Dirty Tricks? Unanswered Questions About Why Obama and 3 Others Dropped from the Michigan Ballot

[McCamy Taylor]

Here is a story that the MSM--which attaches itself to every Drudge Report or Moonie Times story about how Hillary Clinton is peddling some photo or lie about Obama being a Muslim---has avoided like the plague. With a new Michigan primary coming up, I think it is time to ask why the first Michigan primary never really happened. Why did four Democrats suddenly decide at the same time to drop off the ballot, leaving Clinton alone with Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich? It isn't as if the last three are opportunists who would be willing to take "illegal votes at any cost" right? In fact, the last three are probably the most pure or idealistic of the Dems. So, what happened to make the Michigan Democratic ballot in January so barren?

There is information available on the internet that suggests that Democratic voters' right to participate in a fair and open election in Michigan was thwarted last fall. Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden did not just happen to withdraw from the Michigan primary at the last minute in unison by accident. They did it together, on purpose, at the Obama camp's suggestion, to render Hillary's projected win in that state meaningless even as a public relations tool.

I will warn you in advance that a key article has evidence that is based upon testimony of anonymous sources within Democratic candidates' campaigns. However, since Drudge, the Moonie magazine Insight Bob Novak are all considered reliable sources by Obama himself, when a liberal blogger interviews anonymous sources within Democratic candidates' campaigns that is gold standard journalism for this election season. Just ask Keith Olbermann.

Here is some back story.

http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/calendar-chaos-democrats-tear-michigan.html

Even the pledge or the fact that the DNC was punishing Florida and Michigan was not going to hurt her that much. There would still be millions of voters going to the polls, and the press would report the results -- probably in the same headlines that would report the Republican winner. Would voters really have cared that the elections were beauty contests? More importantly, would they even have known?

Obama and Edwards seem to have sensed the danger and taken the matter in their own hands to completely kill off any firewall value Michigan held for Clinton. Odds that they will do the same with Florida. Now, Clinton's win will really have no value. Or might it still salvage her chances a little? Say Clinton comes in 3rd in Iowa and loses New Hampshire, would a massive win against Dodd in Michigan not allow her to at least stop the bleeding? This is a clear possibility but it would all be much less reliable.

snip

Will the Democratic nominee not start off the general election badly damaged in Michigan and Florida then? Clearly the sense of Dodd's today: "It does not benefit any of us if we are the nominee to pull our name of the ballot and slight Michigan voters."

Dodd makes so much sense. However, according to another source, Obama was not thinking about the general election or what Michigan might feel about the slight (here is what Michigan felt at the time---

A prominent DNC member from Michigan, Debbie Dingell, called the candidates' decision "a coordinated effort in the last minutes available to pressure other candidates to take names off the ballot."

"This election is not for president of Iowa , it is president of these United States," she said. "There will be a primary election in Michigan on January 15th, there will not be a caucus. Those candidates who do not even want Michigan voters to consider them have sent their message to Michigan about how they feel about Michiganders," she said.

Obama was thinking about Iowa, and how his best chance to score an early victory in the race for the nomination was to win in Iowa against Hillary. And a good way to weaken her in that state was to leave her all by her lonesome on the Michigan ballot.

http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=80613E1F4043EDC4FF49F1246AEA8085?diaryId=1264

Iowans are by and large straightforward people. Given that, it should come as no surprise that to the average Iowan, the Michigan ballot situation seems pretty cut and dried: Democratic presidential hopefuls who honor their four-state pledge and support the nomination calendar won't be on the Wolverine State's ballot. As with most things in life, and especially politics, the situation is more complicated.

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.

Since Iowa was mad as hell at Michigan for moving up their primary, if only Hillary remained on the Michigan ballot, then Iowa would punish her in the caucuses. That, at least, was the Obama plan.

We already know one reason why the Obama camp does not want a do-over in Michigan. When he withdrew his name from the ballot in that state, it was a slap in the face of the voters there, and now he fears a backlash, as Michigan voters remember that Hillary risked angering Iowan voters by staying on the Michigan ballot. However, it could be much worse for Obama than that, if Lynda Waddington's story is true and if even one other Democratic nominee's camp confirms it.

