Hillary backstabs Howard Dean and the Democratic Party as she remains on Michigan ballot

[itsrobert]

Once again, Hillary Clinton proves she only has allegiance to Hillary Clinton.

[Carrieyazel]

1. She thinks Michigan is a fail-safe after she loses Iowa and New Hampshire.

It won't be. With zero delegates awarded after the primary, she is mistaken.

[ClarkUSA]

25. And SC. The Clintons never wanted Howard Dean for DNC chairman anyway.

They wanted another Clinton surrogate like Terry "It's her turn" McCuliffe. So this Queenly Disdain for party rules is no surprise. We can all
point to this the next time Clinton cries foul about her opponents.

[skipos]

2. How about we all agree that IOWA ALWAYS 1ST is UNFAIR

and come to some compromise we all agree on? Rotating the states maybe?

[waiting for hope]

3. This isn't the time to do

this - it needs to be looked at but not 33 days from the first vote.

[skipos]

14. I agree, but we need to fix the IOWA ALWAYS 1ST problem soon .nt

[Zueda]

18. You have to fix campaign financing first...

Or how would you expect a 3rd tier candidate to ever compete if say California and New York were the first of the primary states?

:shrug:

[skipos]

22. We can rotate the states.

The 1st states could always be a smaller ones.
Or we could start off with a cluster of states that have big and small ones.

Do you agree that IOWA ALWAYS 1ST is unfair to most of the rest of the country?

[Zueda]

24. No, I don't agree.

What other "smaller ones" are you suggesting? NJ? CT? Have any idea what media costs in these states?

[skipos]

26. Wow, you think IOWA ALWAYS 1ST is fair to the rest of the countrty?

That is an opinion I don't hear very often (except for people who live in IA, NH and SC of course).

Why don't you look where IA, NH and SC rank here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

and see all of the states that have similar populations.
There is more than just NJ and CT, but I realize you cherry picked those states to try to make your point.

[Zueda]

27. It's the fairest until campaign financing issues are addressed.

And just to clarify I am not from any of the early primary states.

Perhaps the fact that I'm a populist plays a role in my belief in this matter.

[skipos]

28. No other state can ever be 1st until campaign financing issues are addressed?

Yeesh.

[Zueda]

34. Perhaps you could add a little more and tell us more about why you think...

it's unfair. I think you may have a very narrow-minded reason for your stance on this.

It' obvious and disgusting to say the least.

On edit: but hey! it's calculated...just like your candidate... birds of a feather must stick together.

[skipos]

35. Here is my narrow minded, obvious and disgusting reason:

Iowans have a good opportunity to get to know the candidates, hear from them, see them, vote on them and participate in the selection of our candidate. Democrats in other states should have this opportunity.

Who is my candidate? I don't know yet, so why don't you tell me? I look forward to your answer on this.

[Zueda]

39. Oh come on! geez!

You really don't think it's obvious?

[skipos]

40. Can you answer my question? nt

[skipos]

43. Hello? You aren't avoiding me are you? Who is my candidate? nt

[Zueda]

47. Not avoiding you...trying to watch the forum in Iowa...n/t

[skipos]

50. When will you get around to answering my question?

I want to know who my candidate is.

[bain_sidhe]

56. good one! Here's mine though

While I'd love to be able to get "up close and personal" with the candidates, my own focus is more on which *issues* get attended to. I think it's arguable that urban and industrial problems cause more pain to more people than farm issues do, and I'd *love* to see our candidates spend more time developing policies to address *those* issues -- and debating and defending those policies 24/7 -- than seeing them try to out-ethanol each other 24/7. Urban and industrial policy would definitely matter more to more individuals, and, IMHO to the country.

And I've said elsewhere, I don't actually think it should be Michigan, for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that Michigan's economy is too tied up with auto-specific industries, rather than industry in general. I think pandering to auto companies specifically would lead to candidates coming out against environmental policies I (and many other Democrats) favor. But add to that the fact that the Detroit media market is big and expensive, and that the state can be an absolute nightmare to get around in during the winter "early primary" season.

