Four Dems Pull Out Of Michigan Primary

(CBS/AP)  Four Democratic candidates have withdrawn from Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary, leaving what amounts to a beauty contest to front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and a handful of lesser-knowns.

John Edwards and Bill Richardson filed paperwork Tuesday, the deadline to withdraw from the ballot, said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

A fourth candidate, Joe Biden, said in a statement that he was bypassing Michigan's primary, calling it a beauty contest.

Later in the day, the Clinton campaign issued a statement saying the New York senator will remain on the ballot.

"We're honoring the pledge and we won't campaign or spend money in states that aren't in compliance with the DNC calendar," said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson. "We don't think it's necessary to remove ourselves from the ballot."

"Today's decision reaffirms our pledge to respect the primary calendar as established by the DNC and makes it clear that we will not play into the politics of money and Republican machinations that only serve to interfere with the primary calendar," said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro.

Chris Dodd also said he would remain on the ballot. Hari Sevugan, Dodd's communications director, suggested in a statement that the potential of alienating voters in a state expected to be a 2008 battleground played a role in the campaign's decision.

"We are committed to the importance of 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," Sevugan said. "However, it does not benefit any of us if we are the nominee to pull our name off the ballot and slight Michigan voters."

All of the Democratic candidates already have agreed not to campaign in Michigan because it broke Democratic National Committee rules when it moved its primary ahead of Feb. 5.

Other Democratic candidates had until the end of the day to decide if they'll stay on the ballot.

Party rules say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.

The calendar was designed to preserve the traditional role that Iowa and New Hampshire have played in selecting the nominee, while adding two states with more racial and geographic diversity to influential early slots.

As punishment, the DNC has vowed to strip Michigan and Florida, which scheduled its contest on Jan. 29, of their delegates.

"We're very disappointed and this is another example of why the monopoly that Iowa and New Hampshire have needs to end," said Michigan Democratic Party spokesman Jason Moon.

He declined to speculate about whether the party may decide to move back its primary, or to hold a caucus instead.

Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis said the decision by the Democrats just opens Michigan to more campaigning by Republicans hoping to win the state and its electoral votes.

[Netterz]

Time to wake up and get some coffee America, the only place there are party lines, is within the public, its been gone for years in the offices, behind the closed doors. "We the people" doesnt matter anymore, because those in office, are the chosen few. The arent concerned that they gave billions in credit to illegals that are skipping back over the borders and leaving us in huge mortgage failure. Billions wasted on things like the brdge to nowhere, research projects that have no real value, while we loose our jobs and homes, they arent worried, they have moved there corporations overseas. Fasten your seatbelt America, its going to be a long bumpy ride.

[Netterz]

It just goes to show that they really dont want change, and ''the greater good''. They want to keep things compacted into the plans. In tis day and age, ALOT of the money wasted on elections could be eliminated. We have the technology to make radical changes to the entire gov''t processes. Many of there very covetted jobs are in danger. Alot of the things they are supposedly put in place for, could be done on national voting choices. Computers could easily replace them. I am sure there aware of it. Th entire prez elections culd be held nation wide, in 4 stages over the course of a yr, by holding a quarterly vote, open to everyone in the nation, eliminating the need for any of the *** they do now. Every quarter, eliminate based on votes of EVEYRONE. until you have the only 2 at the end. Simple. They want to keep outsourcing thereown corporations, and leaving Americans with out jobs, a simple software program for voting, would give every person in America the right to vote on ALL the issues, instead of having to elect a liar to speak for us all.

[mudrose-2009]

I do not believe tne DNC should have the right to decide which states can have primaries when, nor the right to deny residents of those states their role in helping to choose the candidate for their party. States HAVE rights, and the DNC has no business in trying to alter one of those rights to suit its own program choices. Doing so is a violation of pure democratic rights.
Posted by rsheuman

Yes, you are quite astute. We have got to encourage federalism at all levels. The people have got to take back their states from the federal government. And this is one example of how far this disease has spread. Power to the People.

[rsheuman]

I do not believe tne DNC should have the right to decide which states can have primaries when, nor the right to deny residents of those states their role in helping to choose the candidate for their party. States HAVE rights, and the DNC has no business in trying to alter one of those rights to suit its own program choices. Doing so is a violation of pure democratic rights.

[mudrose-2009]

WAVE NICELY NOW AND SMILE. BYE! BYE-BYE!

[dante805]

If only their fathers had done the same thing 50 years ago, this country would be a lot better off.

[navyretired2]

This goes to show what is nice about NOT being affiliated with either party, since they''re both equally as corrupt and inept as each other.

I''ll be voting for whichever candidate has PROVEN he/she supports the issues and values that I hold important. I know I won''t get a 100% match, nobody will, no one candidate can 100% match up with a majority of the American public''s values, politics is just too messy.

The candidate that has proven to match up with most of what I''m looking for is Ron Paul. The main issue(s) I agree with him on are the Constitution (restoring it as the driving force behind America''s ideals) and smaller government (I''ve seen the massive waste first hand that big government is, on both the resource and personnel sides, it''s sickening).

[down-ndirty]

A little history lesson: LOL!!! Question #3. Who said it?

3) "(We)...can''''t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
Posted by One_unAmerican at 02:57 PM : Oct 09, 2007
________________________________

LOL!!! More Spin.

Here''s what she really said while addressing the difficulty of reaching a political consensus on issues such as health insurance and climate change, and the need to compromise for the common good:

"I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact.

So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground.

The same with energy -- you know, we can''t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God''s creation, and just let business as usual go on."
Sen. Hillary Clinton, CNN''s The Situation Room, June 4, 2007

LOL!!! You''re not One_American; you are one_UN_American, and a fraud.

[down-ndirty]

A little history lesson: Question #2. Who said it?

2) "It''''s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

Posted by One_American at 02:57 PM : Oct 09, 2007
___________________________

LOL!!! I see you spend more time listenting to what HANNITY thinks than trying to form your own opinion. Hannity would like nothing more than for Clinton to be a SOCIALIST and he will do ANYTHING to make her look like one.

Here''s the part of Clinton''s speach you and HANNITY left out: "It''s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an on-you-own society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we''re all in it together" society."

"Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well." Sen. Hillary Clinton, May 29, 2007

LOL!!! You''re not One_American; you are one_UN_American.

Just another spin artist who thinks lies are more important than truth. After six years of BUSH you should KNOW that the truth WILL come out.

OBTW: I''m NOT voting for Clinton; but I''m also NOT voting for anyone favored by HANNITY.

[down-ndirty]

A little history lesson: If you don''''t know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

1) "We''''re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Posted by One_American at 02:57 PM : Oct 09, 2007
___________________________

LOL!!! You make Clinton sound evil; however, your economic illiteracy is shining through. Why didn''t you state the entire quote?

Answer: Because you''re a neo-con "spinner."

What republican said, "Bush continued to direct his administration toward fulfilling the promises he had made during the 2000 campaign: cutting taxes... These goals had not been unrealistic in the light of large...surpluses. But the surpluses were gone six to nine months after Bush took office. And in the revised world of growing deficits, the goals were no longer appropriate. [Bush] continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless."

LOL!!! Even his daddy had the sense to listen to his economic advisors. "W" continued his campaign promises because HE KNEW it would get him re-elected. So, in effect, he sacrificed "our country" for his own self-interests.