This is a story that may amount to nothing or it could be huge, and the fact that no one in the mainstream media has touched it proves once again that the press is only after one thing---dirt that proves the two Big Lies Hillary is a Bitch and Obama is a scary Black Muslim . No other story is even investigated.

[tabatha]

1. No, the rules were that candidates could not participate in the election.

Participate means having one's name on the ballot and campaigning.

[SunsetDreams]

3. yep thank you tabatha

[McCamy Taylor]

5. Can you provide a link. My link says the rules were that delegates would not be seated.

Nothing about Dems names not being on the ballots. I think the Obama camp is making up the part about names could not be on the ballots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

"In response, the Democratic National Committee has ruled that Florida's 210 delegates will not be seated, or, if seated, will not be able to vote, at the National Convention. Furthermore, the DNC has also stated that it will forbid any candidate from receiving Florida delegates should they campaign in the Florida primary.<38> The DNC Rules Committee met on August 25, 2007 and ruled that Florida would have 30 days to move its primary date at least 7 days later than the current date of January 29, or else lose all of its delegates in the Democratic primary."

"Michigan moved its primary to January 15, 2008, also in violation of party rules. On December 1, 2007, the Democratic National Committee voted to deny Michigan’s request to hold its primary on January 15 and declared that Michigan’s 157 delegates would not count in the nominating contest unless Michigan moved its primary to a later date."

[Melinda]

15. Here's your link: Pledge that all Democratic candidates signed:

THEREFORE, I, (Name here), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

That would be Fl and MI.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf">Full pledge here

[tabatha]

19. Obama camp today

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor emails with an attack on Clinton and a promise to review the Michigan plan:

Considering the fact that Senator Clinton is currently trying to prevent and delay votes in Texas from being counted because she didn't like the outcome, it's pretty apparent that the Clinton campaign’s views on voting are dependent on their own political interest. Hillary Clinton herself said in January that the Michigan primary “didn’t count for anything.” Now, she is cynically trying to change the rules at the eleventh hour for her own benefit.

We received a very complex proposal for Michigan re-vote legislation today and are reviewing it to make sure that any solution for Michigan is fair and practical. We continue to believe a fair seating of the delegation deserves strong consideration.”

[stillcool]

67. Here are a few articles...

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”
.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

[McCamy Taylor]

13. There was no such rule. Only a no campaigning rule.

[Melinda]

18. No campaigning OR participation

See my previous post.

[McCamy Taylor]

45. Obama secretly changed the meaning of "participation" w/o telling Hillary, when it was too late.

Everyone was on the ballot.He and 3 others withdrew at the last moment. Poor Dennis did not even have time to withdraw along with the rest. Hillary was like the girl who isn't allowed to play with the boys.

[Melinda]

62. You're kidding, right?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

76. you mean she was "fooled" - I thought she was ready to be commander in chief from day 1??

if so, how is it that a junior senator pulled such a devious diabolical trick on her?

What about her buddie Edwards?

You mean Bill didn't see this coming?

Or maybe the anonymous sources and Bob Novack are wrong. Or lying to give Hillary cover.

[bhikkhu]

81. What - snuck into the office at night and switched the paperwork?

You've got to be kidding!

[MichiganVote]

14. There was no requirement that any candidate remove their name from the ballot

[Melinda]

23. If they signed the pledge, they were bound by DNC rules not to participate

and that means removing their names from the ballot. Clinton signed the pledge and then violated it by leaving her name on the ballot. If she had NOT done so, she wouldn't have such a problem now.

[MichiganVote]

96. There was no signed pledge either. Repeat- the DNC did not require them to remove their names

[McCamy Taylor]

24. Otherwise why spend the millions to have a primary? And why was Obama on Florida?

I know why he was on Florida. Because the GOP did it in that state, he had to worry that the Dems might seat the delegates there, so he wanted to be sure he got some just in case.However, he felt safe taking a "bold stand" on Michigan--even if some voters there were disenfranchised. But note that he and Edwards and the others told voters to vote uncommitted--so they campaigned in Michigan after all.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

60. unless what i've been told earlier is wrong

he remained on the Florida ballot due to the fact that the only way to get removed from it would be to drop out fully(or something along those lines)

[stillcool]

83. Hillary was the "only" candidate...

who had her name on the Michigan ballot. "All" of the candidates had their names on the Florida ballot. I have no idea why they "all" removed their names from the Michigan ballot...except for...Hillary. I won't assume to know. If you look at the articles I posted above you will see that "all" the candidates agreed to "abide by the rules of the Democratic Party". You will also find in one of those articles that the "rules" were agreed upon in March of 2007.

