Hillary And Dodd Staying On Michigan Ballot
While several of the Democratic candidates are pulling their names off the Michigan primary ballot due to the state's rogue primary, it turns out that Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd are staying in.
"We will honor the pledge and not campaign or spend money in any state that is not in compliance with the DNC calendar," said Hillary communications director Howard Wolfson, "but it is not necessary to take the steps necessary to remove Senator Clinton's name from the ballot."
Dodd communications director Hari Sevugan has also explained their reasoning. "We are committed to the importance of the 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," he said. "However, it does not benefit any of us if we are the nominee to pull our name of the ballot and slight Michigan voters."
With Hillary Clinton as potentially the only top-three name on the ballot, she's practically guaranteed to win the Michigan primary — with Dodd perhaps competing for second place with Dennis Kucinich, if he's unable to catch on nationally between between now and then.
However, the DNC will not be awarding any actual delegates to the primary, so it won't help Clinton directly — but it could still help her indirectly to have a news headline saying she won the Michigan primary by a mile.
Comments (58)
Michael wrote on October 9, 2007 3:25 PM:There's your answer. Bill said stay on the ballot and win it all baby, win it all. How pathetic.
IWW wrote on October 9, 2007 3:36 PM:Weasel.
Anonymous wrote on October 9, 2007 3:40 PM:Without Edwards and Obama, it's beyond meaningless. Any member of the media that covers will just confirm that they are brain dead.
Liberal Larry wrote on October 9, 2007 3:57 PM:Bush-Lite has no respect for Iowa and New Hampshire voters.
NCSteve wrote on October 9, 2007 4:07 PM:Methinks she's counting on a pro-forma caucus on 2/9 that will rubber stamp the outcome of the primary ("you owe it to me! I'm the only one who kinda sorta stuck by you!") which will then give her room to argue to the credentialing committee that Michigan's pro-Hillary delegation should be seated.
Unless, of course, she starts taking a lot of heat for this, in which case we'll discover that she always intended to withdraw after all.
IWW wrote on October 9, 2007 4:25 PM:Excuse me. That should've been "weasels."
DonnaG wrote on October 9, 2007 4:53 PM:Is Dodd serving her flank again here?
Shii wrote on October 9, 2007 5:00 PM:Kucinich and Gravel are going to own this ballot!
Dan Riffle wrote on October 9, 2007 5:01 PM:Any news outlet that puts out a headline saying "Clinton wins Michigan primary by a mile" should have their license revoked.
colonpowwow wrote on October 9, 2007 5:02 PM:It looked like it was getting lonely in the HHMMBS (Hillary Haters Mutual Master Baiting Society - or "BS" for short), so I just thought I'd say "Hi" and "See you at the inauguration."
keith wrote on October 9, 2007 5:04 PM:Let's all say it together:
T-R-I-A-N-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N
Just a message to Liberal Larry. With all the power Bushy has squirreled away for the office of President, we all need to be sure we put someone in office we can trust. It will take an honest, unburdened, congress a year or two to locate and correct all the damage. Essentially, our next president could be the most powerful president ever. One that is not troubled by pesky oversight rules.
Liberal Larry wrote on October 9, 2007 5:10 PM:Yes, yes. TRIANGULATION.
More like- 'I'm against their primary, but I want to win their primary.'
dcshungu wrote on October 9, 2007 5:34 PM:"A game of smoke and mirrors"
This is not a "boo-boo" that most of think it is. It is a shewd political move.
At this point it is much ado about nothing... It is all political theater because the votes won't count, and no delegates would be awarded. So what is the point to announce withdrawal from MI other than political theater? Yes, it is. For Clinton, the front-runner, it is a shrewd political move, and Dodd, although an eventual also-ran, also saw the value of sticking staying in: The election for POTUS does not end after the primaries. Whoever is the party's nominee will need to return to Michigan and compete against the opposition in GE. Clinton, nearly sure that she would be the Dem nominee, wants to preserve her viability in Michigan in GE and does not want to offend the voters of Michigan in what amounts to no more than political theater. It is all clear to me and this is why she is the front runner and the eventual winner. She has an incredibly well-oiled campaign machine that sees and hears it all and plans way ahead.. They do nothing by accident. This was move well-thought out and then executed. It is no "boo-boo".
Michael, what are you, a fly on the Clintons' wall? Everything Ms. Clinton does, you attribute to direction from Bill or as a direct result of being married to Bill. That's a rather narrow-minded view of the motivations behind her decisions.
When you're Hillary Clinton, apparently it's always damned if you do and damned if you don't.
jim wrote on October 9, 2007 5:39 PM:Let's all say it together: two-faced. I'm just totally shocked that Hillary would pull something like this. Shocked! Shocked! Next she'll say we need to bomb Iran and 9/11 changed everything. Oh, she basically said all that already.
People need to wake up.
keith wrote on October 9, 2007 5:43 PM:Dcshungu:
You don't seriously believe the stuff you wrote, do you? She's straddling here. The other candidates pull out because if they can't campaign or spend money in these rogue states, then these rogue state primaries are merely name recognition polls, which, at this point, the Omnipotent One wins. So why not deprieve her of the PR ahead of February 5? They are just complying with the rules agreed to by all of the states back in August, so they have political cover for the move and thus it won't impact them in the general. Methinks the smart political move was on the part of those that pulled.
But then again it is clear that you've already been assimilated into the BORG. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
She has an incredibly well-oiled campaign machine that sees and hears it all and plans way ahead
CORRECTION:
"Dennis Kucinich has announced he, too, will withdraw from the Michigan ballot."
Gravel is going to own the Michigan ballot!
hwc wrote on October 9, 2007 5:48 PM:Your headline is false.
Hillary Clinton has not "defied the DNC". I expect better of TPM. Don't sink to the level of Fox News or Drudge with false headlines.
Underground wrote on October 9, 2007 6:05 PM:Clinton can't "defy" the DNC because her, Bill, and Al Gore practically ARE the DNC!
When the candidates are being tested for "party loyalty" as in this case, they are really being tested on whether or not they will let Hillary win the nomination.
IWW wrote on October 9, 2007 6:09 PM:DCS cracks me up. First he accuses everyone of hyperventilating when they speculated Clinton might not withdraw, because "clearly" she was going to. Now that she isn't, it's a well-thought out and well-executed maneuver. A triumph of political wisdom...
Shame on those Clinton staffers! You'd think they'd have the grace to give their obedient flaks a heads-up as to which line to toe.
Liberal Larry wrote on October 9, 2007 6:16 PM:King George broke the law.
Michigan legislators broke the rules.
Bush-Lite triangulates for more anarchy.
Here's a good op-ed by Donna B. on this issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/31/AR2007083101427.html
Which raises a question for me: if the DNC has the authority to set their primary schedule, why haven't they sued Florida and Michigan for moving it up? It seems to me that would put the kabash on all of this since the states have no authority to set these dates.... Just asking...
RobbyLove wrote on October 9, 2007 6:34 PM:This is all about the complete incompetence of Howard Dean and the DNC. A house divided cannot stand, folks. Get your posterior orifices in gear and right the ship!
Daniel wrote on October 9, 2007 6:51 PM:You guys are all full of shit. Clinton haters, do you actually agree with the bs that Edwards is telling us here?! They know they won't win the state so they're pulling out. This is all completely absurd, and will kill the Democratic nominee in the general (analysis here.)
party-of-one wrote on October 9, 2007 6:52 PM:Hillary would quickly become a Republican officially if the polls said it would help her win the presidency. Being a "Democrat" is just a label. For once, I agree with dcshungu, who said above "It is a shrewd political move." Hillary is a shrewd politician, with all the panderig, selling of influence and mendacity that requires. And many people actually believe her, sad as it is. But the nation does not need another dishonest policitican for president. We need an honest, visionary, persuasive leader. Hillary is not that.
Liberal Larry wrote on October 9, 2007 7:06 PM:Bush-Lite can't have it both ways.
keith wrote on October 9, 2007 7:15 PM:Sorry Daniel, accusing us of hating Clinton isn't going to get any traction today. She's triangulating here and you know it. Don't be pissed that she's going to be denied her Name Recognition victory in Michigan and Florida.
Michigan and Florida decided to test the DNC with full knowledge of what would happen. They rolled the dice and crapped out.
Coonsey wrote on October 9, 2007 7:29 PM:She and Dodds are thinking about the GENERAL election and Michigan voters.
Who will they most likely support? Somebody that walked away from them during primary or somebody that at least wanted their OPINION?
I think (and I'm not a clinton supporter) that she and Dodds play it well.
Remember...she's been running a GENERAL campaign from the start.
Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
I really kind of envy those of you who can assure us that Big Sis would never crassly defy the party's rules to obtain a political advantage, and then two hours later assure us that her defiance of those rules is a brilliant political strategy that will bring on her Inevitable Victory and then, still later the same day, insist that she isn't really violating the rules after all.
I guess some of us Clinton hating RNC mysogynist Outer Party types just unbellyfeel the principles of Clintsoc.
hwc wrote on October 9, 2007 8:57 PM:There are no DNC rules against being on the ballots. Even Howard Dean and the four pledge states didn't ask the candidates for that (it would probably be unconsistutional). This has nothing to do with the DNC or the pledge. This is just four flagging campaigns pulling a cut 'n run.
oleeb wrote on October 9, 2007 9:06 PM:colonpowwow,
After Hillary the first has deepened US involvement in Iraq and overseen the deaths of thousands more of our young men and women and after having sanctioned Bush's attack on Iran which is coming and after bargaining away our birthright as Americans in exchange for the support of big business what will you have to say? Will you be as much of a know it all and smartass (and really bad winner) as you are now?
Your severe case of mypopia conceals from you the fact that many of the complaints Democrats of all kinds have of your savior are legitimate and have nothing to do with hating Hillary. Your everpresent crowing and strutting are the most obnoxious thing about this site. You never offer anything of substance--never. It's always more of your "Na-Na-Na-Na-NA!" crap.
I feel quite certain you not only irritate those who dislike your Goddess, but also those who support Hillary. Could you please either shut up or at least tone it down? Your adolescent, taunting posts breed contempt, not envy. Your whole schtick is really, really worn out, tired and pretty worthless.
Chuck wrote on October 9, 2007 9:29 PM:I'm from Michigan and what do you do with the Michigan Delegation at the convention, ignore them? Why does the party get to set the dates I thought it was a free country?! Michigan gets to set its own primary date by law, not by party decree. This eliminates Edwards, Obama and the gang for donations from this Democrat!!! Go Chris and Hillary!! Remember there is a general election and Michigan didn't vote for Bush even in the 2000 primary but could be offended by the actions of Edwards Obama and the gang. At least Hillary is looking ahead to the General Election. Go Hill!!!
DonnaG wrote on October 9, 2007 9:57 PM:Oleeb, thanks.
Chuck from MI: be an adult and explain to us non-Michigan folks how your state Dem party, having been a party to the original agreement on the primary schedule, thinks it is ok to be wrench-throwing mid-process. Should bullies get their way?
Granholm herself signed this new date into law in MI, in breach of the agreement she herself was a party to as the head of your state dems.
Either explain this or stop with the fake outrage.
Liberal Larry wrote on October 9, 2007 10:23 PM:Bush-Lite wants to divide the party just like she divides the country.
keith wrote on October 9, 2007 10:47 PM:After having giving it some more thought, it seems to me the reason the other candidates pulled out was to insure that NH didn't move its primary to January 8 or sooner. It gives them more time to shore up any additional support and puts pressure on those with the smaller dollars. At least that's why I think Obama and Edwards did it.
