No-show candidates disappoint Detroiters

[Laughing Mirror]

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/mcamp6_20040206.htm

"Nearly 800 people, mostly black voters, booed in disappointment Thursday night at the sight of three empty chairs bearing the names of no-show Democratic presidential candidates at a Detroit forum.

"John Kerry, the U.S. senator from Massachusetts and Democratic front-runner, wasn't there. Neither were retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark or former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

"Dean abruptly canceled the Detroit appearance and a rally today at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor to take his struggling campaign to Wisconsin to prepare for a Feb. 17 primary, which he has declared he must win or else quit.

...

"Only the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York showed up for the forum, delighting the crowd with sharp rhetoric about the missing opponents and policy discussions. The audience responded with cheers and standing ovations."

[maddezmom]

1. that is a dissappointment

But Kerry getting butt in the polls, has really dampened anyone's prospects. I heard Kerry and Dean were going to be in MI today.

[Catch22Dem]

2. I'm confused

If Sharpton was there, and the article said Kerry, Clark, and Dean were not. Where's Edwards?

[SangamonTaylor]

3. he never committed to show n/t

[plurality]

4. it means Kerry, Clark, and Dean said they would show and didn't

Edwards and Kucinich probably declined the invitation before time.

[ShaneGR]

5. Edwards never committed to the event, so don't kill us please!

That's very, very, very, bad.

[Laughing Mirror]

6. Yes. There wasn't a chair for Edwards or Kucinich.

So they would have declined the invitation beforehand.

But where were the others? Didn't they even have the grace to RSVP?
If I give a dinner and most of my guests don't show up, I at least expect a call.

Dean pulled the same disappearing act at the debates in DC last month.

First DC, and now Detroit.

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. What has unfortunately happened here in Michigan is that a couple

of senators and a governor have declared the race won. But, by the looks of the crowd last night, and the work we have done getting the vote out in Detroit--perhaps Al Sharpton will get some delegates that he very much deserves.

[krkaufman]

8. Let's place the blame where it belongs

None of us can speak for what communications passed between the various campaigns and the organizers of the Detroit voters forum, so it is unknown as to whether any of the candidates simply were no-shows or with what lead-time they may have regretfully cancelled their appearance.

However, one thing *is* certain... the candidates are not to blame. The reason that voters are not getting access to candidates -- necessary for making an informed decision -- is because of the change to the nominating process implemented by Terry McAuliffe and the Democratic Party establishment in 2002. McAuliffe reengineered the process, moving primaries up to right after New Hampshire to "front-load" the process and generate a nominee more rapidly, based largely on momentum coming out of the early primaries.

Please read the following article for more information...

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020121&s=nichols

comment | Posted January 3, 2002

Primary Predicament
by John Nichols

With little public notice and no serious debate inside the party, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe and his allies have hatched a plan to radically alter the schedule and character of the 2004 Democratic presidential nominating process. If the changes McAuliffe proposes are implemented--as is expected at a January 17-19 meeting of the full DNC--the role of grassroots Democrats in the nomination of their party's challenger to George W. Bush will be dramatically reduced, as will the likelihood that the Democratic nominee will run the sort of populist, people-power campaign that might actually pose a threat to Bush's re-election.

[mopinko]

10. what krkaufman said

only louder, and on tv.

[incapsulated]

11. Exactly

The non-anointed candidates are in a breakneck race for their lives thanks to McAuliffe, and don't have time to do anything but keep their heads above water. This is by design.

Please read the article that krkaufman has linked to, it will make everything in these primaries make sense, finally.

[Laughing Mirror]

12. So basically, it's McCauliffe's fault

He wants "a cadre of consultants, hacks and Washington insiders" running the operation, a carbon copy of the Republican approach.

Fine. But how do you explain 1,048 words published in the Nation, January 2002, for the benefit of 800 people staring at 3 empty chairs on a stage who might not have had the chance to read them?

[incapsulated]

15. I don't

Maybe someone should have told them nobody but Sharpton was showing up before they dragged themselves out there. Maybe then they could tell them, btw, he's also a rethug mole.

[krkaufman]

16. No question, damage was done

There's no question that damage was done relative to the feelings and "franchise" of the voters at that event. And someone is going to have to reach out, at some point, and try to heal the wounds.

A start to the healing would be writing to all the local contacts and leaders mentioned in the Detroit Free Press article, expressing empathy and underscoring that they are not alone in being left out this splendid campaign season.

You could site, as examples, the cancelled debate in St. Louis originally scheduled for the Sunday before the Missouri primary; shifting from a 5-week delay between New Hampshire and the next set of primaries in 2000, to a 1-week delay in 2004 -- giving the candidates just 6 days in which to campaign across 7 geographically far-flung states.

However, from another perspective, the leaders of the event bear some responsibility, as well. They *could* have cancelled the event; instead, they let it go forward -- for what gain I don't know. Do they need their communities to feel victimized? Does it somehow increase their political power?

[Laughing Mirror]

21. They might have thought "the show must go on" anyway

After all, if you have 800 people before you waiting to be entertained or informed, you can't just send them home.