[Exilednight]

88. All the candidates, except Hillary, attempted to pull their names off the ballot, but......

the ballots could not be changed.

[stillcool]

93. In Michigan?

CONCORD, N.Hb]. Oct 11, 2007 (AP)
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said it would be foolish to take her name off Michigan's primary ballot and sacrifice her chances against the Republican nominee.

As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state's primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15


"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

Speaking in the first primary state, Clinton said she understands concerns about her refusal. Rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden took their names off Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot this week, and Michigan's hope for nominating clout all but evaporated.

Clinton's comment reflects an optimism she will win her party's nomination to face the Republican nominee in November 2008. She said any snub to Michigan could hurt her and all Democrats' chances to defeat the Republicans there.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3717119

[Exilednight]

95. No, Florida. In Michigan, everyone was suppose to pull their names off the ballots.

[durrrty libby]

Nope. BO took his name off.

[stillcool]

84. All of the candidates had ...

their names removed. Except for Hillary.

[durrrty libby]

91. That was their strategic choice and it is also not true. Kucinich

still had his name on the ballot

[stillcool]

92. Is this true?

PRESS RELEASE from Kucinich for President 2008

Kucinich withdraws from Michigan Democratic primary ballot

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Tuesday, October 9, 2007

DOVER, NH - The Kucinich for President campaign announced this afternoon that it has filed an affidavit with the Michigan Secretary of State's office officially requesting that the name of Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot.

The sworn statement requesting withdrawal was submitted via fax by Kucinich National Campaign Manager Mike Klein shortly before today's 4 p.m. deadline.

At the same time, the Kucinich campaign issued the following statement on behalf of the candidate, who is campaigning in Arizona today:

"We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role."

Klein, who recently moved to Dover, NH to run the national Kucinich campaign, added, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08/mi100907pr.html

[DJ13]

2. I like how this story ignores the obvious conclusion

Had Hillary's campaign not sought to eventually seat Michigan she could have also removed her name from the ballot.

[McCamy Taylor]

12. But as Dodd said,that would anger Michigan Voters that we need in the general.

Iowa is not the only state that counts.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

77. Uh, Iowa doesn't count at all, its a caucus state and those don't count

in Hillary's world.

[last1standing]

4. You're suggesting that the press should run with two opinion pieces?

I'm sure "Taniel" from campaigndiaries.com would never provide anything but the complete unvarnished truth, but I'd feel better if he/she weren't completely anonymous. :eyes:

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Obama has run with Drudge and the Moonies. More dangerous than running with scissors.

And the Iowa Independent piece, if true, has 4 witnesses. That is not opinion. That is journalism.

As I said, Obama has changed what is gold standard journalism.

[last1standing]

40. Ugh. The Iowa Independent piece is an Op/Ed, not journalism.

It's a slanted column that was meant to support a candidate. There's nothing wrong with that unless someone tries to claim that it is instead an unbiased article as you are doing now. And Obama hasn't changed what is gold standard journalism and he hasn't stolen the money the tooth fairy left under your pillow. He has no ability to do either thing so why would you accuse him of doing either? Support your candidate, but leave out the bullshit.

[stillcool]

85. Funny about Drudge isn't it?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/america/drudge.1-156891.php?page=2

The Drudge Report warms to the Clinton camp, or is it vice versa?
By Jim Rutenberg
Published: October 22, 2007

WASHINGTON: As Senator Barack Obama prepared to give a major speech on Iraq one morning a few weeks ago, a flashing-red siren alert went up on the Drudge Report Web site. It read, "Queen of the Quarter: Hillary Crushes Obama in Surprise Fund-Raising Surge," and, "$27 Million, Sources Tell Drudge Report."

Within minutes, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's fund-raising success was injected via Drudge into the day's political news on the Internet and cable television. It did not halt coverage of Obama's speech or his criticism of her vote to authorize the war in 2002, but along the front lines of the campaign - the hourly, intensely fought effort to capture the news cycle or deny ownership of it to the other side - it was a telling assault.

