Let's get something straight about Michigan....

[BooScout]

NO ONE told Obama to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. It was not part of this 'pledge' among the candidates to not campaign in Michigan & Florida. Right before he withdrew his name from the ballot he was over 15 percentage points below Hillary in the polls. He did it because the numbers sucked (you know, numbers is a part of the math you so love to mouth off about), he did it for strategic reasons to try and negate a win by Clinton and it was done in an attempt to suck up to Iowa and NH voters.

The constant spin about I see about the DNC telling the candidates to take their names off the ballots in either states is utter bullshit.

[LisaM]

1. I've been ranting about this all day

The way it worked out, the early states vastly favored Obama's candidacy. If Michigan and Florida (or either) had been earlier, the numbers would be a lot better for Hillary right now. I mean, look at Nevada, for example! Hillary even won there, but he got more delegates. It's worked out great for him. Why would he want to change it?

[AllentownJake]

12. If Michigan

Would have done what it was supposed to they would have had 3 times the media attention and face time with the candidates and would have been a legit factor in this race. Hillary might have had another big win in March to brag about during March and she'd have raised lots of money off of it.

Michigan broke the rules. Sorry.

Epic Fail

[MichiganVote]

17. Broke the rules. In these days that is such a lame explanation.

[AllentownJake]

20. Counting a Primary

Where a candidate wasn't even on the ballot is even lamer

[tekisui]

21. Yeah! Rules don't matter!

How quaint, rules.

[LisaM]

36. Oh, yes, all rules make sense.

How about this one?

.....Blackwell's office has told county boards of elections to follow strictly two provisions in Ohio election law:

One requires Ohio voter registration cards be printed on thick, 80-pound stock paper.
The other ordered boards to strictly interpret the rules regarding provisional ballots, the ones cast by voters who move before the election but are still registered in Ohio......



I didn't think it made sense to disqualify Michigan and Florida well before the primaries. How is it that the Republicans could arrive at a compromise, but the Democrats wouldn't?

[AllentownJake]

39. Soviet Elections

Make just as much sense.

[LisaM]

46. Well, my ultimate point is about enfranchisement

You don't just exclude two important states by whining about breaking the rules.

[stranger81]

55. and how, exactly, were Michiganders who wished to vote for Obama

"enfranchised"?

[LisaM]

63. Their only choice was to vote uncommitted and hope delegates got seated.

But at this point, no one's enfranchised so NOBODY WINS. Get it? And it seems to me that the people who were the most desperate to halt a re-do were the Obama supporters.

[Terran]

79. And you don't legitimize two invalid elections in important states

by whining about how lame rules are. The fact is, there is no good solution here. Personally, I think 50% of the delegates in both places should just go to each candidate, and be done with it.

[graycem]

84. They aren't being excluded

They are going to be seated, but in a way that does not affect the outcome. The problem is some people want them seated in a way that unfairly favors Hillary. If she truly truly were concerned about disenfranchisement, she would agree to the 50/50 split period. Anything else is just what it is, gaming the system now that it's convenient for her, when she stated before, CLEARLY, they won't count for anything. She should've fought to seat them back then, and now it wouldn't look like she's doing it for personal reasons, which she clearly is.

[MichiganVote]

89. Seated? Where? On the roof?

[graycem]

98. At the convention in Denver

as Dean has been saying for quite some time now. You just don't get an unfair advantage since you broke the rules. Your anger is misdirected. Vote out the Democratic party in your state that decided to take the chance and break the rules.

BTW, what happened in 2004 with MI that Terry M. stripped them of half their delegates? I read an article about that somewhere. Why is it that MI and FL can't get their crap together. Seems they always want to cause a problem with our elections. Voting and Voting according to the rules isn't all that difficult. Oh huge surprise, MICHIGAN tried the same crap in 2004. Was Terry hated as much as Dean is now???


"I'm going outside the primary window," told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

[MichiganVote]

100. "You just don't get an unfair advantage since you broke the rules."

Really? Little ole' me?

I'm a lowly voter.....

I will point out, however, that the rules committee was not required to strip all the delegates. They had the option of seating half the delegates and chose otherwise.

No egg on my face but they look pretty shitty these days.

[graycem]

104. Did you happen to catch

Dean explain how things played out on John Stewart? This did not occur because of one single act. They were given several opportunities to correct their mistake, they chose not to in order to bully Dean. Thank GOD he has a backbone and is trying to do his job in a fair and equal manner, that doesn't benefit either candidate. You can't see that because your bias won't let you. You should be pissed at your Governor and the other people in your state leadership that allowed this to occur for the SECOND time in the last 2 elections. But, suit yourself.

[MichiganVote]

105. And have you given similar attention to Levin, Granholm and even comments from

Republican politicians in Michigan who have commented on TV, interviews and in print on this matter?

No, you haven't. So you see, even if you want to have your opinion, and you may as there is no law against it...

You have based it on one guy who spoke for less than ten minutes on a comedy show. Neat.

And we all complain about republicans on this board....

[graycem]

111. Not just any guy on a comedy show..

the head of the DNC saying what he's said all along, in various other forums. Words you don't want to hear because it doesn't benefit your candidate. Neat indeed. :)

You seem to be avoiding that Terry M. was in the same situation, and had a different opinion on this same matter when he was in power. Now it's hate Dean for doing the same thing he did. Shame that some people refuse to be honest.

[MichiganVote]

115. Oh please, I have listened to Dean and many, many others.

Claiming that my remarks indicate that I hate Dean is nothing short of immaturity.

[graycem]

117. He's being slimed in several threads right now..

I would say it is more of a misguided assumption considering all that's being hurled at him right now. Good that you like him, I like him too. We can agree on that then. :)

I hope since you don't hate him, you will defend his name at least, even if you won't defend his actions. I think he's put in a lot of hard work for the benefit of this party and to deny that would be terribly unfair.

[MichiganVote]

120. I neither like or dislike most politicians, present admin. excepted. I loath this admin.

That said, I still don't see that the party is addressing the central issue and that is why one or two states get to play quaint politics while another state is on its knees. Sorry, while the rest of the country is crying foul about gas prices, mortgage rates and foreclosures...Michigan residents have been throughly ignored and we are suffering.

Can't approve of that for any state and I still don't see any leadership on the issue of primary schedules. That's about Dean and a whole host of others in the Dem. leadership. Its not a Clinton or an Obama issue.

All that rules committee had to do was eliminate half the delegates from any of the candidates...and we would have had OUR opportunity feel a part of this primary, to hear the candidates, to be a part of Denver and so on.

Now? Well, wait for November. Gonna be a real mixed bag in Michigan regardless of who the Dem. candidate is and that's a shame. This is the party that is supposed to represent fairness and justice, not the Salem witch trials.

[tekisui]

44. The Pukes didn't compromise, they were punished differently.

[MichiganVote]

57. The followed their party rules kiddo and settled on a 50/50 split. Something the Dem's

could and should have done. But no...we got to get all high and mighty and bitchy.

Good job.

[tekisui]

66. The Pukes broke the rules, and were punished by losing half their delegates

The Dems punishment was losing all the delegates:

The Republican National Committee plans to penalize at least four states holding early primaries, including New Hampshire and Florida, by refusing to seat at least half their delegates at the party’s national convention in 2008, a party official said Tuesday.

Much of the focus in the primary scheduling fight up to now has been on the Democratic National Committee’s moves to penalize Florida by not seating its convention delegates because of the state’s decision to move up its primary. But the Republican rules are even more stringent, and the national party said today that it would not hesitate enforcing them.

The actions by Republicans and Democrats to move against states holding early contests is a rare instance of the two parties moving in concert, in this case to regain control over a rapidly evolving primary calendar that has thrust the nominating system into deep uncertainty just months before it is to begin.

“The rules are clear,” said Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. “Any state that holds their primary outside of the window shall be penalized delegates.”

In addition to Florida and New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina also face sanctions for moving their contests before Feb. 5. Two other early nominating states, Iowa and Nevada, will escape Republican sanctions because they hold nonbinding caucuses, not primaries.

Republican Party officials in both Florida and Michigan said yesterday they still believed it unlikely that they will face penalties — despite being told exactly the opposite by national party officials — and are crafting a plan to make their voice heard during the convention.

“I am confident that all 114 delegates from Florida will be seated,” said Jim Greer, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party.

Mr. Greer argued that Florida technically does not select its delegates on the date of the primary, but rather, the leaders in each of its 25 Congressional districts choose delegates starting Feb. 6, so it is not breaking the rules.

“I am confident that the Republican National Committee or any eventual nominee will not allow the voices of Florida voters not to be heard,” he said. “Florida is too important a state as it relates electing to the next president.”

Banning half a state’s delegation would be an extraordinary move. While state party officials have played down the impact, noting that presidential candidates are often selected before the convention, there is the chance that the parties could have brokered conventions in which each delegate’s vote would be prized.

Michigan is similarly arguing it should not be penalized, saying that the decision to set their primary date on Jan. 15 rests with the state Legislature, which is likely to vote this week to finalize its primary dates.

“Why would you want to punish those key states when you are trying to win the general election?” said Saul Anuzis, the chairman of the Michigan Republican Party,.

Fergus Cullen, the chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, said the party would hold to its primary, now set for early January, to maintain its historic role as the first primary state, even if it had to accept the penalties.

“If we end up being stripped of delegates, that is the price we are willing to pay,” Mr. Cullen said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/washington/29cnd-calendar.html/

[Terran]

77. You don't believe in following rules?

How about laws?

[MichiganVote]

88. Is that what I said?

[Terran]

96. Well, you described rule-breaking as a "lame explanation"

for this whole mess. The poster basically stated that if MI had just followed party rules, things would have gone ever so much better. You seem to be condoning their rule breaking, to me, in an effort to legitimize the existing results of that primary. Isn't that what you'd like to see happen?

[MichiganVote]

102. You are indulging in hop, skip and jump logic....

There are better arguments for the sanctions the rules committee put in place. But part of that would mean acknowledging that they went toooo far with the strip all the delegates thing. And of course we know that the "rules" committee of a political party is the equivalent of the Vatican.

The issue isn't Clinton, it isn't Obama, it isn't even the delegates....its about the power that the rules committee has endowed itself with.

[truedelphi]

136. If elections are not about rules, then what?

It is bad enough we are counting the votes on DRE's and opti scans and any and everything but paper ballots.

[tekisui]

18. But If. .If... IF.... IF.....

You know it's over when the only argument left is based an a bunch of "IF's".

[democrattotheend]

2. DNC Rules state that candidates may not "campaign or participate" in unsanctioned primary

Obama and 4 other candidates correctly interpreted "participate" to mean competing in it.

[BooScout]

15. OK............since that was the case.........

Why didn't they withdraw their names from the Florida Primary? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

[AllentownJake]

16. Florida

Didn't let them. They asked to be removed.

[rinsd]

32. As far as I know, the Obama campaign never asked to be removed from FL.

FL requires that one sign an affadavit stating that they are withdrawing from the race entirely to be considered for removal from the ballot.

That is why none of the candidates removed their names from the FL ballot.

On edit: removed unnecessary snark

[AllentownJake]

38. Really?

Than why were Biden, Dodd, and Richardson still on the ballot after they dropped out?

[rinsd]

43. Because the deadline for removing one's name was months before the election.

The deadline had passed well before those guys had dropped from the race.

Same thing with MI, Dodd was on the ballot even though he dropped out before it happened.

BTW, I am sorry for the original snark and I have removed it.

[PassingFair]

51. Biden and Richardson were NOT on the ballot.

Neither were Obama and Edwards.

Kucinich file to remove his name
but screwed up the paperwork...

[rinsd]

56. We are discussing the FL ballot not the MI ballot.

[PassingFair]

59. Sorry, got mixed up between the post and the OP....

:blush:

[rinsd]

71. Not a problem

[quakerboy]

73. In other words

you have no clue if Obama asked to be taken off the ballot in FL or not, because his asking would not be treated as a valid request, given when the deadline for removal fell and the conditions for removal.

[rinsd]

80. IOW, claiming he asked to be removed is making shit up.

Obama campaign memo issued day of MI vote

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: The Obama Campaign

RE: Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary

Because Michigan violated DNC rules by placing its Presidential Primary on January15th, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee ruled that the Michigan Democratic Party could not use the results of the January 15 Presidential Primary to allocate delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. In other words, no delegates are at stake today in the Michigan Democratic Primary.

All of the Democratic presidential candidates publicly pledged not to campaign in Michigan, none have visited the state, opened offices, hired staff or communicated with voters through television, mail, phones or otherwise. In addition, four Democratic presidential candidates, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden withdrew their names from the Primary ballot in order to avoid participating in the Michigan Primary. Clinton did not withdraw her name even though she publicly committed to not participate in the Primary. Clinton, Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich are the only candidates on the ballot today.

The Obama Campaign is not participating in the Primary and has not instructed supporters
in Michigan whether or how to vote.

Therefore the results of the primary tonight have no bearing on the Democratic nomination
contest.

Florida, whose primary was scheduled for January 29th, is just like Michigan – the DNC applied full sanctions for setting an early primary date and there are no delegates are at stake. As with Michigan, all of the Democratic presidential candidates signed a pledge to not campaign in Florida. Although Senator Obama did not remove his name from the Florida Primary ballot because Florida law did not allow him to do so, Senator Obama is firm in his commitment to neither participate nor campaign in the Florida Primary and its outcome has no bearing on the nomination contest. We raise Florida today because Senator Clinton has scheduled a fundraiser in Florida on Jan. 27th, and there are signs – despite Senator Clinton’s public pledge to the contrary – that she may be planning to campaign in the
state – inquiring about large venues and increased organizing activity – ahead of the
Florida primary.

Our position and the position of the DNC is clear – neither the Florida nor Michigan primaries are playing any role in deciding the Democratic nominee and we are not campaigning in either state.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/01/obama-florida-d.html

[quakerboy]

106. That would imply

at least to me, that they at the very least inquired about removing his name from the ballot. Otherwise, they wouldn't know that they were not allowed to.

[rinsd]

109. The question may have been asked internally but I doubt they asked the state.

Its not like the Obama campaign was bereft of election law experts.

[boppers]

127. Hey, thanks!

I've been wondering about that. Oh, and good on ya for removing snark. ;)

[DMorgan]

31. You might want to read up before you post

There's a host of information out there about these things, and your post doesn't reflect that you are that well informed about all this. Just a suggestion.

[Maribelle]

64. Perhaps you should have posted your supreme knowledge to the one that said they tried.

That was a flagrant example of a lack of knowledge.

And I know exactly why they didn't even try, no not one democratic candidate ever tried to get their name removed from the Florida 2008 presidential preference primary ballot.

Sunshine rules.

[rinsd]

27. Chris Dodd, 1st signer of the pledge and key to getting others to do so did not remove his name.

Obama & Edwards jumped on this after Biden and Richardson announced they were doing it.

It was a good political move as they could discount any "straw" poll results from MI where Hillary was favored at the start of the race.

[PBS Poll-435]

3. But they had a property tax proposal in MI, didn't they.

:rofl:

J/K - I know that was FL.

[Henryman]

4. You might be right that no one told him....

...but how the hell do you have any idea why he did it! Did he tell you why? Were you at the meetings?
Maybe you post this crap because you and your candidate are sore losers? Maybe?

[BooScout]

24. Or maybe I'm right and you're afraid of the truth?

:eyes:

And why didn't Obama remove his name from the Florida ballot? Hmmmmm

[AllentownJake]

29. Because Florida

Refused to take it off.

[PassingFair]

53. Florida rules stated that if they removed their names from the PRIMARY, that they ...

would not be allowed on in the GENERAL.


Hmmmmmmm....:crazy:

[Henryman]

144. You're real good at knowing what other people are thinking!

How do you do that? Or are you just delusional?

[scheming daemons]

5. "Michigan doesn't count for anything. We all know that." -- Hillary Clinton

Keep spinning.


Your candidate AGREED that Michigan doesn't count.

[MichiganVote]

11. Uh....ok...so guess all the Michigan voters don't count for the Dem's either?

[scheming daemons]

19. Don't talk to me... HILLARY said it...

[MichiganVote]

52. Yes and surely she is the only one...not a single Democrat on this board or elsewhere

has even hinted at it. Its all just a figment of everyone's imagination that Obama or Clinton and their respective supporters have anything but pure white morally superior arguments for the schmucks in Michigan who vote and have been shafted by their own party.

There neither was or is any rule that said to diss the entire set of delegates. Dean says delegates from these states will be seated....

my guess it will be in the parking lot.

Thanks for nothing to BOTH candidates. Some leadership.

[onenote]

22. are you okay with pretending that there are no Obama supporters in Michigan?

[MichiganVote]

60. What kind of sense are you trying to make anyway?

[wileedog]

45. For the Primary, no they don't

Why is this so hard to get?

They broke the rules. They were disqualified from the game.

THis happened last year, where was all this anguish and horror for the poor voters of MI and FL before the Queen missed her coronation on Super Tuesday?

[MichiganVote]

62. Then what are you going to do when Dean seats delegates from these states?

Because he is on the record for that? What's your plan going to be? Are you going to lobby said delegates or banish them? Are you going to ignore them, defeat them?

If, as you say, they've been disqualified, seems to me you'll have to disqualify Dean for seating them.

And for the record....the issue to me is not about Clinton or Obama. Unlike some others........

[wileedog]

75. He is going to seat them after the fact

When one or the other candidate has confirmed the nomination.

In other words they will have no real impact of the election, which is the spirit of the punishment. This 'seating' is just to try and smooth everyone over for the GE.

Why do you think the latest challenge is a few days away from the last primary?

[MichiganVote]

85. You don't know that to be anymore true than I do.

[rinsd]

86. You got it.

"In other words they will have no real impact of the election, which is the spirit of the punishment. This 'seating' is just to try and smooth everyone over for the GE."

[MichiganVote]

Tain't going to be any smoothiness for Mi. voters folks. I should know, I live here.

[rinsd]

93. Its not the voters per se but the party apparatus in MI & FL that needs to be smoothed over.

[onenote]

90. if any delegates are seated from Michigan, they will include Obama delegates

even though he wasn't on the ballot.

[MichiganVote]

103. And they should.

[AllentownJake]

6. He would have removed his name from the Florida ballot

as well. Florida wouldn't remove his name for some reason.

[MichiganVote]

7. Sing it Boo...but I doubt many will listen here.

[Avalon6]

8. This has been discussed to death, get over it

The DNC won't let the Michigan results stand because Obama was not on the ballot. End of Story.

[LisaM]

25. LOLOL

Yep! that's about right.

Oh, and don't forget the poor babies who would be disenfranchised if they held a revote because they crossed over and voted Republican! Gosh, if the day has come when we can't even go vote in someone else's primary, well, what are we coming to?

[Poll_Blind]

9. Removing his name was the HONORABLE way to follow the rules.

  Unlike Mrs. Win-at-ANY-cost!

PB

[MichiganVote]

14. Oh gag me. He's a politician isn't he? Aren't they all?

[rinsd]

35. Mr. Honorable before the IA caucus & NH primary. Afterward? Not so much.

Before the IA caucus & NH primary, Obama was so steadfast in his pledge he did not even allow his name to appear on the ballot.

After the IA & NH primary?

He had surrogates run a radio ad in MI extolling his voters to vote Uncommitted as a way of showing support for him

In FL, he ran TV ads on cable as part of a national ad buy. He sought permission to do so.

Notice the difference in the drastic measures that needed to be taken prior to IA & NH vs the measures taken after those elections.

The removal of his name from the MI ballot was a political stunt.

[wileedog]

50. "The removal of his name from the MI ballot was a political stunt."

And her endless whining to seat a broken election that she herself admitted wouldn't count is not?

[rinsd]

54. Oh you can definitely classify that as a political stunt.

[Rockholm]

10. Kick and Support This Thread.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlooInBloo]

13. (shrug) No one told the MI Democratic Party to break the rules either.

[last1standing]

23. If you're so willing to take away my vote in the primary then don't expect it in the fall.

If Hillary steals the Michigan vote without Obama getting getting delegates than I will have no choice but to sit out in November. I have railed against the babies on both sides about how important it is to have a Dem choosing our next supreme court justices but if she's willing to silence my voice then I don't trust her to make the right decisions on anything including the SCOTUS.

It's that simple. I will not only withhold my vote, I will work against ANY candidate who tries to steal my vote from me.

If that's acceptable to you then go for it.

[NeedleCast]

26. Your Candidate Signed a Pledge

stating that Michigan and Florida would not be seated.

Anything beyond that is spin.

[TahitiNut]

28. As a Michigan voter, I can't possibly express how I appreciate OUTSIDE opinions.

... particularly those opinions which are sheerly self-serving and EXPLOITATIVE. (Because it'd violate DU Rules ... BIG time.)

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[DMorgan]

40. You mean like this OUTSIDER told us a few months ago?

"Michigan doesn't count for anything. We all know that." -- Hillary Clinton

[TahitiNut]

42. You got it. Indeed.

She's a two-faced clown. Detestible.

[juajen]

74. What does "sheerly" mean, please?

NT

[TahitiNut]

101. ESL?

sheer /ʃɪər/ adjective, -er, -est, adverb, noun
–adjective
1. transparently thin; diaphanous, as some fabrics: sheer stockings.
2. unmixed with anything else: We drilled a hundred feet through sheer rock.
3. unqualified; utter: sheer nonsense.
4. extending down or up very steeply; almost completely vertical: a sheer descent of rock.
5. British Obsolete. bright; shining.
–adverb
6. clear; completely; quite: ran sheer into the thick of battle.
7. perpendicularly; vertically; down or up very steeply.
–noun
8. a thin, diaphanous material, as chiffon or voile.
(Origin: 1175–1225; ME scere, shere, schere free, clear, bright, thin; prob. < ON skǣrr; change of sk- > s(c)h- perh. by influence of the related OE scīr (E dial. shire clear, pure, thin); c. G schier, ON skīr, Goth skeirs clear; see shine)

—Related forms
sheerly, adverb
sheerness, noun

—Synonyms 2. mere, simple, pure, unadulterated. 3. absolute, downright. 4. abrupt, precipitous. 6. totally, entirely.
—Antonyms 1. opaque.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

:eyes:

[TahitiNut]

126. I guess they don't teach English in Louisiana, huh?

Don't have dictionaries, either? No access to an online dictionary? They apparently don't teach common courtesy, either.
Typical. :puke:

[Harry Monroe]

130. I'm a native of Louisiana and I take offense at your remark.

We've got running water and electricity, in case you were wondering. And please don't call me "sheerly".

[TahitiNut]

133. How, then, does one explain the behavior of someone ...

... that demonstrates few or none of the salubrious effects of such benefits?? Hmmm? :eyes:

Thanks ... I'll try hard to remember that one of the DUers I respect most (SwampRat) is from NOLA. :hi:

[Iceburg]

30. "Bu...buh...but the others boys said if we did we'd make Hillary look like a loser" waah!

[rurallib]

33. It's like there are rules for Hillary and rules for everyone else

Reminds me of a former Texas governor.

[JVS]

34. No one told michigan that they could move their primary up. Fuck them!

[hfojvt]

41. How DARE he try to negate a "win" in a contest that wasn't supposed to count?

The nerve. By the way on November 8, 2007 Hillary had an 18 point lead in the polls in Wisconsin. On December 9 she had a 7 point lead and on February 7th she had a 9 point lead. Then they both spent a couple of weeks campaigning there and Obama trounced her.

But you are right. I guess since nobody told him to take his name off the ballot, then a primary that wasn't supposed to count and only had one competetive candidate's name on the ballot is still an excellent measure of the will of Michigan Democrats and should count. That's the only fair way to treat the other 87% of the country that followed the rules. It makes perfect sense as long as you are so blinded by a desire to see Hillary win that you short out the reasoning portion of your brain.

[apocalypsehow]

47. Boo-hoo. One knows the desperation of the HRC boosters is getting bad when they dredge this stupid

shit back up. Go ahead and cry us a river, Scout.

[Hepburn]

48. Do you have to practice or take lessons to...

...bullshit this much? Or does it just come naturally from Hilly being your savior, hero and role model?

Just curious....

[WeDidIt]

49. WRONG!

Garry Shay, Clinton Endorser and sitting member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee said differently only yesterday:

Well, there are a lot of things that happened with Michigan. First of all, the primary law was challenged as to its constitutionality and it was thrown out. So, there’s no law supporting the Michigan primary.

There’s the fact that Hillary Clinton’s name and the uncommitted slate was the only thing that was on the ballot in Michigan because the Democratic National Committee asked the other candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot. So, here you have the institution itself asking people to pull their names off the ballot.

Link

[apocalypsehow]

58. So, another HRC booster is caught in another lie. Don't look for the OP to apologize, or ask the

mods to lock this bullshit thread: like their Queen, they don't think the truth is important in the least. What is important is to "win," by hook or crook. And, with the HRC boosters, it's usually by lying crook, as is the case with this OP.

[rinsd]

69. Since Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel were on the MI ballot, it would appears Shay has it wrong

The DNC had little to do with the 4 state pledge that was circulated by the Democratic parties in IA, NH, NV & SC and did not ask the candidates to remove their names from the MI ballot.

Otherwise, Chris Dodd, 1st signer of the 4 state pledge and key mover in getting the others to do so, would have removed his name.

[apocalypsehow]

72. You need to learn to read better. Or slower. Or simply learn to read. Shay is spot-on.

[rinsd]

78. How is he spot on?

"There’s the fact that Hillary Clinton’s name and the uncommitted slate was the only thing that was on the ballot in Michigan"

He's wrong. I just told you there were 3 other names in addition to Uncommitted and Hillary's.

And the DNC asking the candidates to remove their names? I think he just pulled that one out of his ass.

Not a single candidate cited the DNC as a reason even when criticizing those who did not remove their names.

Obama's campaign at the time cited their own interpretation of the 4 state pledge (which was not pushed by the DNC) rather than an acquiesce to a DNC request.

"This is an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement. "We still hope that Michigan Democrats can adopt a process that meets DNC rules and, if so, look forward to fighting for the votes of men and women across the state."

Here's Chris Dodd's campaign on name removal

Dodd's campaign issued this statement: "We are committed to the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire going first, and we signed the four-state pledge to hopefully prevail upon the DNC and the state parties to add clarity to that situation. However, it does not benefit any of us if we are the nominee to pull our name off the ballot and slight Michigan voters."

So maybe its you who need to improve their reading.

[apocalypsehow]

122. The distortions and falsehoods just keep on coming. Shay was spot-on; you need to learn how to read.

[rinsd]

128. So Dodd, Kucinich & Gravel were not on the MI ballot?

[WeDidIt]

135. Like Clinton, Dodd and Gravel refused to comply with the request

Kucinich attempted to comply, but screwed up the paperwork.

[rinsd]

137. So they were on the ballot and Shay is obviously wrong on that, correct?

[WeDidIt]

138. No, they were on the ballot and Shay wasRIGHT

The DNC requested everybody get off the ballot.

Edwards, Obama, Biden, and Richardson complied with the request.

Clinton, Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich did not comply with the request.

The request was still made. Only one major candidate was on the ballot, Clinton. Only one candidate got any meaningful number of votes, Clinton.

I'll trust Garry Shay, a well respected California Super Delegate, Clinton Endorser, and member of the committee that stripped the delegates, before I'll trust some anonymous poster on an internet message board.

[rinsd]

140. Shay claimed only Hillary & Uncommitted were on the ballot. He was wrong.

He claimed the DNC made a request. This is the 1st time I have ever heard that mentioned.

The DNC had nothing to do with the 4 state pledge. That was circulated by the respective state Democratic parties of IA, NH, NV & SC.

"
I'll trust Garry Shay, a well respected California Super Delegate, Clinton Endorser, and member of the committee that stripped the delegates, before I'll trust some anonymous poster on an internet message board."

Even though I proved his basic knowledge of the MI ballot as inaccurate? Even though I showed you this is the very 1st time it has been mentioned that the DNC requested the candidates remove their name.

Even though Chris Dodd the 1st signer of the 4 state pledge and key to getting the others to do so as well left his name on the ballot? You think Chris Dodd said no to the DNC?

Shay is wrong about the MI ballot and he is wrong about the DNC request.

[WeDidIt]

141. Only Clinton and Uncommitted got any meaningful number of votes

Dodd had already dropped out.

Gravel is not a Democrat and was the insane candidate.

Kucinich attempted to get off but fouled up the paperwork.

[rinsd]

142. But they were on the ballot so claiming only Hillary & Uncommitted was on the ballot is wrong.

You also bring up Kucinich which further porves that the DNC request story is not accurate

Kucinich's paperwork got fouled up(tried to submit it twice) because he was attempting to join the bandwagon rush started by Richardson (who withdrew his name 1 day before the deadline, the others followed the next day). If the DNC had requested they remove their names Kucinich would not have had to rush so. Not that I think of his camp as highly organized

Despite an announcement on the presidential campaign website for Dennis Kucinich stating that an affidavit for withdrawal had been filed with the Michigan Secretary of State's office shortly before deadline yesterday, officials in Michigan indicated that, at this time, the Ohio Congressman will remain on the Democratic primary ballot.

"Michigan law clearly outlines the procedure to be followed if a candidate wishes not to appear on the ballot," explained Ken Silfven, a spokesman for the office. "An affidavit has to be signed by the candidate and notarized. The first affidavit received by our office was signed by the Kucinich campaign manager. While the second affidavit received in our office did contain the candidate's signature, it was not notarized."

Silfven said the first affidavit was time-stamped by his office at 3:02 p.m. -- roughly an hour prior to the filing deadline.

"At that point our office contacted the campaign and explained the procedure and why the document was not acceptable," he said.

The second affidavit was time-stamped at 3:38 p.m.

Silfven added that Kucinich will appear on the state's Democratic primary ballot. The only way the candidate could be removed is through litigation, he said.

Attempts to contact the campaign both yesterday and this morning have been unsuccessful.

http://www.essentialestrogen.com/2007/10/kucinich_campaign_misses_deadl.html

[rinsd]

67. Dodd, Kucinich & Gravel also appeared on the ballot. The DNC had nothing to do w/ 4 state pledge

Shay appears to be misinformed on even the basic fact of who was on the ballot and who was not.

Even Obama's campaign memo says as much

TO: Interested Parties
FR: The Obama Campaign
RE: Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary

Because Michigan violated DNC rules by placing its Presidential Primary on January15th, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee ruled that the Michigan Democratic Party could not use the results of the January 15 Presidential Primary to allocate delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. In other words, no delegates are at stake today in the Michigan Democratic Primary.


All of the Democratic presidential candidates publicly pledged not to campaign in Michigan, none have visited the state, opened offices, hired staff or communicated with voters through television, mail, phones or otherwise. In addition, four Democratic presidential candidates, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden withdrew their names from the Primary ballot in order to avoid participating in the Michigan Primary. Clinton did not withdraw her name even though she publicly committed to not participate in the Primary. Clinton, Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich are the only candidates on the ballot today. The Obama Campaign is not participating in the Primary and has not instructed supporters in Michigan whether or how to vote.


Therefore the results of the primary tonight have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest.


Florida, whose primary was scheduled for January 29th, is just like Michigan — the DNC applied full sanctions for setting an early primary date and there are no delegates are at stake. As with Michigan, all of the Democratic presidential candidates signed a pledge to not campaign in Florida. Although Senator Obama did not remove his name from the Florida Primary ballot because Florida law did not allow him to do so, Senator Obama is firm in his commitment to neither participate nor campaign in the Florida Primary and its outcome has no bearing on the nomination contest. We raise Florida today because Senator Clinton has scheduled a fundraiser in Florida on Jan. 27th, and there are signs — despite Senator Clinton's public pledge to the contrary — that she may be planning to campaign in the state — inquiring about large venues and increased organizing activity — ahead of the Florida primary.


Our position and the position of the DNC is clear — neither the Florida nor Michigan primaries are playing any role in deciding the Democratic nominee and we are not campaigning in either state.

[bhikkhu]

61. "Let's get something straight" means lets spin some more...

The candidates signed a pledge to the DNC that they would not "campaign or participate" in states that broke the rules by moving their primaries up too early.

That's about as simple as it gets: Obama and the others took their names off because the DNC asked them to. I'm sure Hillary had her reasons to pledge one things and do another, but it stinks like a two-faced political ploy. Thanks for bringing it up again.

[DURHAM D]

65. Why can't Michigan have their Presidential primary on August 5th?

Michigan has a state wide primary on August 5th - it wouldn't cost extra to have the primary then.

Guess it won't happen because Howard Dean gave Obama a veto pen on if or how to resolve the problem and Obama still wants to dodge it altogether. Obama is a chicken.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

76. Do you really think that 3 more months of this "primary race"

would be good for the Party ? Do you really think that waiting until the end of August to select a nominee to run against the Pubs who ALREADY HAVE A NOMINEE makes sense ? Do you think a 2 months (end of Aug - beginning of November) is enough time to "unite the party " and run a GE campaign ?

I sure don't.

[DURHAM D]

82. The "push the other candidate off the stage early"

that has been the scream from the old white men of the so-called Democratic Party and from the corporate media is unprecedented in our political history. Its just testosterone hysteria for obvious political and personal gain. The party is already completely split.

Letting the process play out to its conclusion is the only thing that can possibly put the party back together again.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

91. Not "early" - just as soon as it becomes mathematically

impossible for the other candidate to win enough delegates. It should only take a few more weeks at most. Then our candidate can concentrate on McSame.

[DURHAM D]

97. Have you looked at prior candidates that took it to the convention?

J. Jackson, Ted Kennedy, etc. - no one asked them to go away.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

143. They weren't sucessful, were they ? n/t

[nichomachus]

68. Let's get something straight about elections

Politics is only partly about numbers. They are important. But it's also about perceptions. If Hillary leaves people with the impression that she pulled some underhanded deal to get the nomination, it will sink the Democratic party.

Millions of younger voters will look at the backhanded deal and say "Screw it." If you want to kill the future of the party, go ahead.

Most of Hillary supporters will be dead or in a home in 2012. Without the millions of young voters who are now looking to Obama for a change, the GOP will have their permanent majority. Those voters are the future of the party. The moment to get them on board is now. If the party screws that up, it's dead. Good luck with that.

[juajen]

81. Maybe when they wake the hell up.

They are notorious for voting in primaries and not showing up in the GE. Had to go to a party, ya know how it is. Or, got a hot date, etc. You bet, these are really good and faithful democrats. Just ask John Kerry.

Why don't you just shoot any woman over 30. Your world would be perfect then. Ooops, guess this might include your own mom, but, who cares.

Please note the absolute disgust many of us have for Obama supporters. You and others like you are the reason.

[nichomachus]

95. And if you keep snarling at them

and insulting them, they will never show up. Good move.

[MadBadger]

70. And Hillary said that it was clear Michigan wouldnt count for anything

Whats your point?

[Madam Mossfern]

83. Nobody forced Hillary

to run for POTUS.

Sorry I haven't read through the thread, but this OP is ludicrous.

