Obama, Edwards, Richardson pull out of Michigan primary
By Nicole Belle Monday Oct 08, 2007 2:03pmI can't say this makes a lot of sense to me unless all the other candidates follow suit. Otherwise, it seems like a "cut off your nose to spite your face" strategy. David Shuster and Chuck Todd of MSNBC discuss:
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
AP: Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have withdrawn from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic presidential primary.
The three filed paperwork Tuesday, the deadline to withdraw from the ballot, said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's office.
All of the Democratic candidates already have agreed not to campaign in Michigan because it broke Democratic National Committee rules when it moved its primary ahead of Feb. 5. The decision by Obama, Edwards and Richardson undercuts the validity of the contest.
Other Democratic candidates had until the end of the day to decide if they'll stay on the ballot.
UPDATE: Per MSNBC, Joe Biden has opted to pull out as well.
UPDATE #2: Dennis Kucinich has issued a statement asking to be left off the ballot as well.
Login or Register to post comments.
Huh.
MIKE GRAVEL FTW!
This is a showdown between the DNC (and Dr. Dean) and the "old establishment" DLC folk (the Clintons).
Don't they realize Michigan, for the most part, is a purple state. The need to be careful or Michigan could end up being a reich-winger red state.
I live in Fla. and all of the dem candidates have agreed not to campaign down here. I am so damned confused about all this stuff. I don't know a single answer to any of it.
BTW, has anyone been to drudge today? WTF!? A picture of Hillary in a witch's hat? Come on.....
Drudge is not on favs list. I think I went to his site once and that was because C&L linked to it for something they were posting about.
Hillary will be the Dem nom and she will win. These guys are spinning wheels and don't have the strategic masterminds she has behind her. Put Bill into the mix going out stumping for her and I can't see why anyone would back another candidate. She's gonna be the American Margaret Thatcher even thought that is a flawed comparison.
pissed off patricia @ 7:
I visit eggman because "he" provides the red meat for the reich-wingers. ALWAYS know what your enemies are up to.
I would love someone to explain all of this to me, but I fear about half way through the explanation I would just shoot myself. Why did all this mess get stirred up in the first place?
Gavin @ 8:
NO! That's an exellent comparision. One that explains why most progressives wouldn't get near her with a 10 foot pole. She may actally have closer to ties to the corporate power brokers though then Thatcher did.
I wish they would ALL drop out, both parties...
From what I understand is that all the State party leaders got together in '06 and decided the order of primaries/cacus's. Now that the time has come for campaigning, everyone wants to jump the line agreed to. I've heard that some think this is a ploy by Clinton to get others to withdraw, so that she would be the defacto winner. Who knows....
I'm from Iowa and let me tell ya.... we have gone into 24/7 political campaigning since 2000 and it's tedious. Yes, we do like the attention because this is our chance to have a say in something. But, remember, we decide for Iowa, not everyone else. There are plenty of other states that have more electorials than we do. Or do you want to cow-tow to the media and who they promote??
I've seen several suggestions on how to fix this mess that we've found ourselves in. One is to have a national primary day. I don't think this will work because there is too much ground to cover with x amount of money. It's not practical, a candidate can't get enough face time in all states at once. Another was to rotate states. This has a chance to work, but what if you ended up with California and South Carolina having a primary on the same day?? Again the logistics would be a nightmare. The one I liked was to have rotating regional primaries (eg Florida, Georgia, SC, NC, and Alabama in one grouping, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Utah in another group, etc). I think this one would work.
Go Dennis Go!!
Nicole: The article mentions only three(3) Dems withdrawing....See the crawl under
video...it says "Four Democratic Candidates Withdraw"...Who is the fourth??
Just a quick reminder. The repub candidates' debate begins in about thirty minutes at 4:00 on CNBC (or as I refer to it, The investment channel) Might be good for a couple of laughs.
pissed off patricia @ 16:
yeah, can't wait to see Freddy Thompson, wonder if he will flub any line. This ain't like Law and Order, where the director can yell cut and they get to do it over again.
Ought to be good for a few chuckles if I can stand them talking about so called "moral issues". Makes me puke when they say that sinceTHEY have none.
Doggiebobo @ 15:
Biden
So, they're going to let Iowa determine the outcome of the Democratic Primary.