Clinton's aides declined to discuss how the Drudge Report got access to her latest fund-raising figures nearly 20 minutes before the official announcement went to supporters. But it was a prime example of a development that has surprised much of the political world: Clinton is learning to play nice with the Drudge Report and the powerful, elusive and conservative-leaning man behind it.

That man, Matt Drudge, came to national prominence a decade ago as a nemesis of the Clintons who used the Web to peddle, gleefully, the latest news and rumor generated by the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
-----------------------------
Clinton's communications team, led by Howard Wolfson, is not leaving Drudge to the Republicans. Five current and former Democratic officials said Clinton has on her side the closest thing her party has ever had to Rhoades in Tracy Sefl, a former Democratic National Committee official. The officials said that Sefl had established a friendly relationship with Drudge and that Clinton's campaign often worked quietly through her to open a line of communication with Drudge.
Though liberals say Drudge's ideological imbalance remains plain, Republicans, who viewed the site as theirs in campaigns past, say they are noticing what they believe to be more Democratic driven, often Clinton driven, items on it.

And, as New York magazine reported recently, it has escaped no one that Drudge has sometimes mentioned Clinton favorably on his syndicated radio program, even if no one really knows whether his comments reflect admiration for her or simply a recognition that keeping her in the news is good for his business.
---------------------------------
Former Republican Party and Bush campaign officials said that in 2004 they considered Drudge's site so central in their efforts to undermine Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign that they systemized their approach to him. Senior aides in the Bush war room, run by Steve Schmidt, a veteran Republican communications aide, insisted on vetting any information to be fed to Drudge so as not to annoy and overwhelm him with items he might find unworthy. And, these officials said, when the approval was given, the main point of contact was usually the Bush aide who then had the closest relationship with Drudge, J. Timothy Griffin, currently a consultant to the campaign of Fred Thompson, the former Republican senator from Tennessee.
Through that system, Bush's aides funneled embarrassing tidbits about Kerry in which mainstream news reporters had initially shown less interest. From time to time, those former aides said, an item's appearance on Drudge would drive it into mainstream news coverage: A video clip of Kerry contradicting himself, or a photograph of him wearing a protective germ outfit.

[dailykoff]

7. So following the rules is a dirty trick?

That's really stretching things, even by the standards of conspiracy theories.

[McCamy Taylor]

10. The only rule was do not campaign in Michigan and Florida, see the wiki link.

The post about the rule about not being on the ballot is misinformed.

[dailykoff]

21. Not being on the ballot is the obvious corollary.

At least it's obvious to me. :shrug:

[McCamy Taylor]

27. But it isn't a rule. And above they were claiming Hillarty broke a rule.

Like they are claiming the Superdelegates will break a rule if Obama isn't given a win with a simple majority when the rules say he needs 2024 delegates ---that he can't get unless we seat Michigan and Florida---or else the Superdelegates decide.

The Obama camp is making up rules. We need Howard Dean to get on TV and spell out the rules.

[dailykoff]

37. The DNC said the delegates don't count, so claiming they do is a rule violation.

That seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

[Kittycat]

26. No Campaigning or Participation - why do you refuse to acknowledge what..

the previous poster shared - directly from the form they signed?

[McCamy Taylor]

28. Tell me why Obama was on the ballot in Florida but not Michigan?

Why was one participation but not the other?

[mckeown1128]

31. He couldn't pull his name off the ballot in FL... that's why...

I am sure he would have rather had his name off the ballot in FL than MI.. I guess yo9u also forget that Hillary said "MI doesn't count fro anything" when asked why her name was still on the ballot. So it wasn't that she cared for the primary in MI it was that she didn't feel the need to pull her name off(or she was hoping that she would win since other's took their name off)

[Melinda]

35. FL ballots had already been printed and distributed, not so in MI

n/t.

[rodeodance]

46. so whey did Dodd and DK stay on????

[McCamy Taylor]

57. Kucinich tried to get off but he was too late. Dodd did not want to upset the people of Mi.

Or maybe Dodd and Gravel did not think that it was right for the boys to gang up on Hillary.

[rodeodance]

68. umm.. thanks.