[JNelson6563]

87. I'm in Michigan and here's what I suggest.

Hillary got 55% of the vote and "uncommitted" got 40%, let that stand. I think it's a pretty modest price to pay for the risk Obama took in taking his name off the ballot really. (Disclaimer: I was an Edwards supporter at the time, currently lean Obama and would become a Hillary supporter if she's the nominee so hold your fire everybody.) Let the elected delegates vote in Denver, no need to punish the voters. Bar the supers from voting though. They are the ones who screwed things up so royally they can be the ones to suffer the consequences (for once!).

Julie

[DMorgan]

92. If I understand you correctly,

No Michigan Super Delegates? I can go with that, and give Hillary maybe 1/2 of what she won and pledged, and hold for the second ballot all the rest, the OTHER half over to Hillary, and the uncommitted over to Obama on the second ballot.

Still, no super-delegates from Mich can ever vote this year. I can go with that.

[JNelson6563]

99. Punish the people who screwed it up

not the unwashed masses.

Perhaps this is a plan all DUers can agree with. :shrug:

Julie

[TahitiNut]

112. That's the Marcy Wheeler suggestion.

I think it's too forgiving, myself ... but I certainly agree that the PLEO's should be BARRED.

I'm also opposed to giving ANY credence whatsoever to an election held under legislation that's been ruled unconsititutional. It was a FUBAR - total and complete.

[JNelson6563]

119. It's a good compromise

And it doesn't alienate the rank and file Dems in MI. If anyone htinks they can win the WH without MI they are much mistaken. Therefore a compromise is best.

Julie

[TahitiNut]

121. I don't believe the damage can be undone.

No campaign in Michigan. No spending. No meeting the candidates. No RESPECT. Just "Give Us Your Money" and send the party hacks to Denver for vacation. Someone should look up the word "delegate" and figure out this is KABUKI.

If the Democrats expect to recover in Michigan, the nominee better DAMNED well campaign ALL OVER THIS STATE.

[crimsonblue]

94. sure!

and George Bush is our bestest leader ever.... in OPPOSITELAND... but thanks for playing.. here's your parting gift!

[rodeodance]

107. you folks need to keep your heads in the sand don't you.

[futureliveshere]

108. I guess thats why "Uncommitted got 45%"

[Avalux]

110. Quit LYING. Headline 9/2/07: "Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States!"

New York Times
9/2/07

PORTSMOUTH, N.H., Sept. 1 — Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit. The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination.

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.

The Democratic National Committee has vowed to take away Florida’s 210 delegates — and those of any other state that moved its nominating contest before Feb. 5 — if it does not come up with an alternative plan.

more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.ht...

[rug]

113. In September Obama was way behind in Michigan. That's why he took his name off.

It was politically expedient.

[AllentownJake]

116. In September

He was behind everywhere...yet he kept his name on the ballot

[rug]

118. But this one took it away from Clinton. Win/win for Obama. Politics as usual.

[Orsino]

114. Incorrect.

Clumsy, parsing spin.

[Texas Hill Country]

123. thank you. this is correct.

[bunnies]

124. yeah. Fuck the constitution.

Seat MI. Go Hellary!

[Zodiak]

131. Well, it is not the Constitution at stake here

Party is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

But it is the rules of the Democratic party that are being messed with, not to mention the join agreement of many Democratic representatives from across the country.

That is one of the points that are so disingenuous about Clinton's argument. The party makes its own rules because it is a private entity outside of the government...if MI and FL do not get seated, it has nothing to do with anyone's Constitutional rights. The only right violated if they get seated and are allowed to vote with Hillary's skewed election results is the right of the Democratic party to conduct its own nominating process.

[rinsd]

132. I believe that is a reference to MI's primary being declared unconsitutional.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443/1361

[Capn Sunshine]

125. TOTAL DISINGENUOUS BULLSHIT

"No one TOLD Obama to take his name off the ballot".

Yeah. That's correct.
The DNC ASKED all the candidates to remove their names.

That's Hillary's campaign. It's always a lie by degrees.

I'm surprised they didn't use the stronger disinformation "No one ORDERED Obama to take his name off the ballot"

Because Yeah. No one did. Because the DNC figured if they ASKED, that was enough.

It was for every candidate except Hillary, and now we know why.

[rinsd]

129. Speaking of disinfo the DNC did not ask the candidates to remove their names.

Shay is pulling that out of his ass.

Otherwise Chris Dodd, as 1st signer of the 4 state pledge, would have removed his name.

The DNC request was not part of a single campaign's explanation for why they removed their names from the ballot and has not been cited as an attack on candidates (Biden was tough on them) until now. Which tells me it never happened.

"It was for every candidate except Hillary, and now we know why."

Dodd left his name on. Gravel left his name on. Kucinich attempted to remove his name but fouled up the paper work. Then when the election happened he aid fuck the pledge and campaigned in MI & FL.

[mckeown1128]

134. Stop spinning.

you don't honestly think that 0% of the voters in MI want Obama to be president. The vote shouldn't count unless the will of the voters is reflected in it. Unless you shills prove that 0% of MI voters wanted Obama to be president than the vote shouldn't count.



NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858


Sounds like voters were told to stay home... that's not very democratic... ehh?

[McCamy Taylor]

139. It's true. Gravel and Dodd stayed on, too. They are not rule breakers.