[krkaufman]

24. That presumes the 800 people were already there

> After all, if you have 800 people before you waiting
> to be entertained or informed, you can't just send
> them home.

No, quite true. It *would* be rude (to say the least) to send 800 people packing.

However, that scenario presumes that the show was all set to go and the crowd had arrived when all 3 missing campaigns phoned-up at the last minute to say they weren't going to show.

I think it's safe to say that the calls came much earlier (see other posts), and the show went forward (1) to support Sharpton, (2) to dis the candidates that didn't show, & (3) to give the people *some* forum.

[Dhalgren]

31. But Al said he would be there, and he was.

How can you cancell a forum like that when one of the candidates actually thought it was worth showing up to? And that is really it, isn't it? The no-shows thought the event was no longer worth the time and effort?

[Iverson]

13. no

"However, one thing *is* certain... the candidates are not to blame."

If you promise to be there, then you're responsible for being there.

[D G]

30. Thank you so much for that link

I had heard that this year's primaries were different, and it's good to have more info about it.

[krkaufman]

34. You're very welcome, and also...

I'd also recommend that as many people as possible (and who are so inclined) contact the authors of this thread's Detroit Free Press article, asking them to review 'The Nation' article themselves and consider the nomination process change's effects across the country -- not just the symptom exposed last night in Detroit.

Suggest that they pop over to DU; suggest they do some polling on how Democrats feel about this year's process; stress that they contact voters in the states with primaries in April-June to see what they think about the change; contact voters in last Tuesday's primaries, where the candidates had only 6 days to campaign across 7 states.

Food for thought and/or action.

[ieoeja]

33. This makes lots of sense.

Let's face it, the longer the primaries go on, the more exposure the public gets to our candidates. And as anyone in marketing will tell you: there is no such thing as good advertisement.



On top of it all ... McAuliffe failed in his intent. The fight appears to be dragging itself out with regional candidates. And thanks to Dean's initial success, all of the candidates have embraced a populist message, not the corporatist message that McAuliffe and the Clinton clique favor.

And what does it take to become a voting member of the DNC? Give 'me five bucks, and they'll make you a (non-voting) member. Start sending 'em $100 a month, and they'll send you a letter asking you if that was a mistake -- which I thought was kind of nice.

[cindyw]

36. Good point. I cannot understand how these guys are supposed

to make it to all of these things.

[Iverson]

9. taking the black community for granted?

Nawwww, couldn't be!

[krkaufman]

14. Don't play that game

Don't be ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the skin color, national heritage, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or favorite NASCAR driver of a given audience.

Michigan, like Missouri, is not a state where the non-frontrunner candidates can compete at present due to the compressed schedule of the thoroughly fuxxed nominating process designed by Terry McAuliffe. Gephart and Dean's decline created a vacuum in both states, which was filled by the media hyped candidate, Kerry, and, as we've seen thus far, the media hype is difficult to overcome in the short time available -- across several states.

Clark and Edwards have staked their campaigns' futures on TN & VA, and so neither is campaigning in Michigan, at all -- regardless of the fuxxing skin color of the crowd. (Christ!, people can be petty!) Once one or the other is out of the race, and then Wisconsin is over, it should be down to 2-man race, where, hopefully, the media could maybe start actually letting people know what the candidates stood/stand for.

By the way, as the article mentions, all 3 missing candidates' campaigns contacted the organizers to communicate that they wouldn't be able to attend, but the organizers did not cancel the event because they did not want to disrespect Sharpton. (Note that the organizer did NOT indicate, according to the article, that there was insufficient time to cancel.)

Rev. Wendell Anthony, Detroit NAACP president and one of the event's organizers...said he got personal calls from Dean and Clark and a Kerry campaign staffer

[Laughing Mirror]

17. The article says that Rev. Anthony got calls

from Dean and Clark and Kerry staffer "about their absences." It does not say that they called to cancel.

The article does not state that "all 3 missing candidates' campaigns contacted the organizers to communicate that they wouldn't be able to attend" as you say, krkaufman.

We don't know when they called. Before, during, or after the "no-show", as the headline says. I read this as being stood up by somebody.

[krkaufman]

22. Check again

downstairsparts writes: The article does not state that "all 3 missing candidates' campaigns contacted the organizers to communicate that they wouldn't be able to attend" as you say, krkaufman.

You'll want to check the article again, downstairsparts; because it does *indeed* indicate that all 3 missing campaigns contacted the organizers *prior* to the event, to inform them that they wouldn't be able to attend.

downstairsparts continues: We don't know when they called. Before, during, or after the "no-show", as the headline says. I read this as being stood up by somebody.

I don't know about you, but I'm going to assume that Rev. Wendell Anthony is not insane, and, therefore, the calls *were* received before the event -- and even long enough before the event that it *could* have been cancelled had the organizers chosen to do so.

Consider this snippet from the article...

"We considered the notion of canceling because the candidates had backed out," said the Rev. Wendell Anthony... who said he got personal calls from Dean and Clark and a Kerry campaign staffer about their absences.