[UALRBSofL]

94. Melinda, we got out absentee ballots 2 weels before the primary

Here in Florida. The decision for FL not to count was decided way before that.

[OhioBlue]

8. ...

:eyes:

[Iceburg]

So the boys colluded and it backfired on them /nt

[tabatha]

16. where's the proof

[McCamy Taylor]

29. Same place as Drudge and Moonies proof when they ran the stories Obama cited

[Andy823]

9. You forgot to mention

That Debbie Dingell is a "Hillary" supporter!

Now call me crazy if you want, but I don't consider her a very "reliable" source. Also you failed to point out that Hillary said that the votes weren't going to count, of course that was before she needed them!

One could also say it was a conspiracy by the Clinton camp to use Michigan as a fall back in case she needed more delegates!

[McCamy Taylor]

11. And Drudge and the Moonies hate Hillary, but when they bash her, Obama cites them.

[elixir]

17. Makes a world of sense to me. This scenario would definitely hinder HRCs performance in IA.

[tabatha]

20. Hillary's word

Hillary Clinton herself said in January that the Michigan primary “didn’t count for anything.”

[Andromeda]

22. Why doesn't this surprise me?

:think:

[DearAbby]

25. *Coughbullshitcough*

[McCamy Taylor]

33. Just what I say about Drudge and the Moonies.

I hope you see the point I am trying to make here.

[DearAbby]

38. And that has to do with your post...how?

you claim that three other canidates conspired with Obama, to take their names off the ballot, so he will look GOOD????

What part of No campaigning OR participation, dont you understand? LEAVING YOUR NAME ON THE BALLOT IS PARTICIPATING in that election. Hillary Promised not to do that.

[dailykoff]

30. Key word: "arguably," i.e., speculatively,

but it's pretty improbable speculation.

[McCamy Taylor]

55. And Hillary giving photos to Drudge was not improbable? Obama didn't act like it was.

[dailykoff]

61. Drudge, the NYT, CNN, and the Clinton campaign

are all part of the CIA puppet show, performed for the benefit of Lockheed Martin-Halliburton-Exxon-Mobile. But I doubt if you're ready to acknowledge that.

[McCamy Taylor]

66. Nope, and I do not believe that Hillary has laser beam eyes either,

[Johnny__Motown]

32. THIS IS PURE BULL SHIT... STOP FUCKING AROUND WITH MY VOTE

We knew that there were no delegates at stake in that vote. Many dems even crossed over to vote for Romney just to try and keep the Repugs fighting longer.


ANYONE who says that vote should count needs to be fucking put in prison for voter fraud.

[McCamy Taylor]

36. "Put in prison"? I am just asking the MSM to investigate this story the way they do Drudge stories.

People at DU have been treating Drudge like he carries the word of God down from Heaven and every time he says a bad word about Hillary it must be true . I am sick to death of hearing people who claim to be Democrats talk about what a reliable source known Hillary basher Drudge and the Moonies are and sicker still when Obama quotes them.

And look how bent out of shape you guys are getting when a left wing blogger has a plausible story about a dirty trick that Obama may have pulled. I want to know why the MSM that is so quick to cover every story that allows them to talk about Obama's religion and Hillary's bitchiness isn't covering this---if only to prove that it isn't true. Michigan can read. They have seen this story on the internet. How do they feel about it? What kind of rumors are floating around that state?

[rodeodance]

50. Put in jail just for saying it. !! Get a grip!

ANYONE who says that vote should count needs to be fucking put in prison for voter fraud.

[McCamy Taylor]

56. "Anyone who says should be put in jail" your words. However, the Dems can do that at the

convention, because the Democratic Party makes the rules. The MSM is feeding you a bunch of lies if you think that the Party does not make the rules. "Voter fraud" applies to official elections, not primaries. Try taking it to court and you will see. That is why Obama is waging the pr campaign. To get the Party to side with him when it makes its ruling, because there is no law.

[rodeodance]

59. NO --not my words---they belong to the post above. I was being critical of those words.

[Eurobabe]

87. Thank you for the voice of reason.

MI was a clusterfuck and everyone knows it. :hi:

[johnnydrama]

34. simple question

How do you not participate in a primary, and yet accept their votes?

