A history of 'words' on the Michigan primary: The Swamp
The Swamp
Posted March 19, 2008 10:50 AM
The Swamp

By Jim Tankersley

Hillary Clinton's campaign is extending its "Just Words" attack on Barack Obama to the fate of Michigan's disputed Democratic delegates today -- accusing Obama of backing away from his earlier statement that he would be "fine" with a re-vote in a state that risked losing all its delegates to the Democratic National Convention when it scheduled its primary for mid-January, violating national party rules.

The words that matter most on the subject, it would seem, are more than six months old -- from a pledge that Democratic campaigns agreed to last August and a Clinton press release announcing her support for that pledge.

The pledge reads, in part, "I shall not campaign or participate (emphasis added) 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..."

Today, Clinton's memo argues "Let’s remember that the point of the early state pledge was to protect the role of the four states that held early nominating contests. Well the contests in those states were protected and the people in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada got a chance to vote... Senator Clinton signed the pledge and kept it... Senator Obama decided to go further and made a voluntary decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot."

So the issue would seem to be, what does the word "participate" actually mean?

Read on for the pledge and for the Clinton press releases, then and now.

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.


Sept. 1, 2007
Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge
The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.
"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 calendar 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."


To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: March 19, 2008
RE: Obama’s Re-Vote Pledge: Just Words

On February 8, 2008, Barack Obama stood in the aisle of his airplane and told reporters that he would be “fine” with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off. Since then, such a plan has garnered broad support from top Michigan lawmakers and the DNC has given its blessing.

So Barack Obama is on board, right? Guess again. It turns out that his comments about being fine with a re-vote if the above conditions were met were just words. As yesterday’s headline in the Detroit Free-Press made clear, Senator Obama is the lone standout: “Michigan do-over depends on Obama's backing, Senate leaders say.”

The Clinton campaign believes the right to vote is a bedrock principle of our country and that empowering the people of Michigan and Florida to make their voices heard must be a priority for any candidate running for the Democratic nomination. As such, we must either honor the original vote or hold a state-run primary that doesn’t leave the taxpayers footing the bill.

So why is the Obama campaign refusing to give the people of Michigan the chance to exercise their fundamental right to vote? Let’s take a quick look at what the Obama campaign is arguing and explore why those arguments are wrong:

False Excuse #1: Barack Obama Wasn’t on the Ballot. The Obama campaign argues that their candidate wasn’t on the January ballot because the Michigan primary wasn’t sanctioned by the DNC and they were trying to comply with the early state pledge. Let’s remember that the point of the early state pledge was to protect the role of the four states that held early nominating contests. Well the contests in those states were protected and the people in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada got a chance to vote. Keep in mind that nearly twice as many people voted in Michigan and Florida than voted in the four early states combined.

Senator Clinton signed the pledge and kept it. Senator Obama signed the pledge and kept it in Michigan. But in so doing, Senator Obama decided to go further and made a voluntary decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. That was his right but it was also his decision. As a result, he denied Michigan the opportunity to vote for a slate of candidates. There aren’t many second chances in life but Senator Obama has one now and should ask the people of Michigan for their vote. Why is he refusing to do so?

False Excuse #2: Obama Voters Participated in GOP Primary. The Obama camp will argue that their supporters voted in the GOP primary because Barack Obama wasn’t on the Democratic ballot. They argue that the legislation’s effort to comply with the DNC rules is unfair since the bill would prohibit people who voted in the 2008 GOP primary in Michigan from voting a second time in the Democratic contest. On its face, you might think the Obama campaign is making a sound case. But two points render their argument inoperable:

First, the Obama campaign has repeatedly said that it would comply with DNC rules and DNC Rule 2.E prohibits cross-over voting. The draft legislation does not permit anyone who voted in Michigan’s Republican primary in January to now vote in the Democratic primary. Senator Obama has said that this is a key reason why he cannot support the legislation but that provision must be in the bill in order to comply with the DNC rules. So while Senator Obama’s campaign says he will follow the rules, he wants one of them to be ignored.