And we wonder why we keep getting the representatives and officials we get.
pissed off patricia @ 10:
Because every state wants to have more influence in the nomination process.
I don't understand this. Why would any candidate want to withdraw from a state simply due to a superficial date move for a primary. It really is petty, and they aren't going to gain any votes in Michigan for the poor decision to withdraw. Hopefully the true contenders that care about the people will ignore this pettiness and make the debate so their voice can be heard by more of the people.
pissed off patricia @ 16:
CNBC televising...Wow, that debate will most certainly draw a large viewing audience...NOT.
How is this not a gigantic boost for Clinton if she shows up and they don't? They'll look like elitists...which is ironic.
The advantage of the state-by-state primaries and caucuses used to be that lesser-known -- even unknown -- candidates had an opportunity to gain national attention by winning a small state. At one point, it did not take a tremendous amount of money to reach the voters of New Hampshire. A candidate for president could literally walk precincts and knock on doors. And everyone in the country would pay attention. If that lesser-known candidate received a significant portion of the vote, he was better-known. The process then continued into the bigger states.
As larger states felt snubbed, however, arguing that their rightful influence on the process was diluted, the process became more and more "front loaded." Add the disgraceful national media into the mix, and it's clear that the primary system doesn't work anymore.
In 2004, Dean had gained "front runner" status across the country long before a single vote was cast. The rest of the candidates then "conspired" (don't read too much into that word) to campaign against him. Ultimately, it worked, and after his defeat in Iowa, his campaign was over, and John Kerry had practically locked up the nomination. It would seem something similar is happening with Clinton's "front runner" status.
I suppose it may be time to trash the state-by-state system altogether. It may have had its utility when it was devised (in order to bust the influence of party bosses in smoky rooms), but that utility has dissipated. Perhaps it's time for one, national primary election.
The bad news about this debate is that Chris Matthews is one of the moderators. Wonder if he will be easy on Fred because he smells like Old Spice or Aqua Velva? Chris won't know what to do having Fred and Rudy in the same room. They both seem to be his BFF.
I guess the good news about the dems not campaigning down here is that we don't have 24-7 political ads on tv right now. The only tv ads I have seen down here were Mitt's.
The Political Junkie @ 19:
That's a stretch. Iowa rarely "determines" the outcome. Iowa has traditionally narrowed the field and gotten rid of the bottom one or two candidates.
Anonymouse @ 3:
Could you explain this a little more, because I am definitely for Dr. Dean, but don't know which side he is on in this issue. Thanks.
redratio1 @ 23:
If they participate, and she wins . . . well . . . she wins.
If she's the only name on the ballot, she can't really call it a victory.
At least, that's the logic. It's just PR. Naturally, Clinton still gets the delegates.
pissed off patricia @ 25:
Maybe we'll get lucky and Tweety will get whiplash from all his man crushes at the debate and he'll get DL'ed for the election season.
Tweety does have incredible man crushes on these criminal bad boy types. It is almost too much to watch. Where have all the real journalists gone?
24 Karen
It's my understanding that much of the whole primary process was in replacing the old caucus system which many thought disenfranchised minorities. These were reforms in the early 1970's. At one point they even had to make it a requirement for caucus representatives and elected electors of the electorial college to vote for the people they were sent to vote for, and not cut deals in smoke filled back rooms.
Orangutan. @ 30:
They are hanging out at Britney Spears home, or continuing the investigation of Princess
Diana's death in the auto accident 6 years ago, or maybe they are covering the story
that the "Police" are getting back together for another show/record.
pissed off patricia @ 5:
And this from yahoo article, "As punishment for breaking the rules, the DNC has vowed to strip Michigan and Florida, which scheduled its contest on Jan. 29, of their delegates. Florida has 210 delegates, Michigan 156." What's up with this and why is Frist being so adamant that we have the primary on the 29th instead of the 5th? I thought he started out a pretty reasonable fellow.
pissed off patricia @ 16:
Why are they putting it on at 4:00 when everyone is at work?
IgnoranceIsNotBliss @ 34:
So that working citizens won't get sick and up-chuck....can do so later when re-broadcast
Doggiebobo @ 35:
After eating the dinner of chuck roast.