Michigan Democrats need to get in their reprensentatives face. They knew the rules and took a chance. Sometimes a bluff works, sometimes it doesn't. And this is coming from someone in California. Rules matter folks.
hwc wrote on October 10, 2007 12:58 AM:The DNC rules were that any state jumping the gun would lose half its delegates, but candidates would still be able to campaign -- just like the Republican rules.
After Florida and Michigan jumped, Howard Dean doubled the proscribed penalty, yanking all the delegates and then got together with IA, NH, NV, and SC to ram the "pledge" down the candidates' throats.
Neither of these penalties was in the "the rules" everyone was supposed to play by.
colonpowwow wrote on October 10, 2007 5:12 AM:oleeb
High words coming from one of the biggest kneejerk anti-Hillary ravers on this board.
oleeb said:
"I feel quite certain you not only irritate those who dislike your Goddess," (NOTE: Good, your mindless Naderite nonsense has been irritating me since 2000, and especially since Hillary started kicking your candidate's sweet, young thing).
"but also (you irritate) those who support Hillary." (I take the low road so the more reasoned Hillary-supporting posters don't have to). If I thought for a second that the infintesimal and shrinking numbers of the progressiver-than-thou Hillary-haters here would respond to reason when applied to her candidacy, I might rethink my jovial ways.
But instead, I'll just wait until she wins the nomination and then see if Obama, Edwards, and the other Dems who didn't win the nomination endorse her. What do you think? Then if you stamp your little feet and go home (to Republican-lite-land), you will become even more irrelevant than you are now.
You can try and paint this as Hillary's war all you want to (and now try to tar her with the Kyl-Lieberman brush), but if you're not a revisionist with a not-too-hidden agenda (like most Democratic voters who will be supporting HRC aren't), then you know that George W. Bush was going into Iraq (and will bomb Iran) no matter what Congress did, does do, or doesn't do in "support."
Nah, nah, nah, nah - nah!
colonpowwow wrote on October 10, 2007 5:46 AM:oleeb
"the fact that many of the complaints Democrats of all kinds have of your savior are legitimate"
Is this an example of a "legitimate complaint" with which you lead that same post? "After Hillary the first has deepened US involvement in Iraq and overseen the deaths of thousands more of our young men and women . . ." (etc.)
Is that an example of a reasoned statement begging for a reasoned reply? I'm sorry but I'm just trying to learn from your example. You see, I happen to believe (from her statements and written campaign position papers) that she has promised to end the war in Iraq.
Oh, who to believe!?!
dcshungu wrote on October 10, 2007 7:05 AM:DCS cracks me up. First he accuses everyone of hyperventilating when they speculated Clinton might not withdraw, because "clearly" she was going to. Now that she isn't, it's a well-thought out and well-executed maneuver. A triumph of political wisdom...Shame on those Clinton staffers! You'd think they'd have the grace to give their obedient flaks a heads-up as to which line to toe.
That is why she is the front-runner! My first instinct would have been to do as I had thought she would do: withdraw her name. However, her team's political acumen is clearly way beyond mine, an Ivy League Medical Science Professor and NOT a Political "Science" Professor.
But think about it for a minute, does it not make sense perfect? Why should she withdraw from a meaningless primary (votes do not count and delegates are not awarded) and risk offending Michigan voters in February, whose support she would need in November to be elected the first ever woman POTUS. That is why she is the front-runner: She thinks like one and acts like one...That is, she is a leader and not a reflexive follower with a finger in the wind.
Cheers, mate!
DCS, NYC
DancingBear wrote on October 10, 2007 7:28 AM:So that's where we are now? Being a shrewd politician that knows how to get elected equals being a leader? I guess then that W has been a very successful leader, and Rove is a maker of leaders.
dcshungu wrote on October 10, 2007 7:34 AM:Is this an example of a "legitimate complaint" with which you lead that same post? "After Hillary the first has deepened US involvement in Iraq and overseen the deaths of thousands more of our young men and women . . ." (etc.)Is that an example of a reasoned statement begging for a reasoned reply? I'm sorry but I'm just trying to learn from your example. You see, I happen to believe (from her statements and written campaign position papers) that she has promised to end the war in Iraq.
Oh, who to believe!?!
Nice riposte colopowwow! Who to believe, indeed? The screed of a clearly disenchanted lefty or the campaign position of a potential first woman POTUS ever, who would have no reason whatsoever to squander her legacy and risk a harsh judgment by historians by prosecuting a senseless war of choice abroad instead of working toward building a more harmonious world at home and abroad?
Bush is a stupid village idiot, who squandered the historic opportunity handed to him on a silver platter by the unfortunate events of 9/11 to be a great POTUS. He enjoyed unprecedented bipartisan support at home and worldwide goodwill, which, had he not been so dumb, he could have used "to unite and not divide." Well, we already know how he would be judged by History...
Hillary is not that dumb. She would know what it means to be the first ever woman POTUS and would pursue those policies that would ensure that her historic presidency is favorably judged by History, and that she makes things better for any woman who might want to follow her footsteps.
That is why Hillary will NOT attack Iran in a war of choice and would work as quickly as possible to end Bush's misadventure on Mesopotamia. Senseless wars of choice will not be part of Hillary's legacy. To believe otherwise is to be a reflexive LWN or a dimwit.
dcshungu wrote on October 10, 2007 7:43 AM:So that's where we are now? Being a shrewd politician that knows how to get elected equals being a leader?
That is less a question than it is a re-affirmation of over centuries of American presidential politics...And, "shrewd" need not necessarily a be a dirty word, y'know.
A leader who does not get elected is not a leader or is s/he?
DTM wrote on October 10, 2007 7:44 AM:Just a quick metacomment: of course people like colonpowwow and dcshungu will keep pushing variations on the argument, "Hillary is a winner, and therefore you are a loser if you criticize her." The notion that she is a winner and so you better get on board, or at least get out of the way, has been and remains the central argument for her candidacy.
Of course, people who reject the premise (that Hillary is a winner) and/or the conclusion (that criticizing Hillary makes you a loser), and/or who generally reject this sort of politics, will continue to find all this very annoying. But it doesn't matter to people like colonpowwow and dcshungu whether or not you find this annoying, and telling them you find it annoying won't make them stop. That is because this is their political strategy, and they think it is working, and they are not about to abandon what they believe is working just because you find it annoying.
So, my advice is just to ignore them. Oh, and if you don't like this sort of politics, support someone else.
dcshungu wrote on October 10, 2007 7:45 AM:So that's where we are now? Being a shrewd politician that knows how to get elected equals being a leader?
That is less a question than it is a re-affirmation of over two centuries of American presidential politics...And, "shrewd" need not necessarily a be a dirty word, y'know.
A leader who does not get elected is not a leader or is s/he?
colonpowwow wrote on October 10, 2007 7:53 AM:DTM
Bingo!
A little harsh and simplified but pretty good. My only addition to your characterization would be that I went over the edge into taunting-land after enduring months of baseless, borderline sexist insults to the motives of my preferred candidate and re the intelligence her supporters and I just snapped.
Other than that, well said.
stlounick wrote on October 10, 2007 8:20 AM:Hillary's internal polling must show serious trouble for her. There's really no other explanation for remaining on the Michigan ballot which is just pandering to Michigan and telling the DNC to go away. How do you feel about that, Dean supporters?
And what is up with the abrupt withdrawal of the $5000 baby bond idea was also a bit bizarre--it was just floated and then removed?
DonnaG this has to do with the General Election. I don't want the Dem candidate returning to MI and have to explain why they told Michiganians to drop dead.