So, I think Ohio would be a better proving ground for candidates on urban and industrial issues. It has urban centers, many of which are in dire straits, but they're smaller and less expensive media markets. It's relatively compact, and usually better for travel in the winter (not always though!). It has small towns and rural areas similar in character to the mid-Michigan farming area... and most of those towns have diners and town squares for candidates to visit, just like Iowa. Michigan does have "environmental and tourism" issues that Ohio doesn't have, but I'm willing to have the candidates "stand silent" on those issues if it means they won't actually come out *against* sound environmental policies.

Anyway, that's my "narrow minded, obvious and disgusting reason" -- getting urban and industrial issues to the top (or near the top) of the heap of influence on who our nominees are.

[rufus dog]

52. I think I like that idea

One from the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest and West on a rotating basis. With one being a "major." For Example, New York, Florida, Ohio, California could not happen. But you may have New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and California or New York, Alabama, Minnesota, Nevada.

[bain_sidhe]

37. It wasn't done "33 days from the first vote"

It was done in August in Michigan, even earlier in Florida. It's disingenuous to point at the calandar *now* and pretend that this has just happened.

[PurityOfEssence]

44. That's still WAAAAAY too late.

This is something that needs to be addressed at least a full year before. The rules are the rules, and there are mechanisms to change them. To flagrantly violate the rules of a private organization is just to fuck everybody else.

Here's the REAL issue: people in Florida and Michigan aren't so upset that they were being abused by three other states, they were upset that they couldn't fuck over the other 45. Please don't EVEN make this sound like ANYTHING but extreme selfishness. Florida and Michigan aren't doing this to help the rest of us, they're doing it to fill their own coffers and preen their own feathers in the light of self-importance.

It's reckless, selfish and deeply, deeply sociopathic. It screws over all but the very top-tier candidates and it cheats us all of the most important dynamic of the primary season: to have it be long and incremental, not an immediate seizure of power or coronation.

Their actions are deplorable; people who don't agree with this either haven't thought it through or have deep, deep ethical problems.

Howard Dean is a hero for standing up for this, and I hope they aren't seated at the convention. Furthermore, I hope it's an inconclusive primary season so that it winds up being a brokered convention where they're forced to sit there and watch as they have no say in the matter. Nothing would more fitting and fair.

This is appalling.

[knitter4democracy]

75. Now, wait a minute. Most Michiganders are ticked off at the leadership.

Most Michiganders had absolutely zero to do with this whole scam. When Mark Brewer, party chair, went around, he got an earful from the rank and file Dems not to go through with it. He did it anyway.

The party leadership did it against the will of the people. Don't blame an entire state for what a top few tried to pull.

[JNelson6563]

81. True, more info.....

I am not at all convinced that Brewer was anything near the driving force of this nightmare. Quite the contrary, I look in Granholm's direction. As the Dem Governor she is actually the big kahuna here, not Brewer. In fact, you may recall Granholm did her best to oust Brewer when she first took office.

Fact is though, he doesn't have the power to go against her.

Do you not find it interesting that as it really became more clear that we were forging ahead with this primary nonsense out comes Granholm with an endorsement for her pal Hillary? Who, BTW, broke her pledge to withdraw from states who didn't bend the knee to those fucking whining crybabies in Iowa/NH?

Can you say "termed out, not very popular Governor looking for a cabinet appointment"? I can.

No matter that the rank and file Dems are screwed. That has never mattered.

I may well cast my vote in the primary for the Rethug side. I wonder how ol' Sauly boy will feel when MI Dems help give MI's rethug vote to that nut-job Ron Paul. Probably even crappier than Engler felt when so many of us helped deliver the MI repug primary to McCain after Engler the evil one proclaimed he'd be Bush's firewall in MI.

hahaha Ah, good times.

Julie

[knitter4democracy]

83. I don't know enough to know, but that makes sense.

I just don't like Brewer at all. He sounds like he's listening, and then he does squat to fix anything.

[JNelson6563]

82. A few items

Hey there old friend, I know how you feel and as a MI Dem I feel like a victim of some certain members of leadership in my state. The ones who never gave a rat's ass about the base, ever.

As far as the convention goes, it will be up to the nominee to turn away delegates and that is unlikely happen. Believe it or not, like it or not, the Dems NEED MI in our column. To alienate the state could be harmful and not worth it to make the point.

