October 9th, 2007
07:15 PM ET
7 years ago

Some Dems snub Michigan

Watch Bill Schneider's report on why several Democrats removed their names from the ballot in Michigan's presidential primary.

(CNN) - Is it just an effort to honor the Democratic National Committee's rules or a veiled effort to undermine Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York? Or, maybe a little bit of both? CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider reports.

Related: Democrats withdraw from Michigan 'beauty contest'

Click here to CNN's new political portal: CNNPolitics.com

soundoff (11 Responses)
  1. Daniel, NY

    This is a huge blow to Hillary Clinton whose firewall strategy has basically been destroyed. Full analysis here

    October 9, 2007 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm |
  2. Robert, Shelton CT

    This may work out for Clinton and Dodd who decided to stay on in the primaries here....contest will be moved and both will finish well.

    October 10, 2007 12:18 am at 12:18 am |
  3. Melinda, Cleveland, Ohio

    WOW. I'm really disappointed/confused/upset. I've been following this entire matter closely. Earlier today (before I knew that Clinton and Dodd were definitely not going to withdraw their names) I wrote:

    "I have complete confidence that Hillary (and Dodd, for that matter) will withdraw from the Michigan contest. If she didn't, I would never consider voting for her in my own state (Ohio) and I would discourage others from doing so too. But I think she will and so now I still have a tough decision to make.
    Posted By Melinda, Cleveland, Ohio : October 9, 2007 2:53 pm"

    And then:
    "John, it's not about party loyalty, it's about ethics. They all agreed not to campaign there and they shouldn't.

    The entire DNC needs to rethink the way they hold primaries to give every state a voice in this process, but having states just keep moving their primaries forward is not the way to go about it.
    Posted By Melinda, Cleveland, Ohio : October 9, 2007 3:17 pm"

    Like I said, I've been following this issue and have thought about it a lot. I'm really disappointed that Hillary decided to stay on the ballot.

    October 10, 2007 12:43 am at 12:43 am |
  4. Leila, Long Beach, CA

    CNN, here's another angle to ponder:

    Since Hillary was leading in Florida and Michigan in the polls, is it coincidental that it is these two states that were pushing to bypass New Hampshire and Iowa, upsetting the early dem states processes?

    Hmmmm....

    October 10, 2007 02:02 am at 2:02 am |
  5. laurinda,ny

    That was a very stupid thing to do. The auto workers always support them. But, they sure can attend that Harkins Steak Fry.

    October 10, 2007 08:34 am at 8:34 am |
  6. Robert, Cleveland, OH

    Since Hillary was leading in Florida and Michigan in the polls, is it coincidental that it is these two states that were pushing to bypass New Hampshire and Iowa, upsetting the early dem states processes?Hmmmm….
    Posted By Leila, Long Beach, CA

    Leila – the answer is no. Clinton is far ahead in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada and now is ahead in Iowa, so she woudn't benefit from the move. as Iowa, which is her weakest state so far, would be first anyway. In opposite, if Michigan and Florida stayed on February 05, she'd most likely be done with nomination by winning 3 or even 4 out of earlier states and, if not, would be able to overcome her loss on Super Tuesday.

    October 10, 2007 09:10 am at 9:10 am |
  7. Rodney Dallas TX

    Melinda in Cleveland:

    Why should the voters of both Michigan and Florida be denied the chance to vote just because they have crooked politicians in their state? I think it actually make Hillary look better to the public because she's giving the people a chance and not letitng politics run away with the election.

    You should RETHINK about not voting for Hillary. She's for the people as she has proven that by staying on the ballot.

    October 10, 2007 09:44 am at 9:44 am |
  8. A. Thomas, New York, NY

    The 5 dems pulled out of michigan, and maybe later in florida, because partly they are losing there in polls (i.e, voters don't like them), while hillary is leading in both states by a big margin and therefore not advisable to pull out As a presidential candidate in the next general election, there is no reason to upset the large number of voters in these two states, as she already agreed not to campaign in these two states.

    October 10, 2007 10:38 am at 10:38 am |
  9. Henry Tucker, Ga

    Everything is being done to insure Hillary is the nominee. Take a step back and look at the facts:

    – Key states moving up their primary voting date (helps Hillary who is leading)

    – Soft campaigns (Dem Candidates aren't genuinely going after Hillary – specifically Obama)

    – Campaign Scandals lightly brushed aside (heard any news about Norman Hsu or the "return" of the $850,000??)

    – Media Biase (calling her the "front runner" without any votes actually cast, putting up significantly more news stories about Hillary (her shoes untied), etc)

    This squabble over primary dates is more of a diversion than real issue. Hillary gladly "buys" time while the media delves into this non-story. Better to talk about Florida/Michigan primaries than Hillary's vote to support the President against Iran, or her ongoing campaign scandal issues, or her inability to control her temper, or ???

    October 10, 2007 01:13 pm at 1:13 pm |
  10. VanReuter NY NY

    What are you Hillary-bashers talking about?? She is working hard to win this nomination. She is the one battling planted questions. She is the one standing against republicans. She is the one leading the fundraising. She is the one suggesting bold new measures to protect the unisured, education opportunities, and remain strong on defense.

    Everyone else is either a republican or Hillary-basher. Hate isn't a plan for victory, Obama supporters.

    Van

    October 10, 2007 05:08 pm at 5:08 pm |
  11. Dave, Cheverly, MD

    Tucker, GA, Could you be absolutely right? But then I believe everyone on the sight and whom blog here may wonder the same. Thanks to the Internet we have all become much better at seeing what’s really happening in the world. We cannot only watch News being feed to us on a TV screen. But now we can get it over the Internet and discuss it with one another. We can now say “Hey are you seeing what I am seeing? Are you thinking what I am thinking?” The Politicians have not gotten it yet and for us it’s like watching a BAD movie that we all know there are likely only a few endings after about 30 minutes into watching it. The question is.. Has it always been just that simple? All this is pre- determined and we all just keep running to the polls like Twilight Zone Idiots casting ballots for nothing? Makes you go hhhmmm..Logically the NEWS should be focusing on the Most Qualified and best speaking, truth telling, knowledgeable, elect able Candidates. RIGHT? So are they? Just look at this site and ask. ARE they?

    October 10, 2007 11:38 pm at 11:38 pm |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.