You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Strickland did not say anything about Iowa "while campaigning for Hillary" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 01:02 AM
Original message
Strickland did not say anything about Iowa "while campaigning for Hillary"
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Mon Dec-31-07 01:06 AM by ruggerson
the other OP is a complete lie. It is mimicking the same suggestion Matt Drudge uses, only Matt Drudge himself doesn't even go so far as to say "while campaigning for Hillary," because he knows it's not true.

Primaries are for legitimately debating ideas and attacking other candidates with the truth.

This isn't the truth and it should be called out.


on edit:

Here's the actual story, which the poster got off of Drudge:

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2007/12/30/EARLYSTATES.ART_ART_12-30-07_A1_IU8TRE8.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Beginning the presidential nominating process in Iowa, as will occur this week, "makes no sense," says Gov. Ted Strickland, who recently campaigned there for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

"I'd like to see both parties say, 'We're going to bring this to an end,' " he said.

It's too late to do that for 2008, though, which is why the candidates and thousands of out-of-state supporters and reporters are trudging through Iowa this week -- and then on to New Hampshire for the run-up to its Jan. 8 primary -- in a quadrennial ritual that many agree is no way to pick a president.
Critics complain that the current system gives a few hundred thousand voters in Iowa and New Hampshire far too much influence. They contend that the skills candidates use to connect with small groups in Iowa and New Hampshire are not necessarily those that a president needs.

"I've never been in favor of it," said Sherry Jeffe, professor of political science at the University of Southern California. "I think it's foolish. It's outdated. I come from California, and for a very long time we've had very little to do with the primary."

Others say that a state like Ohio would be a better place to start the process because it better reflects the United States demographically, economically and politically.

Matthew Masur, a history professor at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., with a master's degree and doctorate from Ohio State University, said he quickly heard why New Hampshire deserved to be at the head of the line after moving there in 2004.


(more)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC