The more I think about our "PRIMARY" the angrier I get.

We have been denied the chance to vote for our candidates by
our legislature.

No voter in Michigan that I have talked to wanted to go "first"
so badly that they were willing to give up their voting rights
and/or delegates to the convention to do so.

All of the candidates with the exception of Gravel signed a PLEDGE
that they would honor the rules of the Democratic Party and NOT
campaign or participate in the primaries of states that violated
the deadlines set by the party. The party DID compromise over
the old Iowa/New Hampshire first sticking point by allowing two
other states to participate early on a rotating basis.

Kucinich was not allowed to take his name off the ballot by Teri Lynn Land.
He TRIED to uphold his pledge.

Clinton and Dodd just outright violated theirs.

Please read this:

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1253

I will vote "uncommitted" and let the chips fall where they may,
but I am GROSSLY unhappy with the influence that the DLC has had
in the running of our state.

Good luck with finding volunteers for the Presidential Election
if this trend continues!

Even voting "uncommitted" pisses me off. I would be voting to ensure that someone else's vote counts, although I'd have no idea how that person would vote ultimately. So my vote still wouldn't count. My direct vote should count, dammit. It's like being a woman in 1896 and hoping that you can influence your dear husband to vote as you wish, you beg him to consider voting a certain way, but in the end, he's going to vote as he damn well pleases.

My 8-year-old son said, "Mom, can't they have maybe groups of states go first and take turns? It isn't fair for 2 states to go first every time." So simple, even a third grader sees the steaming pile, with no prompting from me.

If they don't want my vote enough to actually count it, then they aren't going to get it. I've been a loyal voter, donor and campaign worker in the GE for decades, and this is what I get for it.

The irony is how I'm getting phone calls every evening from polling groups who want to know how I would have voted. At least THEY care! Too bad my vote counts no more with these polling groups than it would on Michigan's Big Day.

It's stunning to think that I'm sitting here in 2007, feeling jealous of people whose vote counts! Maybe I should march for suffrage, that might be constructive, eh?

Disgusted here in the Ann Arbor area. Sorry. I'll keep reading the posts here, maybe I'll reconsider, but it's not too likely at this point.

I told his aide what I thought of this little
game of "chicken" he and the Congressional
delegation were playing with OUR primary, but
maybe we all need to write to him and the
Governor ourselves.

Not content with narrowing our choices in the
primary, the party sent a "shill" into our dem
club last night, who insisted that we "tone down"
the language that suggests that those who want
to vote for the candidates not appearing on the
ballot are "urged" to vote uncommitted.

They feel this language is "too strong"!

Please vote "uncommitted".

It is our only way of making a statement against
the rigging of what's left of our primary.

See Sharon's posts on how to apply for delegate status.

(IF they seat delegates, other nominees might have a chance.)

Believe me, I'm not happy about it, but I feel it's the best I can do at this point. I'm angry and disgusted. That language came directly from the MDP, and I see no need to tone it down at this point. I wonder if Mark got that message from Carl or Debbie or Jennifer. I've been telling everyone to vote uncommitted and I'm going to continue to do so.

This is a travesty. The strategy didn't work and they should have backed off.

And I will repeat what I said in another thread: The REAL solution IS a national primary. Instead of that game of chicken they played, let's start a campaign for this. This is the only solution as I see it.

"I will vote "uncommitted" and let the chips fall where they may,
but I am GROSSLY unhappy with the influence that the DLC has had
in the running of our state."

RIGHT-ON PF. I could not have said it better myself! :)

And you know, I don't see how breaking rules gives Michigan any more influence than just doing what 45 other states are doing and selecting their delegates via primaries/caucuses February 5 or later.

Shame on them, I say.

Oh well, it's good to have other people who share my frustrations.

sorry for the link.....

Interesting tidbit about Brewer trying to fight the
whole thing initially in the legislature (which I
had heard rumors of). It made me feel a little sorry
for him, having to foist if off on all of us....

Gov. and Congressional delegation were pushing for
it all along, as suspected. :puke:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22154

to this harebrained scheme. Unfortunately, I can't bring myself to feel sorry for him about anything. I do, however, feel sorry for the rest of us who have to live with this.

I might have voted for Kucinich till he threw his support to Obama in Iowa. Write in doesn't count, who says uncommitted votes won't go for Hillary.

So I can't vote for Edwards. Maybe I'll temporarily cross over to the dark side so I can vote against Huckabilly.

This early-primary seems a win-win for the right-wing benefactors.

1. Angers voters so they might not vote in November. (And, not illegal unlike caging.)

2. Reduces the ads and coverage so the candidate will be LESS well known.

3. Reduces our expectations for democratic systems, and reduces our desire to stand for democratic action.

4. If Kucinich were to win it could be dismissed on several levels: only one, no others to easily choose, no ads, low turnout (likely).

It's easy to buy a bunch of Republicans.
It's easy to buy a few Democrats.

..and we just don't get mad anymore.

For sure.

