If Obama supporters run "Vote Uncommitted" TV ads in MI does it break the pledge of no campaigning?

Candidates are not allowed to campaign in MI or FL because those states violated DNC rules (the candidates have agreed to this).

Earlier this year, after one candidate did so, 3 candidates followed, removing their names from the MI ballot (they could not legally do so in FL without withdrawing from the race). This was described both as a show of "solidarity" with Iowa & New Hampshire & honoring a pledge devised by Dodd. Dodd felt name removal was unnecessary.

Only Hillary, Dodd & Kucinich remain on the ballot.

John Conyers & his wife who are big Obama supporters are planning a TV ad campaign to urge MI voters to vote "uncommitted".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4015390&mesg_id=4015390

Now why would big Obama supporters urge MI voters to vote uncommitted?

Simple a Hillary victory is fairly meaningless in this state with no competition on the ballot and no delegates. However if enough people voted uncommitted (all it has to do is register at 10%) that could create a story of its own.

But to do that you have to tell people about it, you have to campaign for that result to take hold.

So it would seem two Obama supporters (fine Democrats both) are breaking the pledge at least in spirit.

;)

which is surprising because I actually like Conyers. As for the delegates, there's already talk that they might be given back at Convention Time by the DNC.

No way they can punish candidates that that agreed not to campaign in a state that the DNC was sanctioning.

They don't count at the moment, of course, but it's been suggested that the DNC might cave.

So far, the DNC is saying publicly that it won't seat Michigan's delegates at the convention. Bowers says there's no way the DNC won't cave on that one. If he's right about that, Clinton will enjoy a fairly massive delegate advantage by the time Florida votes on Jan. 29, and she still enjoys a huge lead in the polls there.

Source: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/07/clinton/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

...He's encouraging people to do it not to support Obama, but to show displeasure that Michigan's primary has been rendered worthless.

But, yes, in the end it shows support for Obama. Conyers knows how to play the game.

And that is the crux of the argument, not how Conyers (who indeed is a skilled politicians and great Democrat) is presenting it.

Rather than just wondering if he can get away with it? If so, bless you for still thinking about the ethical side of politics. That must be really depressing! lol

However, I do think this does go against the spirit of the pledge in terms of what the known effect will be.

I haven't seen this ad yet... but how does it equate to an ad for Obama?

The state party sure hasn't done anything to let voters know about this crap. Voters will go in there, not see their candidate on the ballot, and write in the name. But write-ins don't count!

The only alternative we have -- if our candidate isn't on the ballot -- is to vote uncommitted.

The ad that Conyers is doing sounds like a public service type of ad... to inform the voters about the mess and to let them know how to make their vote count. I doubt that Conyers is stupid enough to make it an ad for Obama.

...But he knows that a large amount of "uncommited" votes also looks very bad for Hillary.

It's a clever way to campaign for the candidate he supports without technically doing so.

Who is the only real progressive in the race.

Keeping in mind how the DNC claimed that it "made the rules" regarding how the races are to be conducted, would it be fair if, at the last minute, they decided to award the MI delegates to the winner in a race with less than half of the eligible candidates? Especially considering such election would be excluding 2 of the top three finishers of the last 2 contests.

I for one have very little faith.

Even if the DNC and both states come to some agreement.

Its not fair to seat delegates when only 3 candidates (only 2 of whom are actually running) are on the ballot.

Is this incorrect? If not, then yes, that is total BS.

The whispers and rumors say the delegates may ultimately be seated at the convention though that situation is likely only if there is a clear nominee and those delegates are meaningless.

Who knows?

DUer madfloridian has done some great work on the FL situation if you wish to know more

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian

I support Obama, but I agree 100%. It doesn't matter who wins in that election the delegates cannot count now. Period.

Personally, I hate the fact that the DNC has done this - it is just stupid, stupid, stupid! These states are going to "reward" us in the General Election for this and are likely to remember it for some time to come. I can't say that I really blame them at all.

Now, why is Hillary?

I don't put anything past HRC, not even trying to seat delegates that aren't hers.

get on the ballot.