Rank and file Dems just want their voices heard not taken away. Don't snub Michigan voters because leaders don't play by the rules.
It's not fake outrage. Don't assume.
Anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 9:26 AM:One more example, and then I'll just "shut up" as Bill o'leeb might say.
I'll grab a typical post from someone who doesn't care much for Hillary, NCSteve (who I actually think is quite reasonable and thoughtful - so, sorry NCSteve - to illistrate my point re the Hillary-charater-baiting language that sets us ruder supporters off.
Although I like and respect Barack Obama in every way as a candidate, I will insert the name of Obama into Steve's earlier post and modify it to a relevant Obama issue and without changing the character or intent of the post.
Here goes:
ORIGINAL POST
"I really kind of envy those of you who can assure us that Big Sis would never crassly defy the party's rules to obtain a political advantage, and then two hours later assure us that her defiance of those rules is a brilliant political strategy that will bring on her Inevitable Victory and then, still later the same day, insist that she isn't really violating the rules after all.
I guess some of us Clinton hating RNC mysogynist Outer Party types just unbellyfeel the principles of Clintsoc."
COLONPOWWOW CORRUPTION
"I really kind of envy those of you who can assure us that Big Bro would never crassly defy the principle of separation of church and state to obtain a political advantage, and then two hours later assure us that this defiance of that core constitutional principle is a brilliant political strategy that will bring on his Eventual Victory in South Carolina and then, still later the same day, insist that he isn't really violating this principal after all.
I guess some of us Obama hating RNC racist Inner Party types just unbellyfeel the principles of Obamasoc."
Matthew Saroff wrote on October 10, 2007 9:29 AM:
Your analysis is wrong. It's not a no lose scenario for Clinton, it's a no win one.
Dodd, the only remaining candidate on the ballot, will pull in over 20%, and probably over 30% of the vote, and the press will cover it in much the same way that they covered Eugene McCarthy's "victory" over Lyndon Johnson.
DonnaG wrote on October 10, 2007 9:34 AM:Chuck, unfortunately, you again bypass the issue of Granholm and the MI party leaders throwing a wrench into the workings of the primary calendar. They are the ones who took your Michiganians voices out of earshot. It is unfortunate for MI voters, but the issue is certainly not up to the candidates to 'explain'. It is up to the MI dem party to fix and make themselves and their voters again viable for the primary and for the general. In no way are the candidates telling you to 'drop dead'; they are saying 'rules matter'.
So, no, this is not yet about the general election. To say that is like saying that the primary election is not important [which I believe is the heart of the Clinton media image strategy for competing with grasss roots candidates] It is like saying, 'well, yes, we cheated, but let's all forget about that now.
If my state party leaders had tried to pull that bully power play, and I had lost my chance to vote in the primary, i would be furious with them, rather than trying to slip the blame and responsibility elsewhere.
Sorry about using the term 'fake outrage', which I agree is unfair. I will replace it with 'misplaced outrage'.
colonpowwow wrote on October 10, 2007 9:34 AM:Oops. Sorry for the anonymous posting. It was obviously me.
dcshungu wrote on October 10, 2007 9:41 AM:stlounick wrote on October 10, 2007 8:20 AM:Hillary's internal polling must show serious trouble for her. There's really no other explanation for remaining on the Michigan ballot which is just pandering to Michigan and telling the DNC to go away.
I already commented about this. If you think about it for a minute, you'll see that her move makes perfect sense if she thinks, with some justification, that she would win the nomination. Why should she withdraw from a meaningless primary (votes do not count and delegates are not awarded) and risk offending Michigan voters in February, whose support she would need in November to be elected the first ever woman POTUS? That is why she is the front-runner: She thinks like one and acts like one...That is, she is a leader and not a reflexive follower with a finger in the wind.