"uncommitteds" MIGHT.

I'm angry. I protested this at Executive Committee level.

Didn't do any good.

I will not donate to Levin because of this.

but I'll say it anyway. It isn't any of those people who prevented you from voting for "your candidate." It was your candidate himself who did that. And don't give me any crap about "the pledge" seeing how the DU God Kucinich is not only still on the ballot, but actively campaigning here. Until you slam him in the same terms you use to slam Clinton, I'm going to call hypocrisy all over your a**

**edit: My rant would be more effective if "hypocrisy" was spelled correctly, wouldn't it?**

happened, are in agreement.

Except you.

Although there MAY be a few others....

Kucinich TRIED to remove himself from the ballot.

Yeah, well, there's a *reason* this forum isn't in my favorites list. The fact remains, the reason supporters of Edwards, Obama, Biden and Richardson "can't" vote for their candidate is because those candidates jerked their names off the ballot in order to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire voters. They cared nothing for their Michigan supporters. Why should I care about them?



And yet, now he's actively campaigning in Michigan. Where is all the vitriol about how he's "breaking his pledge" and "broke his word" etc...?

Please forgive me for kind of stealing a great lyric out of the 60’s. My motive here is to say I think we are all broken-hearted about this primary thing in an election year as important as there ever has been in American history. I am proud of my home. I lived in 3 other states, yet came back. I even said nice things about, you know, that school in A2. :)

Look, the MDP meant well, but the leadership seems to be falling short; as they seem to be on other issues I will not go into, because you all know my views on that topic. The point here is that the ends do not justify the means. Yes, I want my beloved place of birth to be a bigger player in this process, but I think this whole NASCAR-style race to primary supremacy is pretty damn stupid.

Again, a national primary is the way to go. It negates the FAUX snoozed coverage that that an overly consolidated media force feeds us daily. It forces the combatants to compete in every state from day one. And yes, if you can’t find an ear in Iowa, I am sure some voters in the Midwest might send you some money….Mr. Dodd, are you listening?

OK, so the national thing doesn’t float your boat. I heard Ed Schultz interview Sam Donaldson today. Ole’ Sammy talked about this idea of floating 4 regional primaries. I am down with that too. No one feels slighted.

OK Doggie, time for bed.

No matter how anyone spins and 'explains' the contortions, it's pretty clear to me that the individual VOTER is disrespected in this process. When the "where and when" of voting is gamed and manipulated to this extent, it's clear (to me, at least) that the "expression of the poeple's will" has taken a back seat to Organization and Machine politics. That's sad.

is that it's effectively a vote for Edwards right? Is that a safe assumption?

I'm with you. I think this whole thing stinks. The party has more or less told me what I have always suspected: that my vote means squat. I really would like to say to the party "message received" and abstain. But if uncommitted really has a chance, and voting uncommitted really means voting for Edwards, I might be persuaded to participate.

What a backslide this 2008 primary season in Michigan is when compared alongside the Dean campaign leading up to the 2004 primary. At least that is my impression based on my own experience. The Dean campaign may have failed in mobilizing all that civic energy at those meetups into a way to really turn out voters, it may have been a bit disorganized, and the candidate may not have been as perfect as many supporters thought him to be, but it sure was nice to go to those meetups and be part of a campaign that actually encouraged its supporters to find their own voices and made the pretense, at least, of listening.

I haven't been following this too closely so I don't know the details. What would be the advantage of voting uncommitted instead of just not going in the first place?

I'm pretty upset with the way everything turned out like everyone else.

1. It's a protest vote against the clown leadership of our state party.

2. Like me, you live on Planet Pollyanna and hope Al jumps in and ends this nonsense.

3. You favored one of the folks like Edwards who are not running here. And frankly, John gave the best speech I saw tonight.

4. You don't give a fat rat's ass, as long as it's a Democrat.

5. All of the above.

The way I see it, it is a safety valve in a Dem primary season that ain't over yet, IMHO. (One exception: Hillary IS electoral TOAST! Sorry Billy, you were great, but your S/O has been sent down to AA in Podunk.)

He's gone now, although will obviously still be on our ballot. I'm assuming Kucinich will be gone by next week, too. That pretty much leaves Hillary and Uncommitted as viable options on the ballot. Need I say more?

Hillary or uncommitted. OK, yes I guess I'd better slog out into the snow.

Gotta go to work anyway, so I'll vote before work or on my way home. (Uncommitted, that is.)

IF and that's a BIG if, they are seated at the convention...

How will they be apportioned between Obama, Richardson and Edwards?

Any idea?

People will be able to vote for whoever they want to vote for at the convention -- they literally will be "uncommitted." Of course, I don't know what kind of back room stuff could go on and a lot can happen between now and August.

When you apply to be a delegate, don't they ask
who you support?

At least that's my understanding. Uncommitted seems to have a status all its own.

The app will include the names of each candidate, plus Uncommitted.

