Clinton: "I don't understand why Senator Obama seems to be afraid of" a re-vote in MI

[sabra]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-says-ob.html#comments

<snip>

Clinton was asked if she needed Florida and Michigan to count to catch up with Obama.

Clinton said "I have been in favor of fixing this problem no matter what my position. I have been consistently in favor of it."

Clinton then went on to say "for the life of me I don't understand why Senator Obama seems to be afraid of," she said. "He comes up with all of these legalistic answers. The people of Michigan and their legislature made it very clear that they would proceed with a re-vote. Unfortunately Senator Obama's campaign said 'no.' Two out of the three of us said yes. You will have to ask him what he is afraid of to go forward."

[LSparkle]

1. He is NOT afraid -- he only wants it to be FAIR

ALL DEMOCRATS should be able to re-vote -- including those who crossed party lines to vote for
Romney or McSame previously because they were told (RIGHTLY!) that their votes wouldn't count.

On the flip side, why is Clinton so AFRAID of NOT having the delegates seated, after that's
what SHE AGREED TO PREVIOUSLY? She didn't think she'd need Michigan, and now she does.

Flip-flop....then project your fear onto the other guy.

[gayron]

5. No one told him to take his name off the ballot!

[Cha]

16. Get a clue..those were the DNC rules

and he followed them..something little miss hilary and her ites no nothing about.

[leftofcool]

31. No, he did not have to remove his name from the ballot

That was his choice, along with Edwards

[RiverStone]

37. So you prefer by leaving it on, he endorses a state breaking the rules?

MI party leaders blew it - Obama and Edwards were not going to condone an illegitimate primary.

[rodeodance]

40. Dodd and DK left on also. There was NO rule to take off.

[stillcool]

44. An invalid election. What difference does it make?

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “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 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.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

Voters Face Confusion in Michigan Dem Race
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/voters_face_confusion_in_michi.html
January 9, 2008
By Peter Slevin
CHICAGO -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only top-tier Democrat on the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot, but followers of her chief rivals are hoping to wound her all the same.

A fresh poll suggests that running nearly unopposed will not mean winning nearly 100 percent of the vote.

The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for "uncommitted," according to state Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer. The Obama campaign says there may be "grass-roots efforts," but that the Chicago-based campaign is not involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------
They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver.

An "uncommitted" vote would take the place of a write-in, which is not permitted.

"People are already frustrated here in Detroit because they can't cast a ballot for Obama. Many on their absentee ballots many have tried to write in Obama, but they have spoiled the ballots," said Sam Riddle, Monica Conyers's chief of staff. "We know we've got to educate the voters in a hurry."
Following Michigan law, local clerks are allowing voters a chance to redo their ballots.

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot.

The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.
-----------------------------
The DNC has threatened to punish states that break tradition and the rules by challenging Iowa and New Hampshire as first to pic. The committee has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that go ahead defy the primary rules set by the party

[JuniperLea]

8. How is it not fair for a re-vote, including both candidates?

I'm not finding any logic in what you are saying at all.

[joshcryer]

12. Because it's not a caucus which he is good at manipulating.

[JuniperLea]

26. That's when all the racists can't hide their racism...

And they HAVE to vote for Obama... I've seen the pattern. I don't think it's manipulation on his part as much as stupidity on America's part.

[SoonerPride]

22. Here's the reason why

The re-vote would EXCLUDE Democrats who voted for Republicans in teh vote that didn;'t count while ALLOWING in Republicans who want to vote this time.

You disenfranshise Dems and empower republicans making mischief.

That is exactly ass backwards.

Change the rule and let ALL Dems in and NO republicans in and then you have a fair primary.

That's why.

[JuniperLea]

28. That is convoluted bullshit!

You think Republicans are going to vote for Hillary?? There is enough Clinton hate to last the next ten Republican generations!

This is nonsense.

[SoonerPride]

30. Maybe you missed the Texas and Ohio primaries, dearie.

They were full of republicans voting for Clinton as Rush gasbag told them to do.

