Presumptive" Means That Something Is Presumed To Be True, NOT That It IS True.

indimuse

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-09-08 04:54 AM
Original message

Presumptive" Means That Something Is Presumed To Be True, NOT That It IS True.

Edited on Fri May-09-08 05:00 AM by indimuse

Not So Fast!

Barack Obama (D-Ill.) announced that, following the West Virginia, Oregon and Kentucky primaries, on May 20th, he is going to declare himself the victor and presumptive Democratic nominee.

Not so fast, Sen. Obama. Let's talk. To be perfectly clear, the word "presumptive" means that something is presumed to be true, not that it IS true. You seem to be getting a bit ahead of things here. Additionally, this begs the question presumed by whom? Your campaign? Your supporters? Your adoring media?

Certainly not by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) or her campaign staff or supporters, who are ready to take the nomination all the way to the convention floor in Denver if need be.

And, by the way, aren't there some issues that you and Sen. Clinton have to resolve before the Democratic Party rolls out the red carpet and coronates you, Sen. Obama? Some minor issues, perhaps, like not disenfranchising more than 1.75 million Florida voters and more than 590,000 Michigan voters who cast their ballots for a Democratic candidate?

Let's deal in facts, Sen. Obama. On September 1, 2007, you and Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) signed a pledge to not campaign in Florida, Michigan or other states "trying to leapfrog" the official 2008 primary calendar set by the Democratic National Committee for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

In particular, the pledge "was devised" to prevent candidates like you from campaigning in Florida, where the primary was set for January 29, 2008, and Michigan, which was trying to move its primary to January 15, 2008. Unfairly or not, the DNC threatened to take away all of Florida's 210 delegates if it did not obey.

Even though you and the other Democratic candidates signed the pledge agreeing not to campaign in Michigan, on October 9, 2007, a spokesperson for the Michigan Secretary of State Office said that you and Sen. Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had taken things to the extreme and "filed paperwork to boycott" the Michigan ballot. Lynda Waddington of the Iowa Independent discovered that the move had been a politically strategic one to hinder Sen. Clinton's campaign and wrote October 11, 2007:

Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

As blogger Taylor Marsh commented October 9, 2007, "This is horrific politics, especially if you're looking long-term and towards the general election. You know, thinking about something beyond your own presidential possibilities. and Clinton are in," adding Taylor Marsh::: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26365

As for Clinton, she's thinking long-term and looking towards the general election and what could happen to Democrats if we stiff arm Michigan. If we're facing Romney, that's a real issue, because Michigan is home turf for Slick Mitt. Edwards and Obama should be thinking the same way. However, because they're tied to the outcome in Iowa they're obviously scared to leave; that applies doubly to Edwards. But it's pathetic.

George Weeks warned you and your companions in the October 14, 2007, issue of the Record-Eagle, "Woe be to those 2008 Democratic contenders who boycott Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary. Those who don't contend in January should suffer in November."

On December 1, 2007, the DNC stripped Michigan, the eighth largest state, of its 156 delegates for moving its primary date to January 15, 2008. Florida, the fourth largest state, had been hit "with a similar penalty", stripped of its 210 delegates in August 2007 for scheduling a January 29, 2008 primary.

Then we have the little matter of that campaign to lose the Michigan primary, Sen. Obama. You remember that one don't you, when your supporters Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers produced and aired campaign ads urging voters to cast "uncommitted" ballots in Michigan's Democratic presidential primary?
Monica Conyers::http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/21/143036/993

You remember, don't you, that on January 10, 2008, Nick Bunkley reported in the New York Times' "The Caucus blog" that the Conyers were urging voters "to vote 'uncommitted' to help gain momentum and to deal a setback" to Sen. Clinton? New groups, including Michiganders for Obama, Michigan for Edwards and the newly formed Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, "campaign door-to-door, on the phone and at rallies, spreading the uncommitted message."

The day before the Michigan primary, on Janurary 14, 2008, the Detroit News reported that surrogates representing you and Sen. Edwards were spreading the word by mouth and letters to the editor urging voters to opt for "uncommitted." FYI, that's called campaigning, Sen. Obama.

It also raises the question as to whether those who were voting "uncommitted" understood that they were being used as pawns in a political game that skirted on the edge of FEC rules on what constitutes electioneering.

And then we come to those January 2008 cable ads shown on CNN and MSNBC that just happened to overflow into the Florida demographic. You and your campaign knew that this would happen. Instead of standing by your pledge to not campaign in Florida, you chose to break it when you could have avoided doing so by making your ad buys state by state or market by market. Would it have cost more? Certainly. But was saving money more important than standing behind your word? It would seem so. Cable Ads::: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8019.html

One more thing. What happened at that Tampa fundraiser on September 30, 2007, Sen. Obama, when you held a "brief news conference outside." It was "less than a day after the pledge took effect" and you were the "first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida" and you broke your pledge, just like that! Snap! http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

But then, primaries in states like Florida and Michigan "have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest" your campaign said on January 15, 2008. States like Florida and Ohio don't matter, or at least that's what one of your campaign memos said a couple weeks ago.

Somehow it doesn't seem likely that states like Florida and Michigan share your view of their place in the election process, Sen. Obama. Sound money says that every state considers itself equally important whether you think so or not.

No deals, either, Sen. Obama. EVERY vote counts, you can't pick and chose; EVERY voter deserves to have his or her vote counted and voice heard, not discounted. Remember the Declaration of Independence? The Founding Fathers were either all in or all out to ratify it, nothing in between. Voters deserve nothing less from those who want to represent them.

So here's the bottom line. You took your name off the Michigan ballot. No delegates. You chose to skirt the rules about campaigning in Florida. No delegates. You agreed to be all in. You cheated. You lose. Voters deserve better