[McCamy Taylor]

39. Obama told the people of Michigan to vote "Uncommitted" if they were voting for him

and he got 40% of the vote. That is how you participate after you pull your name off the ballot. I assume you are asking about Obama.

[K Gardner]

41. I can't believe you're trying to pass this off as deeply insighted investigative journalism.. when

all you've become is another Drudge report for Hillary, spreading vicious rumor. Really a shame, too, but not the only formerly intelligent and readable poster I've seen go down this road on behalf of Hillary.

You're better than this, McCamy.

[McCamy Taylor]

49. Can we call a truce then, and no more Drudge or Moonie reported as fact?

[K Gardner]

51. I've never been to either site and don't read posts that link to them.

[McCamy Taylor]

69. Good for you. Many posters at DU believe Hillary's "as far as I know" was "yes"

and they believe that she gave Drudge photos and her campaigns statements and she has tete a tetes with Bob Novak. That is because they are either gullible or guilty of wishful thinking.

[rodeodance]

42. I have seen that Iowa Independent story passed around lately--something

will break on it soon. just a gut felling.



http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do

[McCamy Taylor]

43. So much deflection. The issue is the CONSPIRACY. As in 4 candidates get

together behind the back of the only woman in the race and decide that they can knock her out in Iowa and New Hampshire---two liberal states where mavericks have their best shots---and to hurt her in Iowa, they will do a dirty trick of getting out of Michigan but not tell her that they plan to do it. In other words, they will change the definition of "participate" but not tell Hillary until it is too late for her to get off the ballot, too. That leaves her looking like a cheater.

Nice try to all the Obama supporters who are trying to deflect the issue. It is Obama and Edwards and Richardson and Biden (if the Iowa Independent story is to be believed) who changed the agreed upon definition of participation (before that it meant simply no campaigning) in secret as part of a good old boys conspiracy to stab the lone woman in the back.

That is how the story would look if it were proven true. So, just pray that it never is.

[dailykoff]

48. How about real conspiracy like the CIA feeding CNN and Hillary the same sludge?

Let's focus on reality.

[McCamy Taylor]

52. I am focusing on the reality of Democrats using RW shills to smear Democrats

People who do that are lower even than Republicans, because the Republicans are standing by their party but when I see Democrats like KO and like the so called liberals at Huffington Post and here at DU claim that Hillary gave Drudge a picture of Obama in African tribal garb as if it is absolute 100% certain, and then they have the nerve to say that she helped the GOP when she criticized Obama and they excuse themselves by saying it is because he is 100 points ahead in the delegates...

....it makes me wonder if all of them have been infected with whatever Karl Rove has. The Democratic Party attracts voters because we stand for something.

And this story is much more believable than any of the crap Drudge reports. That is why I find your outrage so amusing.

But I had a feeling I would get this response when I decided to conduct this experiment.

[dailykoff]

54. That has very little to do with your OP. (n/t)

[McCamy Taylor]

65. It has everything to do with it. I am making a point with an object lesson.

Here at DU we have descended to the depths where a story can be spun out of rumor. For instance, after the New Hampshire primary, a Tribune writer claimed that a story accusing the Hillary camp of E-vote fraud was going to be printed in Tribune papers the next day. This caused a near riot here from the Obama camp. I think I was the only one who questioned the important part of the story---his assertion that a major newspaper chain thought that the results were so suspicious that they were willing to put their reputation on the line and print an article charging E-vote fraud. He had no proof of anything. It was just his word that the story was going to get MSM coverage. All of a sudden there was outrage. Everyone was sure that Hillary had hacked the vote.

Next day, as I expected---no story. It was just another piece of baiter/splitter provocation from the press aimed at Democrats.

This story that I wrote above actual has some meat on it. The way that people responded is the way that I would have expected them to have responded when Drudge claimed that Hillary gave him a photo or when Drudge doctored Hillary's words or when the Moonies claimed that Hillary was spreading Muslim stories or when Bob Novak said that Hillary had dirt on Obama.

Why didn't they? And it isn't because Hillary has been caught in dirty tricks. Those stories above are the dirty tricks.

