Four Candidates Withdraw From D.C. Democratic Primary

[Khephra]

Four of the nine Democratic presidential candidates have formally withdrawn from the Jan. 13 D.C. primary, undercutting the city's bid to influence the nomination process and highlight its lack of congressional voting rights.

Removing their names from the ballot were Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.).

All four had letters hand-delivered to the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics late Thursday afternoon withdrawing. The D.C. Council passed a law last month putting all the candidates on the ballot unless they opted out.

D.C. Democratic Party Chairman A. Scott Bolden called the move by the four candidates an "offensive gesture."

more............

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12582-2003Nov7.html

[AWD]

1. That's easy...

.....the four didn't want to have to alter their campaign schedule to make an extra appearance in Washington DC.

[dolstein]

3. And do you know the identity gunman on the grassy knoll too?

You sound like someone who's fascinated with conspiracy theories.

There is, of course, a simpler explanation -- the DC primary was moved to before Iowa and New Hampshire. It no longer has the sanction of the DNC. That still matters to some candidates.

[dolstein]

2. Offensive? Spare me.

DC sets its primary before Iowa and New Hampshire and the don't expect there to be any fallout? You gotta be kidding.

[munayman]

4. Offensive?

Why does D.C. have a primary anyway...it's not even an f-ing state.

[Dhalgren]

5. It's a non-binding contest,

the caucus is Feb. 14th. This is just a way to publicize the plight of D.C.'s citizens who have no real repersentation. Iowa and New Hampshire are still the first "real" contests, so what's the big deal? This just may help D.C. to bring there "second-class citizenship" to the national fore. I think the four DLCers dropped out because they were going to lose big - and didn't want to. Also they are pissing on those 3 electorial votes, because none of those four will win there now. But they don't care.

[jiacinto]

6. DC will be in the Dem column in 2004

It gave Gore like 80% of the vote.

[Dhalgren]

8. Yeah, no doubt.

I was talking about the primary. But you're right about the Nov. '04 election, the Dem candidate can take D.C. for granted, and, of course, he will.

[tsipple]

7. Is It Racist to Treat DC This Way?

It's a nonbinding referendum -- no delegates awarded -- and D.C. has one of the highest concentrations of African-Americans among states (or states-to-be).

[mitchtv]

10. Well Gore didn't spend a nickle in Calif..

was he being regionalist?/racist?. Just cause DC is largely AF-Mercan, doesn't innoculate them from being taken for granted.

[MaineDem]

9. My opinion, for what it's worth...

is that this primary should not be taking place. It's costing the Party or someone money to conduct this non-binding "beauty contest" as someone called it.

The real issue will be the February event at which delegates will be selected. That's the important piece. I bet all the candidates will at least make a campaign appearance prior to that date.

This is a waste of time, effort, and money; I'd like to see all the candidates decline to take part.

[Debi]

11. Why did they drop out???

Because Howard Dean had it locked up.  Iowa/New Hampshire were
not making any noise about the beauty contest and it was going
to give DC more credibility than in the past.  HD had all the
City Council endorsements - so rather than lose (and big) the
Washington Politicians bailed and cited DNC rules (you don't
see any of them bailing on FLA straw poll do ya??)

[Jackpine Radical]

12. How do you know Dean had it locked up?

Was there a poll or something? If he does have a lock on DC, does that indicate that he's doing well with black voters elsewhere?