In Canada (and the UK, and other parliamentary democracies), the whole election cycle takes 6 weeks. That's all. The prime minister declares the election - or the government falls on a vote of non-confidence - and less than two months later a new government is sworn in. None of this endless campaign nonsense that requires so much fundraising that all the candidates are bought off by special interests long before election day.
Of course, party leadership campaigns are separate from the election process - so the US system and parliamentary elections are not directly comparable.
Still, this two-year full-time campaign is absurd. It's a perversion of democracy and an invitation to the co-opting of the voice of the people by corporations, media ideologues and interest groups.
My two cents.
WHAT!?!
Oh Jeesus H Christinia Agulara on a Pogo Stick! They're giving her the damn white house! I knew it! This is my first election as an adult and now I'm sure it's rigged. The unreasonably high Hillary polls and now this!?! Great. Just great. We'll either have Hillary in there and there and because nobody likes her we'll probably have another 50-50 split with the Republicans pulling a fast one in a few key areas to give them the votes they need.
As a life-long Michigander, I gotta say it's a dumb idea for Dems to ignore this state. We have been, statewide, victims of NAFTA and CAFTA, the industrial jobs that built our middle class having been outsourced to non-union red states and overseas.
We are a socially diverse, well educated state, and a much better barometer of the nation than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada. I resent that those states might serve to filter out candidates who would have suited Michigan and most other states than those who might survive those earlier primaries.
I could care less about who gets to have the first primary and I care even less about this pissing contest between the DNC & the DLC, because neither of them are LISTENING. They're both so damn busy fighting over who will get the top spot on their little dung heap that they are missing the fact that millions of Americans are screaming for the Democrats to pull their heads out of their asses and get the crminals out of the White House and put an end to the Bloody reign of Bush.
Just another reason not to vote Democrat.
Peace
Karen @ 28:
But as it stands, the Florida and Michigan delegations will not be seated at the convention and their votes will not count. I am not going to comment twice so I will say here that I agree with nonnymouse that it is a showdown between the DNC and the DLC. Go, Howard Dean and the DNC! I think the states agreed early on the line-up of primaries, and they should stay committed to that format. If they want more change, they should take it up with the next chairman of the party.
They should shut down all the primaries till Sept of '08. It's time to tell the talking heads to butt out, they're the ones driving all this early voting crap. Both sides of these empty-headed pundits need to go do some real reporting, and quit worrying about who is or isn't wearing a Flag Lapel, and whether or not Clinton, is showing too much cleavage!
These nitwits on these talk shows only have one interest, and that's keeping their nauseous faces in front of the camera's!
The self idolizing know-it-alls, need to go back to whatever local station they bubbled-up from, and report on giant pumpkins,rabid canaries, and the wind that blew over Farmer Jones' windmill!
The media today is a bunch of phoney, paid-off shills,who will report anything just for face time! Fu*k em all
Annoyed Canuck @ 37 - Interestingly, the U.S. and U.K. systems both elevated men of low moral character - war criminals, if you will - to the highest position of power in their respective governments. Hence, both systems are flawed and principally because two parties and their corporate and media enablers maintain tight control on political discourse and the entire process, ensuring that no viable alternatives may emerge to challenge the status quo.
On Politico Richardson is quoted as having pledged to go with the line-up of Iowa, NH, NV and SC. So I am assuming that all the candidates have made this pledge. If they can't keep their word to the Democratic Party, how can we think they will keep their words on anything?
christine @ 13:
Of course you like to have that power in the primary season. (Have you seen the influence diagram of the primary process that shows Iowa and New Hampshire as being roughly the size of Texas each?) The number of electors in the state is not the issue. We in Oregon have not had a presidential primary in my memory that decided ANYTHING. By the time we have our primary, the issue has been decided. (And then some wonder why people don't vote.)
This should be a HUGE wake up call to BOTH parties that people are finally getting tired of not having a voice in the primary system. Perhaps it would be best to try to fix the system than to try to punish those states making an effort to give their respective citizens a voice in the process?
Forget all these others. Dennis Kucinich is the man!
A spokesman said Clinton thought removing her name was unnecessary because she already has pledged not to campaign in Michigan because the state broke national party rules by moving its primary to Jan. 15.