Chuck, above, also just responded:
Chuck wrote on October 10, 2007 8:28 AM:DonnaG this has to do with the General Election. I don't want the Dem candidate returning to MI and have to explain why they told Michiganians to drop dead.
Rank and file Dems just want their voices heard not taken away. Don't snub Michigan voters because leaders don't play by the rules.
It's not fake outrage. Don't assume.
There is an election to win, and if you start by alienating voters in a state the size of Michigan because their egotistical party leaders, you might as well kiss this thing good bye...
dcshungu wrote on October 10, 2007 9:56 AM:Your analysis is wrong. It's not a no lose scenario for Clinton, it's a no win one.Dodd, the only remaining candidate on the ballot, will pull in over 20%, and probably over 30% of the vote, and the press will cover it in much the same way that they covered Eugene McCarthy's "victory" over Lyndon Johnson.
No one has accused the MSM of being tormented by the "ravages of intelligence", so, therefore, you're right that they would cover the meaningless MI primary like McCarthy v. Johnson. However, you're wrong that HRC would be the loser. In my eyes, the press would be the loser (again), but in real terms, the Democratic party would be the big loser for seeming disorganized and disoriented when all the metrics are in their favor to make unprecedented gains at every level of local/state/Federal elective office.
Just leave it up to the Dems to f... things up every time, even when that seems impossible to do.
zk0sm0 wrote on October 10, 2007 10:26 AM:donnag has got it right, chuck.
i'm from michigan and it's the state party that has me pissed. if you want to push up the primary, the time to do it is BEFORE the primary campaigns are underway and strategies are in place and big money is being spent to implement those strategies.
by pushing the primary, not only has the state party taken away MY voice and YOUR voice in the primary, they deliberately handed michigan to clinton. throwing your support behind clinton and withdrawing it from the candidates who take their names off the ballot in protest against michigan deliberately short-circuiting their primary strategies, only plays into the state party's ignorant plot. clinton isn't keeping her name on the ballot to give you your voice, she's keeping it on the ballot because with nobody campaigning or spending money in michigan (including clinton), she leads the polling with nothing but her national name recognition. she's not gonna throw away the freebie that the state party has thrown her, but you'd be a fool to think it has anything to do with who really cares about michigan.
colonpowwow wrote on October 10, 2007 10:29 AM:It isn't about hatihng Hillary at all Colonpowwow you moron.
It's about opposing her support for war and killing young men and women for oil. Until her refusal to commit to getting our troops out of the war in Iraq and then her support for attacking Iran I would have voted for her.
As for you, you behave like a 10 year old. Your immaturity and lack of anything substantive to say is pathetic. You do your idol a disservice with your continued obnoxious, childish ranting. Grow up. Please.
colonpowwow wrote on October 10, 2007 10:56 AM:Unlike the poster who is so obsessed with me that they actually used my name to post their comment with, I apologize for saying you're a "moron," "behave like a 10-year-old" (ageist swine!), "immature" (at least I didn't say redundant), "insubstantive," "obnoxious,"
"childish" (see redundant above), and (one last time for the redundancy thing) "grow up."
Oh wait, I've never actually addressed anyone here personally in an insulting manner like that. If so, please show me my post so I can apologize.
And thanks for your help. My fondest wish is to someday be as insightful and mature as you think you are.
Look, I've tried being reasonable and responding to such tirades with reasoned, factual responses and got the same kind of insults back from the Hilary-haters like you just tendered.
So, what the heck, if you can't beat 'em (see Edwards, he can't beat anybody ) . . . Throwing your irrational hatred for the Democratic frontrunner back in your faces is so much more fun. It gets me tuned up for your bretheren on the extreme right in the general election.
PEACE
Julie wrote on October 12, 2007 11:35 AM:Check out this post form Hillary Clinton's blog comparing Michigan moving its primary date to a time when she tried to change the date of Chelsea's post-prom party.
http://www.newsgroper.com/hillary-clinton/2007/10/11/michigan-break-box/
