"Hillary vs. Uncommitted"
 

The Democratic National Committee has refused to let Michigan send any delegates to their national convention because the Michigan Democratic party is holding their primary today instead of on February 5. So Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden have taken their names off of the ballot, leaving Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and "Uncommitted".

Is this fair? The DNC said the reason they did this is because they didn't want to take away from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina as the "early primaries". But shouldn't the states be able to have their primaries whenever they want? What about all the Democrats and Independents in Michigan who support Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden? They just have to vote "uncommitted" instead of who they really want to vote for.

I think that is messed up. That is not giving the people a true voice in who they want to represent them. Another thing there caucuses they are supposed to be use to find out who the people want to run for their party.

Just a question, but who is labeling Clinton in topic?

You've lost me. All I see in this post is someone stating something that has happened and asking what people think. I don't see anyone saying anything bad about Clinton here.

I think the uncommited was used on the ballots to just show that you wanted one of the candidates that remove themselves from the ballot. That's all. There is no insult meant behind it.

Perhaps. I don't know the reasoning behind those who made the ballot so I couldn't say.

Yea for making good points. *Laughs*. Your welcome. Hopefully we both walk away with a bit more knowledge and more ideas on things. *Smiles wide*.

I apologize if it seemed I was implying something about Hillary Clinton, that was not my intention. I chose that topic title because that's what most of the news articles I read had as their topic titles. The point was not to say something about Hillary, but to emphasize the absence of Barack Obama and John Edwards, and to ask why should they be absent.

@kida: Haha, I find this sort of amusing. @ @;; Uncommited... Dx They must have taken their names off the ballot for a good reason, though. P:

I think having each state vote after one another is a flawed system. It worked when it took weeks to find out what the other state voted. But now the early states influence the other states too much. I think it would be better to have a random lottery determine the order of voting, and have states go in groups of five or such. Even better would be if candidates could campaign in all the states at once, and all states have their primaries at the same time. But today's technology is not that advanced, though it should be soon.