IIRC, after each of the unsuccessful candidates in recent recent elections has dropped out, most of them would 'release' their delegates from being committed to vote for them at the Convention. Then, those uncommitted delegates - as well as the unpledged delegates - would vote for the presumptive nominee.

Let's say Hillary and Obama each have 38% of the delegates going into the convention and Edwards has 24%. At that point, the uncommitted delegates can vote for whoever they want on the first ballot. As delegates get released on subsequent ballots after a deal of some sort has been reached, then they would vote for whoever they get released to.

The Oakland County Dems chair, Dave Woodward, thinks it's more likely our delegates will get seated if there is a presumptive nominee going into the convention than there is under the above scenario or something similar. That's just his opinion, but it makes sense. I, personally, am beginning to think that a similar scenario to the above is very possible and that our delegates will not be seated. But, that's just my opinion at this point.

I think we'll know a lot more after we see how things shake out on Super Duper Tuesday February 5.

I envy the rest of the country more and more. Why can't we in Michigan have more influence? We were told that with this primary, we'd have more infliuence on who our party would nominate for President. But no, I don't see any influence.

I believe it was Don Riegle who compared this primary situation to the old Soviet-style elections.

Shame on Debbie Dingell et. al. The MDP needs to elect new leadership at next year's conevntion.

You also have Debbie Dingell and Joel Ferguson on the DNC. DNC members are elected by State Central, whose members we will elect in Congressional District Conventions just before odd-year State Conventions (I'm guessing you know that already, Sharon, but for anyone else who doesn't know...)

I'm considering running for State Central Committeeman from the 3rd.

Thanks for the info. I've only been active in state politics since 2006, since working on Nancy's first congressional campaign, so I'm still learning all the time.

I am undecided what role I will play at that time. What happens in the coming months will determine that.

Julie

for female delegates in the TC area.

Is she trying to stack the deck?

Did you know about this?

She "skeeves me out", but I have to deal with her....

Everyone I know is supporting Obama. And I truly pity the fool who thinks they, as a Hillary supporter, will be able to sneak into one of the two delegate slots for uncommitted in the 4th district. Frankly they'd be lucky to get out alive.

We'll soon see if there is anyone that incredibly foolish in my district.

Julie

I'm just sayin....

She's CONSTANTLY on her laptop with Lansing.

There are going to be so many candidates for these two slots! There are a couple of big Obama supporters who are actually campaigning for the slots and they've got illustrious histories of building/supporting Obama campaign efforts to back up their claims of support. Many out-of-the-blue candidates will probably throw in with them pretty quickly since many seem to be running just to make sure Obama supporters get the slots.

I suspect in the Hillary caucus room there won't be much of a problem keeping things running in an orderly fashion. :-)

Julie

that Traverse City is safe!

It's all good in my corner of the world. :toast:

Julie

But hey, let's both run!

I'll have to wait to see what happens between now and then. I'm probably going to be pulling back a little for at least a while now, other than most likely getting involved in Obama's campaign (assuming he's the nominee, of course). My mom is in home hospice and my time is fairly limited between work and going to my parents' house everyday after to work to help give her dinner. I feel like I don't have much of a life right now. I'll just have to see how things play out over the coming months.

Until then, we all have lives to live and Democrats to support!

Faith that things will get better.

You're a good daughter to be looking after your mom as you are. Peace, hugs and encoruagement. :hug:

Julie

I appreciate your good thoughts.

With a handle like "I hate the GOP," how could you go wrong?

You see, that is my gripe with the leadership in a nutshell. Whether it be the botched primary, or not staying neutral in primary races, this whole thing comes down to who we are as Democrats. The way to win is not being like the GOP.

Run pal run, as you have the juice. You have your heart and mind in the right place.

My mantra is, if you don't like the status quo, who are you not to fight for change?

A lot of us have gripes about the Dem leadership, yet many of us won't do what needs to be done to fix things.

Change requires getting one's hands dirty just a bit, and having to be called names and feel as if he/she is some sort of an outcast mutant from the planet Insane. That's OK, because courage comes from the heart, based on my own personal experience.

You may not win on day one, but your good karma will come round: it always does. And the ones with bad karma? Well, maybe they are already feeling the heat....

We need some major overhauling in the party leadership in this state. As you said, between the presidential primary fiasco and their meddling in other races too early, big changes are needed.

I was never a big Michael Jackson fan, but I always liked this line from "Man in the Mirror."

"If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, then make the change. Ya gotta get it right, while you got the time..."

I suspect the state party leadership never neard this particular song.

Make sure you are very involved and active between now and then. With this being such a big election year there are many opportunities to build a high profile in your local/Congressional Dem party. It is much easier to get elected to a leadership spot if the people who vote in these things know and respect you. Make stuff happen this year and they will believe you will continue to make stuff happen when you ask for their support next year. Then of course, you go on to keep making stuff happen.

I wish it were as easy as the above paragraph makes it seem. :-)

Julie

Michigan Democratic leadership should resign in disgrace. This fiasco was not necessary. Bunch of jerks.