Clinton in, 5 Dems out of Mich. primary

[helderheid]

By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer Tue Oct 9, 7:57 PM ET

LANSING, Mich. - Five Democratic candidates have withdrawn from Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary, leaving what amounts to a beauty contest for front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and a handful of lesser-knowns.

Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson filed paperwork Tuesday, the deadline to withdraw from the ballot, said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's office. Two other candidates, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich, said in statements that they also were bypassing the primary.

Although Michigan is a critical Midwest state in presidential voting, it violated Democratic National Committee rules by moving its primary earlier in the process. The candidates are honoring the DNC's wishes in skipping the contest.

Clinton broke with the leading candidates, with her campaign issuing a statement saying the New York senator will remain on the ballot. Chris Dodd also plans to stay on the ballot.

MORE>>>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_on_el_pr/michigan_primary;_ylt=Av41vDreSLpQ3jFZtak3VOCyFz4D

[BobRossi]

1. And people wonder why Dems don't get elected.

What is the reason that the Michigan Dems move the primary?

[Faygo Kid]

2. I understand the DNC rules, but I hate to see Michigan treated like this.

I was born there, and spent almost all my life there, and I love Michigan (not the university - go State). Please note: I am taking NO POSITION on Hillary or any of the other candidates in this post, and don't want a flame war, as EVERY post on DU seems to turn into these days.

I just don't understand how a big state that hurts like Michigan does right now can be treated so poorly. If this has to be done by the DNC, they sure as hell could show some compassion to 9 million citizens. Clumsy, very clumsy. If the Dems lose Michigan in 2008, they are absolute toast.

[BobRossi]

3. Right you are.

I live in Michigan. Talk about disenfranchising voters!

[Coexist]

5. I live in FL - the DNC did the same thing here - and they were right to do so

the State Dems KNEW they risked losing their votes if they stubbornly charged ahead with an early primary.

Their own fault.

[book_worm]

6. but why should Iowa and NH have a monopoly?

[Coexist]

8. write the DNC and ask. They HAD a chance to apply and didn't.

I have been following this closely in FL, have you up there?

snips from some emails i have rec'd on this (or just read Madfloridian's journal - TONS of good info there.)

"The House and Senate staff analysis of moving the date forward stated that it was more important to vote early than to “send a few select Floridians to the national conventions.” The Democratic and Republican state Legislators were aware that we might have no delegates because of their willingness to violate party rules without any contact with FDP Party leaders. Well, they got what they asked for."

..... and ....

"The Democratic National Committee (DNC) in August 2006 adopted a delegate selection calendar that said only four states could conduct caucuses or primaries before February 5, 2008. These four states are Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The DNC asked all the states in early 2006 if they wanted to hold their primaries or caucuses in January 2008. Only twelve states applied and Nevada and South Carolina were added to the traditional early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Florida did not bother to apply."

Then, in 2007, Florida Democratic Legislatures voted unanimously in five separate committee votes in five separate committees to move the primary into January 2008 even though staff analysis stated that we would likely have our delegates withheld. When these committee votes occurred the vote was solely on the date of the primary and had yet to be connected to the paper ballot (this came much later).

[madfloridian]

13. All states had a chance to apply for the early status.

Florida did not. I don't know about Michigan.

Dean let the rules committee do the job it was appointed by Terry McAuliffe to do, and he backs them even when he is criticized for it.

Florida has milked this for all its worth, but it is based on a pack of lies by my state. I don't say that much about Michigan, but I do know about Florida.

Florida Democrats were all for the early primary

[Faygo Kid]

7. That argument won't cut it. That's the "clumsy" part.

I don't have a problem with your position, but there needs to be more explanation as to why Iowa and New Hampshire have a lock rather than Michigan and Florida, which are huge states and more representative of the U.S.

Look, however the DNC wants to decidde this, I accept it. But there is little or no explanation taking place, and saying "the hell with you" to voters in Michigan and Florida is not good enough. People are people - they can accept disagreement, but they want respect, and I don't see it here.

[Coexist]

9. please see my post #8 - it explains that state COULD apply for an early primary

Florida DID NOT APPLY. You might want to check with the DNC and see if your state did.

[Faygo Kid]

10. Thanks. I understand. But the messaging has been awful, one way or the other.

It's like Bush playing the guitar in San Francisco when Katrina hit. Awful messaging. Whatever the substance, it SEEMS like the DNC is spitting in the face of Michigan and Florida voters. Good grief, we know how bad the Dems can be at messaging; can't they work harder to explain their positions? If they believe their position is valid - and again, it may be; that's not my problem - can't they communicate it better?

[book_worm]

4. My problem is couldn't this backfire on Dems in November?

If the GOP candidate says that our candidate (if it is one of those who aren't competing in MI)didn't care enough about Michigan voters to participate in the primary.

[zalinda]

11. And the same could be said if they stayed

on the ballot but not campaign there. Not every candidate has the money Clinton does, so they can't do TV ads, they have to have more of a ground campaign. Dodd figures he will ride Clinton's coat tails to see if he will end up VP, because there is no way he will get the nomination.

zalinda

[TahitiNut]

15. It'll "backfire" on the Dems who withdrew.

While I must say I like Jennifer Granholm, she IS a DLC Democrat and the state party is heavily-influenced by DLC-ers.

When I take note that Hillary Clinton remains on the primary ballot, it seems clear that she's benefited if anyone is.

[Swamp Rat]

12. Ga-Ga for Gore

:D

[TahitiNut]

14. Michigan's SoS has said that Kucinich didn't properly withdraw his name from the ballot.

Since the deadline for withdrawal passed, it looks like he's on it. So, it'll be Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel on the Dem primary ballot unless something more changes before then.

[hogwyld]

16. I have a question for you experts

Since Hillary and some others are on the ballot, while the other big name candidates are not, does this mean she's going to be the nominee with all of those extra delegates? Or is the DNC going to disallow them?