And here's another thing to think about....as an activist in the trenches this is going to hurt us badly. We need each and every person who's interested to step up next year to volunteer and to donate. It is this army of donors and volunteers that will help us win our county and state level races and, here in the red zone of MI, we actually have a good shot at our Congressional seat this time. The last thing we need is a bunch of alienated, frustrated Dems throwing their hands up in disgust and walking away.

We do not want to hand Michigan over to the Rethugs on a platter. While I too am appalled at the incredibly bad decision making going on in Lansing right now, I see no reason to make we little people pay even more of a price for their stupidity and self-serving behavior. It's bad enough we are stuck with such limited options on our primary ballot.

Just wanted to add the perspective from a MI Dem footsoldier. :hi:

Julie

[waiting for hope]

51. 33 days or 3 months -

What difference does it make? It's being done in this election cycle, after everything was put into place. The rules that are being broken where set in motion after 2004 under Terry McAuliffe at the DNC (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1483). If changes are to be made, it should happen after 2008 in fairness to the system in place.

[bain_sidhe]

53. That's what they said the LAST time

and still, nothing changed. I remind you, we started fighting this battle in 2003. We backed down then, with a "promise" that it would be "reformed" for 2008. When we went in 2005 to "collect" on that promise... guess what? NO CHANGE. effectively, that is - yes, a couple more states were added to the "early window' but, Iowa and New Hampshire were still first. What a shocker, eh?

OBVIOUSLY, working "within the system" DOES NOT WORK.

Maybe this will, maybe it won't, but... you *do* know the definition of insanity, right?

[1corona4u]

8. OR...

How's about people make up their own minds, and not just follow the states who get to have their primaries first. I don't understand the; "well, that settles it, we have to vote for so and so because this state said so" mentality.

But, people don't think that way I guess. They have better things to do than to pick their own candidate. I respect Iowa's opinion/votes on the caucuses, and I will duly note them, but I think people need to go beyond just following ANY states votes.

I'm sure Iowan's will tell you the same thing. No one has to follow their lead.

[Romulox]

11. By the same token then, the DNC shouldn't fight tooth and nail for Iowa's/NH privilege

If it "doesn't matter" who goes first, you wouldn't see Dean risking losing two swing states to the Republicans.

[skipos]

16. IA, NH, and SC set the tone and they know it. That's why they cling

to their power even though they know it is unfair.

No one has to follow their lead, but Iowa doesn't have to go 1st either. How about the 40+ states that never have a say get a shot?

[1corona4u]

19. I don't disagree with you...

but I think, more importantly, we all, regardless of our state, need to decide what is right for us, the individual.

[skipos]

23. It seems to me that rotating single states or clusters of states

would be fair. It would get A LOT more people active in politics too. You know how everyone in IA, NH, and SC seems to know more about the candidates? It would be nice to see that in some other states.

[cynthia]

45. What you fail to consider is that

in the last few presidential primaries, candidates starting dropping out of the race after the first series of caucuses and primaries. I recall that in our state, the caucus was in March and by then Kerry was anointed, and the other candidates had dropped out. Once a candidate reaches a certain number of delegates promised to him/her by victories in early states, no one in the later states really has a say.

I would vote for NO caucuses or primaries until the last month before the national convention in May, and have them all on the same day, the same as we do for the November election. That way all of the candidates would spend time in all the states and we would all have a chance to participate.

[Kucinich4America]

31. Actually, I'm on the same page with Thom Hartmann

The Hell with these ridiculous rigged primaries altogether. Go back to picking the nominee at the National Convention

Why?

1) Actual Democrats get to choose the candidate.
2) Corporations don't get to buy their favorite nominee.
3) No Republican crossovers crashing the primary to pick the one THEY want.
4) No candidate until (almost) September means less time for the whore media spin machine to attack nominee.

[truedelphi]

55. I'm cynical enough to believe that no matter what we do

Corporations will always have a way to buy their favorite nominee.

[skipos]

57. A problem with that

(and there are problems with every solution) is that poor people will certainly be underrepresented. Not many people could afford to travel to the convention unless they have the $. Further, Mitt Romney billionaire types could pay the way for their supporters. Lastly, it would be unfair if a candidate is from the state of the convention.

[ChiciB1]

66. Thom Hartmann Is Phenomenal & It Sure Would Simplify This Whole

long drawn out charade that we in America EXPLOIT ad-nauseom! But the worst thing about our process is that as each election passes, more money gets plunked down and that's the bottom line!