[dailykoff]

70. So it's a phony story except you think it's true.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

[McCamy Taylor]

72. No, it is a possible story that should be investigated and laid to rest or proven,

The alternative is to let it sit on the internet where the citizens of Michigan can read it and fume.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

78. Like Bill Clinton going on Limbaugh's show 3/4/08?

voluntarily going on one of THE most vile right wing sites there is....

even after Rush had once called Chelsea the family dog?

[Recursion]

63. Clinton was asked at the time why she stayed on the ballot

She certainly didn't seem unaware of the fact that the others were taking their names off; she acknowledged they were, acknowledged the delegates wouldn't be seated, and said she kept her name on in order not to insult the people of Michigan.

In other words, her statements at the time flatly contradict this spin on things.

[McCamy Taylor]

71. If Hillary said she did not want to insult Michigan that was also Dodd's answer, and

it provides a good explanation for why both of them stayed on the ballot. It contradicts nothing since she would not have known until after the blog was published about the conspiracy to undermine her Iowa campaign.

[Romulox]

44. This is how the story has been reported in Mich. from the beginning

Obama's poll numbers showed that he had no chance of winning in Mich. He had not set foot here, and, perhaps anticipating that his "more of the same" trade policy would prove as popular here as it eventually would in Ohio, he chose to remove his name from the ballot to deny Clinton a state that he knew he couldn't win anyhow.

[McCamy Taylor]

47. I sort of figured that was how people in Michigan saw it. Being closer to the story they would see

it more clearly.

[dailykoff]

53. Why would he not do well in Mich? Isn't Conyers in his camp?

I can't imagine Hillary beating Obama in post-NAFTA Michigan.

[Romulox]

75. What is the substantive difference between Obama and Clinton on NAFTA?

I can discern none (and Nafta-gate tends to bear this out.)

Both Obama and Clinton are weak on labor.

[XemaSab]

58. Democrats withdraw from Michigan 'beauty contest'

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html

[stahbrett]

64. Hillary on NPR: "It's clear - this election is not going to count for anything"

http://www.jabberwonk.com/clinton_mi_byte.mp3

[PerfectSage]

73. Check out madfloridian's journal,

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian

Something you might to research: Puerto Rico switched from caucus to primary recently.

[McCamy Taylor]

74. I have said all that I have to say about this (minor) story. If you think the accusation is thin

then please reconsider the charges of which Hillary is accused (the madrassa story one year ago, the WaPo recycling of the madrassa story last fall, the Drudge photo, the 60 Minutes interview answer edited to reformulate her answer) all of which have been made by right wing media sources like Bob Novak, Drudge, Insight (Moonie owned) that Hillary is the source for x, y and z Obama smear. Do you believe these right wing sites because they are trustworthy or because it is politically expedient? Do you believe that the Obama camp truly believes that Hillary is the source for these attacks or are they doing what is politically expedient?

Sorry if I made anyone's head hurt asking a difficult question. Politics is not for the faint hearted. I think Hunter S. Thompson wrote that.

[BlueIdaho]

They tell me

that if you put tin foil on the inside of your hat they can't read your mind anymore - you might want to give that a try.

[Exilednight]

89. Actually, Hunter S Thompson stole it. Hillary has known contacts with right wing......

political media organizations. Rupert Murdoch held a fund raiser for her.

[rodeodance]

79. Thanks so much

[bhikkhu]

80. Complete and utter crap. "not to campaign or participate" was agreed

by all democratic candidates.

That is, the DNC requested that all candidates sign onto their decision re: unapproved early primaries, specifically that no candidate would "campaign or participate" in those primaries.

The majority of candidates honored the rules. In Michigan a person could take their name off the ballot, and they did. In Florida that was not an option given to the candidates by Florida party rules, so no names were removed. Hillary is the only candidate to agree to the rules, then bend and twist them to her potential advantage. It to her discredit, and an OP like this only serve to dig her hole deeper.

The poster might keep in mind whether any service to Hillary is being done - as this reader is more inclined to a "no - not ever, now" - and the reader might question whether the poster is fairly representing Hillary's intents. They do not reflect the perspectives of a legitimate candidate.

[moobu2]

82. Thanks for the info

[Iceburg]

86. K&R/nt

[izzybeans]

90. .

:rofl:

Doing everything within the rules to steal this thing. While correct she still violated an agreement she had made with these others. Was she complicit? or is she guilty of lying to advance her power seeking agenda?