(Bill) Clinton opposes Democratic plan to put caucus before N.H.

[MaineDem]

MANCHESTER, N.H. --Former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday both he and his wife oppose a plan to allow another state to have a presidential caucus after Iowa and before the New Hampshire primary.

Clinton said his opposition to the Democratic National Committee plan has nothing to do with loyalty to the state that helped him launch his 1992 campaign and everything to do with the need to preserve the integrity of the election process.

After starting in the back of the pack, Clinton turned his second-place finish in New Hampshire that year into a victory, dubbing himself the "Comeback Kid."

He said the one-on-one campaigning he did in New Hampshire made him a better candidate and president.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/06/27/clinton_opposes_democratic_plan_to_put_caucus_before_nh_1151446402/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

[babylonsister]

1. "Preserve the integrity of the election process" sounds so

oxymoronic to me now. Sigh.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Big Dog is only thinking of the Big Female Dog's Presidential ambitions

He could care less about the rest of us, so close he has become to the Bushes.

[dipsydoodle]

2. You have a system which I have never fully grasped

I would be grateful if some of you would be kind enough to provide some links which explain your selection process<es> which determine<s> exactly who will be the Presedential candidate.

[pinto]

3. Here's my take:

We don't have a parliamentary system as other democracies. Party leaders/members of Congress don't put a candidate forward as parliaments do. The party's nominee is determined by a series of State primaries, general elections, which elect delegates for a particular candidate to the party's national convention. The convention delegates elect the party's national candidate.

The sequence of state primaries has become a bone of contention in the media age. The Iowa caucus opens the election season. New Hampshire, a small state, has always garnered enormous media coverage as the first primary for presidential hopefuls. Democrats, Republicans and third parties routinely jostle to realign the primary process. All have good arguments for broader representation, and all have clear self interests.

It's an awkward process, but it's meant to assure states' influence in federal elections. (We grew out of a confederation of self governing colonies that, after independence, established a national, federal government.)

It all still boggles me in a lot of ways, and I've been voting for 30+ years.

[bemildred]

5. How candidates are selected is up to the parties.

Different parties do it differently. It is not enshrined in the Constitution, or the state constitutions, but in the bylaws of the national and state party organizations. Some aspects have filtered into law as well, and the two "major" parties have entrenched themselves in various ways, most especially in the assumption that there are only two major parties.

In the case of the Democrats, the presidential candidate is determined by obtaining a majority of the delegate votes at the national convention. The delegates to the national convention, and their votes, are determined by a combination of caucuses and primary elections conducted state by state, according to rules of the state party. This is actually an improvement over selection by and for national party elites, which used to be the way it was done.

I would guess that one reason that the contemplated "earlier caucus" is a caucus is because that is in control of the party; having an earlier election would require change in state law.

State and Local candidates for office may be determined by vote or by caucus, again by state party rules.

The system appears to be deliberately kept obscure and complicated, with the object of allowing manipulation, and US political history is littered with "voting irregularities" and allegations of rigged elections, etc., which is interesting to contrast with the US governments' demands for "transparency" elsewhere in the World.

[xchrom]

4. gee doesn't the integrity of the elections

seem like a more important thing to worry about than whether or not new hampshire comes first or second or fourteenth?

[Pastiche423]

6. Yes, the integrity of our elections

SHOULD be more important. But has anyone heard Bill say one word about the rigged elections in 2000, 2002 and 2004?

[Tellurian]

7. Bill smells a Republican RAT!!!

Does he ever...When you read the rest of the article

here:

"He switched to a more partisan tone later, telling 200 people at the state Democratic Party fundraiser that he is tired of hearing that people don't know where Democrats stand on issues such as education, energy, health care and national security.

"I think that if you look at ... what we believe -- how we develop policy and how we govern -- it's clear that their way of thinking, and their way of making policy and governing may be helpful to them at election time, but it will not produce solutions to any of these great challenges," he said of Republicans.

He used the Iraq war to illustrate his charges that the right-wing of the Republican Party values the wealthy elite over the middle class and of makes policy based on ideology then jamming it through with attacks.

Clinton said, he resented the fact that he gets huge tax cuts year after year thanks to the Bush administration, while the United States asks other countries for money to pay for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he said last week's Senate debate on whether to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq showed that Republicans favor ideology over evidence and discussion.

"We try to have a serious debate and what do they do? They practically call us traitors," he said. "Why? Because it's the only leg they've got to stand on."

New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Wayne Semprini responded by noting that New Hampshire Democrats recently approved a resolution calling for President Bush's impeachment.

"They advocate impeaching a president for defending the citizens of this country while embracing a president who was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice," he said."

Bill must know the Puglies are up to something-

When ever has a Republican ever done anything GOOD for the People?

[Skink]

8. Caucuses should be banned.

On paper they look good but when only 6 percent of the public attends them Democracy is not served. Primaries are the closest thing to popular votes that we have.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skink]

11. I'm all for Hillary hacking back.

How else could Kerry win the NH primary.

[JI7]

12. Feingold, Kerry, and Warner hold the same position on this