Jackson Browne has a line in a song called Lives In The Balance that says, they sell us our presidents like they sell us our clothes and our cars... he wrote that back in the '80's and it's much worse now!

The words may not be exact, but the meaning is.

[Lucinda]

4. Pulling off the ballot was totally unnecessary. The no-campaigning

agreement was sufficient "punnishment".

[bluestateguy]

5. I don't care

Who cares?

Smart Democrats in Michigan will raid the GOP primary and vote for Romney, who polls worst against any Dmeocrat.

[Bitwit1234]

6. And St Obama knowing full well he will sink to the bottom pulls out

sorta like him not voting on hard subject bills and sitting on the fence. Figures.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

49. oops

.

[suston96]

9. It don't make no difference.....

....The Democrats have stripped Michigan of all its delegates.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-primary-scramble,0,1801127,print.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

[ClarkUSA]

10. Hillary couldn't disappoint her top MI cheerleader: the Gov. Besides, rules are for little people.

She was banking on winning it all and forcing the DNC to award her MI delegates at the Convention. Too bad she looks as if she'll lose Iowa.

[Romulox]

12. Dean backstabs DEMOCRACY by defending a unfair nominating process tooth and nail.

If it doesn't matter who goes first, then there should be no reason why Michigan can't go ahead of NH.

It does matter, and we all know it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. This post is crazy

There was an agreement and she stuck to the agreement.

Some other candidates later engaged in a PR stunt of removing their names, but there was no agreement for anyone to do that.

[cali]

15. consider the source. n/t

[Lucinda]

20. Yup. But they still want their pound of flesh.

This place is suffering a "truthiness" outbreak.

[ilovesunshine]

17. Michigan loves the Hillster!

[knitter4democracy]

76. Not all of us--the top tier of the party does.

I know a lot of Kucinich supporters. We're wondering if he'll win the state.

[wyldwolf]

21. YAY!!!

[Nedsdag]

29. Well, d-uh!

Remember it's the Clinton Party not the Democratic Party.

It's all about them! Ask Gore and Kerry.

[neutron]

30. without Clinton

there would be no Gore.

[Nedsdag]

32. Then Clinton stabbed Gore in the back.

That's politics for ya!

[Kucinich4America]

33. Terry McUseless certainly did.

In fact, he stabbed Gore, Howard Dean, and John Kerry all in the back.
And we all know who Terry reports to.

[Cameron27]

38. How?

I thought it was Gore who abandoned Bill Clinton.

[PollThis]

59. What? Gore was in the house of reps from 1977-85 then In the Senate from 1985-93

I think Gore was being, before Clinton was elected Governor.

[bain_sidhe]

36. Edwards, Obama, Biden & Richardson backstab Michigan voters

to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire voters.

Hey, this "fun with subject lines" really IS fun!

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Kucinich tried to backstab them but his campaign couldn't even do that competently:

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071011/NEWS09/710110375

[JI7]

69. hahhaha

that's funny

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Hey, it takes imagination to hold Michigan after her trade policies and votes...

Now THAT'S resourcefulness.

[Cameron27]

46. And Edwards' were any better?

[PurityOfEssence]

62. Yes, Edwards' trade votes were MUCH better when in the Senate

She voted for free trade with Singapore and Chile; Biden, Dodd and Edwards voted against both.

He's also got a higher approval rating than her from the AFL-CIO and has been more pro-labor.

[Cameron27]

65. Singapore and Chile

don't compare to the China trade deal Edwards voted for.

[PurityOfEssence]

67. Oh? So is that China bill one of her husband's triumphs she claims as her own or one she disavows?

It's really hard to keep track of all this.

Even though there are generally only two sides of an issue one can truly be on, she somehow seems to find a third often enough so she can have it every conceivable way.

Her trade record stinks. Just because she wasn't around in 2000 to have to stand up and vote for the record on this particular bill doesn't make Edwards far worse. On the ones they were called to support or not in the four years Senators Clinton and Edwards served together, her record is undeniably worse for American workers.

How's her take on NAFTA? She's certainly less disposed to change it than most of the others, including Edwards.

Just why DO people take this person's word for anything when her record is so endlessly contrary to the image presented?

Do a google search for "bill clinton china trade bill" and you get a mere one million, three hundred and ten thousand hits, but that's just in English...

[Cameron27]

68. And somehow Bill Clinton's WH

exonerates John from his own senate vote.

I don't have to google Bill Clinton since he's not running. If you hit Hillary Clinton on trade, John should be on the same hitlist. H1-B visas.

[leftist_not_liberal]

48. Off to the Greatest Page -

[William769]

54. I t just doesn't get any better than this!

:rofl:

All the candidates fucked up except Hillary, and it's her fault! :rofl:

[oasis]

63. Chalk one up to "experience".

:thumbsup:

[sniffa]

58. yep

this could be a coup for Gravel though.

[Lord Helmet]

60. the Clintons are known for their back-stabbing

[hayu_lol]

61. Seems to me that no matter what a candidate does...

what they definitely DON'T do is pull their names from the ballot.

All candidates knew when this happened what the consequences of their actions would be. Some pulled their names.

Clinton wants to be president. In line with that goal, she kept her name on the ballot.

Now the other candidates are whining and screaming. Something they and their followers are quite good at.

To repeat: Hillary wants the job. She stayed on the ballot. It isn't the electors in this case...its the media reaction to another victory and their responses. The public doesn't give a fig what the rules are or the reasons for the failure to get on the ballot. I also assume that a write-in would get them votes.

As many other posters have noted, this was a matter that should have been settled a year or more ago. Internally.

[oasis]

64. To those who look through a Dick Morris prism.

:dunce:

[fadedrose]

70. Can't wait

I'm anxious to write in Biden....I hope others in my state do the same.

[BenDavid]

71. Oh my goodness...according to you obama and edwards folks

HRC should just end her campaign. You get a lil break in polling and it's like the heavens have opened up and the light has shined down on you. Excuse me but even with Obama having a lead in the latest des moines register polling it is within the margain of error and excuse me but out of 500 people and it was a tie of 120 to 120 and the last five said Obama then you have Obama ahead.Simple when you poll only 500.

So from all I gather if Obama happens to win Iowa then your assumption is Obama will win N.H. S.C. Nevada? Then will eventually be the nominee? Is that about right? Excuse me if I happen to disagree and will tell you if and that is a BIG IF Obama wins Iowa it could be the best thing to happen to HRC.

Ben David

[ronnykmarshall]

80. Well Ben,

It's sad, but true. The mighty GD-P has spoken. Hillary is going to drop out. Finished! Done! Over and out! I'm be suprised if she gets more votes that Mike Gravel at this point.

I must go now and take my Hillary sticker off my car and join that mighty freight train that is the Edbama campaign.

:sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

72. No! Dean, Donna Brazile, and the rest of the DNC lapdogs backstab Democrats in MI and FL

Punishing Democratic voters in two of the most important states in the Presidential election for what their legislatures have done is akin to condemning a rape victim to 200 lashes.

Iowa always picks a LOSER!

Hillary was right to keep her name on the ballot, instead of kissing Chairman Dean's ass.

[ShadowLiberal]

73. The democrats were stupid to take themselves off the ballot

There was no point in removing themselves from the ballot, they should have just left it up to the democratic leadership to take away the delegates like Hillary, and stopped shooting themselves in the foot in the general election by pandering to the early states to get the nomination.

We should be welcoming battle ground states that move up their primaries at least as well as the republicans are, otherwise we're hanging our chances on a noose at claiming the white house in 08.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. None of the candidates should pull out.

If some have, they shouldn't have. Just because Michigan is stripped of delegates doesn't mean that they won't be voting in the general election. Hillary knows this. Good for her.

[knitter4democracy]

77. This whole mess is going to lose Dem votes.

I've been hearing a lot of anger here in Michigan at all of the top party leadership, state and national. The people here don't understand what-all's going on, but they do know that the Republicans are campaigning and raising money here, heck even held a debate here, and will most likely seat their delegates from here. Where are our candidates? They're not here. That's going to cost us votes and not just in the primary.

Mark Brewer, Dem party chair in Michigan, and Sen. Levin started this game of chicken, and they lost. In losing, there's a good chance they've swung Michigan red. Thanks, dips. Grrrr!

[Cha]

78. Nah, she didn't "backstab Dean"..

Dean's too quick for her and pennions.

[Freddie Stubbs]

79. ¿What are 'Pennions?'

:shrug: