it had indicated stategic moves.

      But I later found out that they couldn't remove their names from the Florida ballots unless they signed a statement they didn't intend to run for President.

    2.  Obama specifically asked voters in Michigan to vote UNcommited.  In other words he requested that they vote ANTI-Clinton.

       This meant he felt the votes might mean something.

    3.  While the Democrats co-sponsored the move of the primary, they later submitted a motion to move the primary back some to the 2nd Tuesday of February because of the DNC rules.

        The Republican Legislature voted that down.

        Fla Dem party did not entirely decide on that date against DNC rules, as they did try to remedy that.

    4.  So, I've felt the Florida vote, confirmed, should be accepted, since the party DID try to move that date to a proper one.

        ALSO, as someone said, Obama had nat'l tv ads that ran in Florida in the last 10 days or so before the Florida primary.  The package automatically ran them in Florida, but I would bet he could have asked them not to run them in Florida.  His surrogates never mention this in their arguments on the tv talk shows.  They continue the line that he never campaigned there, while saying she did (!)

        He also walked across the street after a fundraiser
    to talk with reporters for awhile.  That was considered campaigning.  He said he didn't realize that.

    1.  Pundits did erroneously say Clinton broke the rules by campaigning in Florida at the end but she didn't.  She attended a fund-raiser.  Those were within the rules, and both held many fundraisers there.

    2.  Washington Post:
       Obama Campaign Events in Florida

       Clinton Campaign Events in Florida

    7.  They criticized her for showing up to thank the voters
       -after- she won the primary, even if it wouldn't count
       at the convention.

    8.  I really liked Marguerite's letter to Obama.
        When the DNC asks me for money, I say, not unless they
        seat Florida and recognizes its voters.  

        I've recommended they give Obama all the Uncommitted
        votes.  one would think that would be enough for him.

    I've become really irritated by the people who insist on going BY THE RULES for the two states, because that would help their candidate win, of course, while he still proclaims his great delegate-lead --nevermind the voters !!!
    -- WHILE they insist on NOT going by the written Superdelegate rules and then they threaten to withdraw from voting at all in the election if the Superdelegates, under existing rules, choose the other candidate.