How could the Reverend have considered cancelling the event if the candidates hadn't contacted him before the event? And, to take it one step further, cancellation wouldn't be a consideration if insufficient time remained prior to the event to effect the cancellation (i.e. keep the people from coming).

Cheers!

[Laughing Mirror]

32. Cheers! krkaufman

Your fine analysis and comments are noted. Per your instructions, I've checked the article again, even combed it in search of adverbs and adjectives to try to determine just when those calls were made, and all I've found is the following:

The article says, "Dean *abruptly* canceled the Detroit appearance ... (emphasis mine)

It quotes Anthony as saying, "We considered the notion of cancelling because the candidates had backed out." ("had backed out," but when? Doesn't say)

It says they called "about their absences." It does not say when they called, although it does say that Anthony said, "John Edwards never confirmed." I guess this is why there was no chair for him.

I may be wrong to assume that the 800 people showed up themselves assuming that they would be treated to at least four candidates, but you also may be wrong assuming that the organizers had sufficient time to cancel the event, and thus avoid this embarassment, it would seem, for everybody concerned.

If you have ever organized any events with a lot of people involved, you know that sometimes it is too late to cancel so you just go ahead with it. Especially when you have one candidate who calls and cancels *abruptly.*

[Iverson]

20. When will they ever learn?

It is no game to demand basic courtesy. Any game here lies in the transparent rhetorical dissembling that excuses no-shows.

I believe it was Wendell Anthony, Pres. of the Detroit Branch of the NAACP, who offered that you can't diss us in the Winter and then try to kiss us in the Fall. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was right next to him, smiling in agreement.

Damn, I really can get a Cassandra complex around here!

[salin]

18. Bad move... especially in Detroit

This is disappointing.

Back in the early nineties there was a fairly popular Governor in Michigan... Gov. James Blanchard.

He knew that Detroit would always vote Dem - and that politicians seen as spending too much time (during office and during campaign) in Detroit were viewed with some skepticism in some corners of the state.

So - he wasn't terribly proDetroit - and didn't really do a lot of campaining there.

But guess what - the democratic 'machine' (not in the chicago sense... but in the gotv sense) went dormant. Very dormant.

In a shocking election shift... the state ousted Blanchard in favor of president of the republican state senate... John Engler.

IIRC the low voter turnout in Detroit had a rather BIG impact on the election.

[adadem]

19. It's not right

Someone from each campaign, if not the candidate, should have been there. There's always enough time for IA and NH...screw everyone else. Happening in West Michigan, too...all events are in Detroit but the second largest city in Michigan is ignored. Not OK.

[krkaufman]

23. Direct your angst at the cause

See post #8 for info.

[adriennel]

25. MI is the biggest state primary so far

and the candidates don't give a crap. Dean should be ashamed for canceling his MI appearances. He HAD a lot of support in this state. Kerry should be commended for adding a MI stop prior to the primary. I didn't think he'd show. Too bad I already voted!

[Iverson]

26. close

Dean didn't cancel his Michigan appearances. For example, he was across the street from my house. He just didn't make the ten mile drive to downtown Detroit.

Similarly, Kerry may have added stops in Michigan, but he too did not make it to Detroit when, like Dean, he said he would.

Sharpton is the only one who showed up in Detroit when he said he would, and is the sole candidate who deserves praise for that.

[adriennel]

27. I don't think he made it to A2

he was supposed to make an appearance in Ann Arbor. I realize his time is tight but we are talking about college kids, where he could have had a great impact, I think.

from the Michigan Daily....

"Dean cancels League visit, turns focus to Wisconsin"

Multiple presidential candidates skip last minute campaign stops in Michigan to focus on later primaries, caucuses

By Andrew Kaplan, Daily News Editor
February 06, 2004

Following a boisterous town-hall gathering in Royal Oak yesterday morning, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean laid out the bones of a speech he had prepared for a rally at the Michigan League today.

“The things the students care the most about are environment, the deficit … and college loans and how to afford college,” Dean said in an interview with The Michigan Daily.

But within hours of leaving 200 of his supporters in Royal Oak, officials from the Dean campaign announced that Dean would, in fact, skip canvassing Michigan and ship out to Wisconsin — a state where the former Vermont governor has more campaign “resources,” as Dean put it.

Dean is not the only candidate who is bypassing Michigan to seek victories in other states. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark and U.S. Sen. John Edwards have also chosen to sidestep the state this weekend. Although some of the candidates had planned to attend a townhall meeting at the Detroit chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People last night, as of 6 p.m. all had withdrawn except for Rev. Al Sharpton.

http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/06/40233fee47dd3

[Iverson]

28. yup

I agree with you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

29. For clarification though, two of the candidates have been consistent in

their visits to Michigan. Dean has been fairly frequent in his stops for two years, and Clark has come often since throwing his hat in the ring. I think either Clark or Dean would have been here had they been getting a major endorsement such as Gephardt endorsing Kerry. :hi:

I don't blame the other two for going and campaigning in other states...it's seems the government here has declared the race won. :(

[Kathleen04]

35. Does it bug anyone else that they leave the empty chairs..?

It just seems like a bitter thing to do..