There has been quite a bruhaha made by the Obama supporters that Clinton said she left her name on the ballot in Michigan because Michigan wasn't all that important anyway. NOTHING could be further from the truth (what else is new?!!). For the gazillionth time, Obama made a STRATEGIC decision to remove his name from the MI ballot as a way to endear himself to IA, which he apparently did. No one made him. The pledge they took did not require he do so. It was a choice, plain and simple. So, what did the Clinton camp REALLY say (and thanks to Katie Bird from Riverdaughter over at TalkLeft for referencing this)? It is in the following New York Times article:
4 Democrats Leave Michigan’s Early Primary; Clinton and Dodd Stay In
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: October 10, 2007
Four Democratic presidential candidates announced yesterday that they would not take part in the Democratic primary in Michigan, all but ceding the contest in that major state to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is ahead in the polls there and is staying in.
“We don’t think it’s necessary to remove ourselves from the ballot,” said Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut also said he would stay on the Michigan ballot.
But former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware said yesterday, the deadline for withdrawing from the ballot, that they would sit out the race.
The Democrats have been under tremendous pressure from Iowa and New Hampshire not to campaign in Michigan and Florida, which have violated party rules by moving up their primaries — Michigan to Jan. 15 and Florida to Jan. 29 — ahead of Feb. 5, when many other populous states vote.
Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as South Carolina and Nevada, are furious with Michigan and Florida, saying those two states have forced them to move their own voting dates up even earlier because they want to maintain their primacy in the nominating contests.
Michigan, in particular, has been seething for years that small states like Iowa and New Hampshire have had too big a role in shaping the presidential nominations, saying they are not representative of the country.
The candidates have been caught in this interstate feuding, prompting some to pull out of Michigan despite its importance in the general election.
David E. Bonior, the campaign manager for Mr. Edwards — and a former congressman from Michigan — explained Mr. Edwards’s withdrawal by defending the retail politics required in small states.
“In these early states, issues matter more than money, celebrity and advertisements,” Mr. Bonior said in a statement. Repeating a line of attack Mr. Edwards uses against Mrs. Clinton, he added, “Voters want and deserve a candidate who represents real people, not corporate special interests.”
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said it would be foolish to rebuff an important swing state, especially since doing so could alienate Democratic-leaning independents who could be favoring her. But she is also taking a risk that staying in Michigan will not hurt her in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Those states, all sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee to vote first, forced the Democratic candidates to sign a pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Clinton advisers said that even though she was staying in the Michigan race, she would not campaign there.
Debbie Dingell, a major Clinton backer in Michigan, said on MSNBC that she was “furious” with the other candidates. Their absence will diminish Michigan’s importance in the primary process and probably deny her state attention from the candidates and the news media. Michigan has the nation’s highest unemployment rate and has been eager for a spotlight on its woes.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/us/politics/10michigan.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)
No comments:
Post a Comment