Second, the Obama campaign’s allies in Michigan organized an effort to get people in Michigan to vote for “uncommitted” in the Democratic primary, helping to bring the uncommitted share of vote to 40 percent. So the Obama camp can’t reasonably argue supporters participated in the GOP primary and didn’t vote in the Democratic contest.

False Excuse #3: Clinton Supporters Have Said They’d Raise Money For a Primary and They Back Clinton. The Obama campaign will argue that Clinton supporters have said they’d help raise money to finance the primary and that’s not fair. Last time we checked, the Obama campaign wasn’t hurting for donors. More to the point, Democrats are blessed this cycle with an energized grassroots. We believe that appealing to everyday people to finance this primary exemplifies what this election is about: giving a voice to the voiceless.

False Excuse #4: Michigan Law Requires First-time Absentee Voters Must Vote In Person Before They Can Vote Absentee – Just Like in Illinois. The Obama camp will argue that they are at a disadvantage because a lot of their supporters are college students who vote absentee. But Michigan law says that a person voting absentee must cast a vote in person before they are eligible to vote absentee which will result in the exclusion of many Obama supporters, of whom many are first time voters. The Obama campaign should be familiar with that sort of system since it’s the rule in Illinois and we didn’t hear too much complaining in the run-up to February 5 primary there. More to the point, this rule will be in place in Michigan for the general election. So will the Obama campaign use this excuse to justify writing off Michigan in the general if Barack Obama is the nominee? We hope not.

The bottom line is that Michigan has all the problems and promise that we talk about in this country. Competing in Michigan sends a signal that Democrats care and understand the people there deserve the chance to make their voices heard and need someone in the White House who will hear their voices.

If Barack Obama doesn’t want to help make that happen, Hillary Clinton is ready to do so. We call on the Obama campaign to let the people of Michigan vote.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

I think that Hillary's anti-word campaign points to the need for us to aggressively pursue non-verbal communication. This is important because we in America have such a massive problem using words. For example almost every commentator, journalist, public speaker on TV or radio use the phrase "I mean" within the course of their conversation. Some people even begin a sentence with "I mean." "I mean, you know, it's like this...." But nobody knows what I mean means. That's only one example.

President Clinton showed us how language can drive us into mental acrobatics with his questioning the meaning of "is." Because politicians are either lawyers or preachers, all masters of manipulating words to manipulate people, they have the upper hand on the rest of us who have to endure them. We are at the mercy of word smiths.

Hillary is a grandmaster, or mistress of, swallowing words. If she could communicate non-verbally, those of us who cover our ears to drown out the shrillness, might appreciate her message.


hillary you adreed to the rule s it was not an issue till you started losing live with it because if they revote in fl and mi after making it clear they where stripped of there delegate s i will vote mc cain in 08


hillary you agreed to the rule s it was not an issue till you started losing live with it because if they revote in fl and mi after making it clear they where stripped of there delegate s I will vote mc cain in 08
Posted by: randall mitchell | March 19, 2008 12:20 PM

randall, I agree with you on the point that Hillary should live up to her agreements to not allow delegates from MI or FL to be seated at the convention, because they broke the rules and everyone agreed. But believe me I don’t intend to vote for another four years of Bush/McCain policy just to make a point. I don’t know if you’ve got any kids in the right age group, but I have and believe me that if McCain wins the white house he’ll impose a draft in order to maintain troop levels in Iraq, I don’t see any other way to stay at the present level there without it.


If the word "participate" means remove yourself from the ballot, why didn't Obama remove his name from the Michigan ballot as well? Also, why did his campaign -actively- push other campaigns -except- for Clinton to remove their names from MI (but not from FL)?

Sorry, the Obama camp is the one who gamed this system and in doing so has been fully willing to disenfranchise voters. Hillary and Wolfson are right, and if Howard "50-state" Dean can't figure out how to include these two important states in the nominating process it's a huge failure for the Democratic party.


Chris Corbell said "why didn't Obama remove his name from the Michigan ballot as well?"

He did remove his name from the Michigan ballot. He and Edwards tried to remove their names from the FL ballot, but the state denied them because the FL had already created the ballots.

