... and that means "take my name of the ballot."

How can sticklers for the rules take that position?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

of late. my blood *boils* at all this talk of "revoting." seriously, you have no fucking idea how mad this makes me. and that people who don't fucking live here are going to decide, again, how to give me a fucked up excuse for a "democratic" process in order to "help" me choose my candidate.

anyway, i'll go now and not say anymore. except how fucking angry all this makes me.

I somehow made my peace with the fact that this year I would not have a candidate I care about and that netroots would actually be the insturment for us to get fooled again

That damn pledge again! Being talked about by people who haven't bothered to read it!

The pledge says nothing about taking anyone's name off the ballot. The rules say nothing about it, either. The pledge is, essentially, a political stunt, since it obligates the candidates to do no more or less than they were already required to do by the DNC Rules, specifically Rule 20(c)(1)(b). The candidates pledged to not "campaign or participate" in any state that violated the timing rule. "Participate" is not defined, but "campaign" is. And guess what? Nowhere is there any rule or term of the pledge requiring candidates to withdraw from any ballot anywhere.

And given that the pledge was signed long before Michigan decided when to hold its primary, it would have been unusually prescient for them to have agreed to withdraw their names specifically before it happened.

I do have it, from someone who worked on the campaign of a candidate who's now dropped out, that the Obama campaign coordinated the withdrawal on the very last day it was possible to do so, knowing that Clinton couldn't possibly file the required paperwork -- which included a notarized signature of the candidate (though I don't recall if it had to be notarized by a Michigan notary) -- in time. Kucinich went along with the plan, but didn't get his paperwork in by the deadline, so he remained on the ballot.

Dodd refused to withdraw because he didn't want to disenfranchise the Michigan voters. And apparently, he caught holy hell from people in Iowa and New Hampshire for his trouble.

I'll stop now. I've done a lot of research on this issue after my run-in with half of LGM over this, and I'm *still* pissed off at the level of misinformation and malfeasance out there.

otherwise a joke?

because that's what i'm saying.

yes, some of us "understand." and know the brutal, ugly, undemocratic details. which is why some of us sit out all these major "debates" and "controversies." they are only so in the lala pretend-world of Village courtiers. that's nice. /eyeroll/

why take your name off a ballot? let's start there, as a conversation topic. i'm not saying it's a "good" or "bad" idea, i'm just asking, "why is this an idea that's being considered at all?" the answers reveal so much, so very much.

... except to puncture the pretension?

It seems as if, after all our work, they're not only stronger than before, the country is a lot worse off.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.