Well then removing her name wouldn't hurt either? Or would it? i realize this may seem like a petty move on the part of the others, but to me, this really only makes it (more) obvious that Clinton doesn't give a crap about the country, she only gives a crap about herself and her power. If it's unnecessary, then it doesn't matter either way, and if it doesn't matter either way, then she must have some reason for staying in that trumps marring her credibility (which is saying a lot).
Just mho.
It's no skin off my nose because I'm a non-affiliated lefty. But I am really surprised at people defending Michigan and Florida. The candidates and state parties, as a person above writes, pledged to go with the current order of primaries. It seems like party anarchy to go against what a majority, at least, have signed on to. It's really sad.
The way the election for president is organized in this country is dumb.
SFnomad @ 20:
Correction: Every state wants to have SOME influence in the nomination process.
I'm a Michigander, and I am seriously considering withdrawing from the Democratic party... The Congress has failed and now some candidates aren't even going appear in my state.. I'd like to actually see someone in real life and hear them speak before i vote for them. I'm tired of the 2 party system and the way elections are conducted.
DarthSaikos @ 38:
I second that.
Another Michigander here. Don't these four know that Michigan is a swing state? Michigan's gov isn't the most popular person right now due to the budget crisis and having to raise the state income tax. There will be many on the "Dutch" side of the state moving the vote in 08 as a referendum against Gov. Granholm. This purple state will only get a bit "redder" now that Edwards pulled out. (He has placed near the top in statewide polls.)
Bad move my Dems... really bad move!
Gavin @ 8:
Margaret Thatcher was not that good for England, first of all. In the end, Brits, reduced to living in an impoverished police state that was constantly being bombed by the IRA and viewed as enemies to the world for her hegemonic ways, chased old iron britches into political elder statesmanship. Not long after that, her son capped off her fascist legacy with the African scandal from which she only narrowly escaped international prosecutable charges herself. Many conclude her son took that fall to keep his mum out of jail.
Shillary, the bought and bossed representative of military industrial corporate personhood, and not regular people, has to win at least one primary before she receives DNC consideration for party anointing. Bucking their system here will not ingratiate her with them, even if she wins purple Michigan. Thus, the DNC will remain unimpressed with her current lead.
Shillary's winning Michigan will not make the state blue. Helping Michigan out of its Federal debt, bringing back jobs, making college again reasonably affordable, helping homeowners keep their homes, and resolving social and cultural issues that have continue to polarize Michigan along ethnic lines will make Michigan a blue state. That means Shillary is going to have to stop pushing -AFTA and H1B Visas down Michigan's collective throat to start encouraging engineers to graduate from University of Michigan and bring manufacturing and industry back to the American Midwest. Her corporate owners don't want to hear she supports increased regulation and tariffs on imported goods and the increase in exportable American produced goods, providing jobs for Americans in America. Rupert Murdock did not write her a check for making America better. He wants to buy America and Americans affordably.
The same polls lulling you off into believing that she is the forgone conclusion also says that 41% of Democrats have vowed not to support her. The only reason the Republicans are pushing so hard for her is they know she's the least qualified candidate on that side of the field. Corporations are pulling for her because, as a corporate lawyer, she is best suited to assist them with the continuity of deregulation and privatization of the very next breath you take. In exchange for your support in the Primary Elections, Shillary promises to pay some foreigner on an H1B Visa slave wages to sit in your livingroom typing your next post to this blog, because she has made known that they do it better cheaper, and generally are smarter than you. Why any middle class American barely working at poverty level in America can't see she's an elitist ass in an ill-fitting elephant suit is beyond me. She is not for regular folks who work for a living. She gives no more of a damn about regular working people than the current administration, well reflected by her Senate record.
jim @ 53:
This should not mean a vote for Shillary. Write in the candidate YOU really want. Remember, spelling counts.
camipco @ 50:
Yes, very dumb, and in desperate need of reform, starting with abolition of the electoral college. Go with the popular vote, and make every state a key to victory.
rage @ 57:
The funny thing is dumb is another word for mute, the last thing any of the candidates are.
NorskBamse @ 54:
Does that mean they swap mates while jitterbugging to 1940's era music?
Login or Register to post comments.