Hillary pledged to not campaign or PARTICIPATE in Michigan and Florida (not just not to campaign)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This morning, on NPR, Senator Clinton admitted to breaking her pledge to the DNC. She stated:

"... we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall."

This is a direct and unequivocable violation of her pledge to the DNC and Democratic voters. She signed a pledge not to campaign OR PARTICIPATE. Here's the relevant section of the pledge (pdf):

THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

By her own admission, she has broken her pledge.

As she stated, she had a choice to make - and she chose to break her word.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/1...3289/192/475758

[one...two...tree 2,762]

She's not scoring any points on this one.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh Troll just quit lying!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Regardless of what she did or didn't do this was a monumental ** up by the DNC

Did they really want to disenfranchise MI and FL?

Michigan is not necessarily a reliably Dem state and FL certainly isn't

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Oh Troll just quit lying!

:lol:

[HAL 9000 96]

Its a question of rules... Nevertheless, a reconciliatory tone is being sought after to include the voters of the states. Too bad the politicians can't be separated from the process!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm not sure I understand the problem with holding them early and why they hadto be punished in the first place

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Regardless of what she did or didn't do this was a monumental ** up by the DNC

Did they really want to disenfranchise MI and FL?

Michigan is not necessarily a reliably Dem state and FL certainly isn't

Do you think the DNC should let each state make up their own party rules or should they adhere to the rules of the DNC? I'm not sure why these states insisted on defying national party rules, let alone not understand the consequence of disregarding those rules.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm not sure I understand the problem with holding them early and why they hadto be punished in the first place

I think it had to do more with the states first agreeing to follow a set of rules they themselves agreed to uphold. Then they tried a Kansas City Two Step.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Regardless of what she did or didn't do this was a monumental ** up by the DNC

Did they really want to disenfranchise MI and FL?

Michigan is not necessarily a reliably Dem state and FL certainly isn't

Do you think the DNC should let each state make up their own party rules or should they adhere to the rules of the DNC? I'm not sure why these states insisted on defying national party rules, let alone not understand the consequence of disregarding those rules.

Well, true but - I think the Republicans were wise to not discount each state entirely but instead halve their delegate count.

[simple_male 1]

I'm not sure I understand the problem with holding them early and why they hadto be punished in the first place

FL and MI Democratic Party broke the Party rules because they held early primaries. That is what I heard Howard Dean saying.

[HAL 9000 96]

Regardless of what she did or didn't do this was a monumental ** up by the DNC

Did they really want to disenfranchise MI and FL?

Michigan is not necessarily a reliably Dem state and FL certainly isn't

Do you think the DNC should let each state make up their own party rules or should they adhere to the rules of the DNC? I'm not sure why these states insisted on defying national party rules, let alone not understand the consequence of disregarding those rules.

Well, true but - I think the Republicans were wise to not discount each state entirely but instead halve their delegate count.

The Republican state committees did not break their national committee rules. Its all very odd indeed. The shenanigans come out here when Hillary has decided that rules are not a necessity so long as it benefits her campaign. This is very bad karma.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

The Republican state committees did not break their national committee rules. Its all very odd indeed. The shenanigans come out here when Hillary has decided that rules are not a necessity so long as it benefits her campaign. This is very bad karma.

umm, yes they did. Which is why the RNC halved the delegates for MI.

Kind of makes more sense - since no one would doubt Mitt romney's win, but it just counted a little less

[HAL 9000 96]

The Republican state committees did not break their national committee rules. Its all very odd indeed. The shenanigans come out here when Hillary has decided that rules are not a necessity so long as it benefits her campaign. This is very bad karma.

umm, yes they did. Which is why the RNC halved the delegates for MI.

Kind of makes more sense - since no one would doubt Mitt romney's win, but it just counted a little less

Cool. I stand corrected if this is the case. Goes to show you that no party is ever correct all the time with its ways.

[Dan J 277]

Regardless of what she did or didn't do this was a monumental ** up by the DNC

Did they really want to disenfranchise MI and FL?

Michigan is not necessarily a reliably Dem state and FL certainly isn't

Do you think the DNC should let each state make up their own party rules or should they adhere to the rules of the DNC? I'm not sure why these states insisted on defying national party rules, let alone not understand the consequence of disregarding those rules.

Well, true but - I think the Republicans were wise to not discount each state entirely but instead halve their delegate count.

The Republican state committees did not break their national committee rules. Its all very odd indeed. The shenanigans come out here when Hillary has decided that rules are not a necessity so long as it benefits her campaign. This is very bad karma.

Yeah they did, but it didnt really matter, the race wasn't as close.

I guess the question is, did the states disenfranchise thier own voters from changing the primary with full knowledge of the results. Or did the national party impose an unusually harsh punishment on the states for disregaurding the rules.

To me its hard to see how there is any resolution to this issue that is fair. Counting the current resualts would not be fair to those who stayed home and didnt vote because they knew it wouldnt count. Doing a revote would not be fair in an open or closed primary. Not counting the votes is not really fair to the voters.

But i think the states, not the national party is reponsible is this situation.

Its like getting pulled over for speeding, with full knowledge of doing it, but blaming the goverment for having a law that doesn't let you drive as fast as you want.