Hillary pledged not to participate in Michigan and then left her name on the ballot when she clearly had a choice to remove herself. She violated the terms of her pledge. Now she wants it to count anyway. So she's basically saying, "I pledged, I lied, now let me get away with it."


Hillary is so full of it

Everything is about her not the voter. She won the Michign primary. Now the party has the figure out what to do. Voting twice makes no economic sense. That money could be spent on something that would benefit the citizen not Hillary or Obama for that matter. Rules are the rules you can not change them because you do not like the outcome.

DNC will have to deal with not Obama, not the voters.


By edict of Barack Obama The Swamp will no longer print any opinion from a Democrat resident of Florida or Michigan without the consent of a super-delegate. (the real decision makers)


John - that was a mis-type, I meant why didn't he remove his name from the Florida ballot as well.

Any answer?

The phrasing of the pledge was the same for both states. Your argument does nothing to diminish Obama's obvious hypocrisy in disenfranchising these two states.


I'm so confused, here I am thinking that to participate is to remain an available candidate on the ballot. Clinton participated on Michigan and Florida, despite what the DNC pledge restricted her from doing. Obama and Edwards fulfilled the spirit and letter of the agreement and Clinton is a lying manipulative snake.


hmmm... Clintonian parsing from someone name Clinton. who would've ever expected it ?


It appears Mrs. Clinton has problems with language as did her husband, oh so few years ago. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)


By edict of Mental Health practitioners everywhere, the Swamp will no longer print an opinion from whatnow or anyone else who can't think without drooling.


Chirs, my understanding is that it was too late to change the ballots in Florida.


It was unfortunate that the DNC felt obliged to strip Michigan of its delegates, but that is what they did. Therefore, the argument should go the action it took. Was it right in doing that? If not, then why didn't Hillary argue against them then? Do you understand why the DNC took the action that it did? Do you understand that if it allowed Michigan and Florida to move up their primaries, then other states, especially the 800-pound gorrila, California, would have done the same. That seemed like a chaotic situation for the DNC and it wanted to have order so that this time we Democrats would win election.


Reading the candidates' pledge, it seems clear and concise: "I shall not campaign or participate..." Clinton chose to leave her name on the Michigan ballot when she had the option to remove it as others did. Now she says she alone should receive the delegates from that state, she alone should receive the popular votes. How "IS" this not participating? How "IS" this not a violation of her pledge? How "IS" this a fair election contest? I suppose it hinges on what one's definition of "IS" is...


Hillary needed to argue her case before the Michigan primary took place, not after the fact. Is it not a serious judgment lapse if she not see that the voters would be disenfranchised until after she signed the pledge, until after the primaries were held? If you look at her press statements this seems to be the case; if not, it suggest manipulation of the election process and rules at the disadvantage of others.


I'm not trying to beat up on Hillary, I'm not trying to uplift Barack, I am trying to make a point that as messed up as this got to begin with, not honoring the obvious intent of the pledge signed and agreed to has made things much worse and the whole of Democrats suffer, Hillary and Barack as candidates and their supporters alike.


Seriously, we need FL and MI to win the election for the Democrats; we need to heal the rift between Hillary and Obama supporters. We need to have some reasonable a fairness and that will mean compromise, neither candidate getting all they want. Personally I don't want our troops to spend another year, decade, or century in Iraq because the Democrats want to bloody each other up.


Tone down the insults and find a FAIR compromise, else live with a Bush like Republican President for four more years. God help us...


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "w" in the field below:

Quizzes

palin or fey

Palin or Fey?

McCain

Know the presidents?

McCain

Your McCain IQ

Obama

Your Obama IQ

Latest polls

Electoral vote map

map

Test your scenarios

Galleries

Palin

Sarah Palin

campaign

Campaign trail

conventions

RNC | DNC

Unauthorized tour

Obama

Obama's Chicago

News, but funnier

Cartoon

Walt Handelsman

Cartoon

The Lowe- Down

Cartoon

Joe Fournier

Cartoon

Editorial cartoons

Candidate match


Test assumptions