[JuniperLea]

32. Did they all say so?

Or are there Republicans voting for Democrats because of them being sick of BushCo? I personally know several Republicans who are voting Democrat this time around, and it's a pretty even split between the two candidates. Unless you have affidavits from Republican voters, you're barking out of your ass.

[indimuse]

42. Obama voters could have voted for Barack then...

sounds like some Obama voters could have voted for Barack then, BUT chose to vote for a righty......Smart Hillary people voted for Hillary...who F*cked up?????

[ihelpu2see]

15. Shouldn't Sen. Clinton's quote read, "I'd be interested in fixing it to favor me" nt

[papau]

2. Obama the coward - or Obama will do anything to win - no democratic vote elected delegates from Mich

[anigbrowl]

19. Yeah, taking his name of the ballot along with Edwards and others was real cowardly

The Obama-trashing on this thread is both deceitful and disappointing.

[depakid]

3. Fair question

A good many of his supporters on the ground and :gasp: on GD-P certainly seem to be stretching their rationalizations....

[Romulox]

4. I'll spell it: L.O.S.I.N.G. is what he's afraid of, and democracy be damned! nt

[polichick]

35. Except that describes HER position and behavior, not his.

[rox63]

6. She should talk to the MI state senate, where they rejected a revote

Unless they are suggesting that Obama somehow has the power to change the state senate's minds.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. the state could do nothing unless BOTH candidates agreed and Obama did not agree!

but the super delegates know the truth and Hillary won both states.

They will do what's right for the party to win in Nov.

[SoonerPride]

25. False. It was DOA and you know it.

You can support HRC, but you don't have to fudge the truth to do so.

[rodeodance]

38. Educate yourself --BO was dragging his feet. --no action. just words

[rodeodance]

43. I read that BO purposely let the clock run our. have you seen this?

you prob. have. Good


Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject KO and Chuck Todd Misrepresent Hillary's Statement About Michigan: Media Matters Where Are You?
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5164088#5164088
5164088, KO and Chuck Todd Misrepresent Hillary's Statement About Michigan: Media Matters Where Are You?
Posted by McCamy Taylor on Wed Mar-19-08 07:32 PM

On Countdown moments ago, increasingly partisan Keith Olbermann and always partisan hack Chuck Todd deliberately misrepresented remarks that Hillary Clinton made last fall that were reported in the Washington Post. They read a small excerpt from the article and interpreted that quote as meaning that Hillary stayed on the ballot last fall, because she felt that the Michigan vote was essential if she was going to win the Democratic primary.

Here is what the article and Hillary really said in the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html


"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

Speaking in the first primary state, Clinton said she understands concerns about her refusal. Rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden took their names off Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot this week, and Michigan's hope for nominating clout all but evaporated.

Clinton's comment reflects an optimism she will win her party's nomination to face the Republican nominee in November 2008. She said any snub to Michigan could hurt her _ and all Democrats' _ chances to defeat the Republicans there.

Clinton was prompted by a caller who said, "It strikes me that this is politics as usual, where politicians say one thing and do something else."

Clinton brushed aside the comment.

"I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009," she said.



Rather than attacking Clinton as an opportunist, maybe KO should applaud her for having the foresight to think about the Party's chances in the fall. In the state of Michigan, one theory is that Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson dropped from the Mi ballot in order to court Iowa voters who were anngry at Iowa's early primary. Sen. Dodd did not drop off the Mi. ballot and has given as his reason the same explanation that Hillary gave the WaPo---he did not want to alienate Mi voters from the Democratic Party. Sen. Dodd never expected to win the nomination. He is simply someone who shows good sense.

KO and Todd lied when they omitted the line which I have highlighted in bold from their description of the WaPo article. It completely changes the meaning of that interview, showing that Hillary was concerned about the Democrats' eventual fall victory over the Republicans, not her own nomination

Media Matters never ever reports on KO's distortions, but this time I wish that they would.

