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.

You know...Politicians have their own views of things. I'm voting for Obama, but I don't think you should label Hilary like that either. It's not fair to all parties, you know. Even if she is like you say, she does make good points at times, so please be careful about what you state. Some people here support Clinton, despite how many vote for Obama and everyone else, so just...you know...don't do that...because it isn't very nice.

Originally Posted by silent.assassin

You know...Politicians have their own views of things. I'm voting for Obama, but I don't think you should label Hilary like that either. It's not fair to all parties, you know. Even if she is like you say, she does make good points at times, so please be careful about what you state. Some people here support Clinton, despite how many vote for Obama and everyone else, so just...you know...don't do that...because it isn't very nice.

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

You know. The world is so corrupted, I don't know how to answer your question anymore. D:

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.

Yep. I lose lots of marbles. Well, I just don't like political discussions in general... I dont know if I'm flaming here myself you see. haha. Anyways, I just don't like how any of them are labeled at all. Like "uncommited". My point was, if they are labeled like that, then what is Hilary labeled? Are they not worthy,...is that what she implies?

I see no sense in the first place, which is why I got curious and posted. Human nature, hard to break. :/

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.

mhm, I see...But that makes it worse, don't you think?

They labeled once again, and the label wasn't very nice either. Sometimes, people aren't very nice out there in the world. We need more Easter Bunnies and Santas. ;___;

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

I didn't create the ballot either, so I wouldn't know. But you made really nice points there!~ Thanks for mentioning.

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*.

haha, already done. Thanks to you of course ^ ^

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:

Originally Posted by â—• w â—•

@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:

Well of course, I mean...haha...funny label to give. I don't think they were THAT big of a failures, because otherwise they wouldn't have even been in the ballot in the first place... ^ ^

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.