Addendum, the rest of the article is recommended for those who insist that the ruled were "No Dems on the ballot"

The Democratic presidential candidates already had pledged not to campaign in Michigan because the state had broken Democratic National Committee rules by scheduling its primary ahead of Feb. 5. The rules ban states from holding their 2008 contests before Feb. 5, except Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The candidates are allowed to visit Michigan to raise money and can send their spouses to campaign, but they can't run advertisements, hold rallies or do most of the other things that would help give them a leg up on their opponents.

[VolcanoJen]

7. The delegates from Michigan and Florida will be seated.

After Obama finally wraps up this nomination in June, the superdelegates move en masse, and Clinton concedes, I'm 100% certain that the delegates will not be disenfranchised from their wine and cheese in Denver.

Elections must be legal and fair, and it's a difficult thing to just tape them together in just a few weeks. A caucus could certainly be thrown together quickly, but I imagine Clinton would be "afraid" of that.

The ball is in Michigan and Florida's courts. And from what I read, the Michigan legislature shot a re-vote down, and took off for Easter Vacation.

[DJ13]

9. Hillary sounds more desperate by the hour on this subject

It almost as if some of her own super delegates have told her she should consider dropping out if theres no revote in Michigan or Florida as she wont have any chance left to catch Obama in delegate totals (or in votes).

[JimGinPA]

29. Yeah, Her Press Conference In That Parking Lot Looked "Presidential"

:rofl:

[oviedodem]

11. I want to ask you 2 questions:

1. Do YOU think that it is fair that the MI plan would leave out the Dems that voted in the republican side because the radio,tv, and POLL workers told them it won't count?

2. Do YOU think that independents should be left out?

Please respond because that is the reason Obama has questioned the plan NOT the idea of re-doing the vote. He HAS SAID ALL ALONG THAT HE WILL GO ALONG WITH IT IF IT IS FAIR TO BOTH CAMPAIGNS AND THE VOTERS.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!!!

[anigbrowl]

17. Even Hillary said it wouldn't count

October 11 2007 on NPR: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

[Cha]

13. hilary's so special kinda stupid

that it's radiating outta her ears.

[Bonobo]

14. Sounds like a 3rd-grader.

[jwirr]

18. According to KO last night the whole decision is hung up in the Michigan

congress and not something either candidate can do much about.

[anigbrowl]

20. This from a woman who's openly trying to buy the election

Sorry, I don't trust an election funded only by supporters of one candidate. That doesn't mean I'm against a re-vote, only against a rigged one.

[durrrty libby]

21. Ain't it cool how Democrats want to disenfranchise voters?

Viva Democracy :rofl:

[book_worm]

23. A revote her campaign is trying to buy?

[truebrit71]

24. Um, Hon..what you've been saying from the beginning is that you knew that votes wouldn't count....

...what's prompted your Romneyesque flip-flop...the fact that you are behind in delegates, states and votes?

Naaaaaaaaaah couldn't be THAT could it?

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

27. Nice straw man, Hill. How pathetic.

[IdClaire]

33. of course he doesn't want a revote

It does him no good. Seriously, does anyone care that Fla and Michigan voters will be disenfranchised?

[indimuse]

34. Obama has a history of messing with elections...

and he's very familiar with legal action to try and win.. his history is right there at your fingertips..google. you might learn he likes to disenfranchise voters...it's his specialty! New politics my ass!

[indimuse]

36. They smile in your face smile in your face- all the time they wanna take yo place...Back stabber...

They smile in your face - all the time, they wanna take yo place...Back Stabber...

yep...

[zulchzulu]

39. "I have been consistently in favor of it" or MAYBE NOT

9/1/2007
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."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134

Heh. It looks like you signed the Four State Pledge last September, Hillary. Consistent? Not so much...

[Vinca]

41. Someone's not telling the truth. How surprising is that? nt

[Nedsdag]

45. I'm shocked, shocked that Hillary has changed her mind.

:sarcasm:

And they called Kerry a flip-flopper. He has NOTHING on "our gal."