« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama Campaign on Michigan and Transparency

Share

March 16, 2008 2:41 PM

ABC's John Cochran and Sunlen Miller report: On a conference call with reporters, the Obama campaign denied that they are trying to block a Michigan re-do primary because of fear that Obama can not win there.

“We’re not trying to block anything, we’re trying to insure we have a fair and reasonable process that reflects the rules of the party and will allow the states to  be represented at the convention,” Sen. Barack Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod said.

He expressed confidence in Obama’s chances if a re-vote is approved. “Even without our names on the ballot, some 40 percent of more of the voters there chose to vote themselves undeclared, which I think is, with no campaign and no effort on our part, a reflection of the strength on our part that we have there.”

Axelrod said that the Obama campaign’s view on a fair redo is important in the process, and they are looking at the Michigan proposal of a June 3rd primary, to see how things evolve this week.

He said that the campaign would like to make sure that whatever is agreed to is  “reasonable, is practical, can be done fairly, and that goes to who can participate in the primary, how the primary is set up and how feasible it is to do it in a way that the results are beyond question.”

Axelrod agreed with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s remarks on ABC’s “This Week,” that superdelegates should not go against what elected delegates are committed to. “It would be very, very disruptive to the party, I think, if at the end of the process one candidate finished with a significant lead in delegates and party leaders overturned that.”

He added that this is a widely held view in the Democratic party and that no one wants to see “chicanery at the end to change those rules … to advantage a candidate who didn’t do as well.”

Along with communications director Robert Gibbs, Axelrod called for more transparency from the Clinton campaign, laying out four areas where they believe gaps have to be filled in on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s records.

They called on Clinton to release her full tax returns, all earmark requests, the names of all donors to the Clinton foundation and the Clinton library, as well as all records from the Clinton library to be released.

Gibbs ended by asking, “What is Sen. Clinton hiding and what is lurking in those documents that she believes voters don’t have a right to know?”

March 16, 2008 in Kucinich, Dennis | Permalink | User Comments (77)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

They need a complete congressional Ivestigation On Obama

Posted by: seah | Mar 16, 2008 4:05:27 PM

I hope American continue to rejec the Clintons. I will never vore for them. I voted for McCain in the primary. I will vote for Barack in the general elections. Barack is the only one that has a true chance to win agaist McCain and folks thats a fact. The republicans are just waiting for her to realse all her scandals...beleive me the good old boys are going to break her in half.

Posted by: Virgina- | Mar 16, 2008 4:13:22 PM

Hillary Clinton is not hiding anything. She has many, many years of experience that is out in public domain for everyone to scrutinized and her records have been scrutinized in the past. It is Obama who has a shady past that the public does not know much about since the media has refused to dig deeper to reveal anything. The American public should be thankful that this race is lasting so long because it seems that we may have a chance to see exactly who this man say he is that is running for President. If the Obama campaign had its way, they would want Hillary Clinton to disappear quietly but his support is eroding as people learn more about him and Hillary is gaining ground with white men and Republicans while keeping the core constituents of the Democratic Party -- the working and middle class, women, the elderly and Latinos. African-Americans will come around once she is the nominee.

Posted by: Jane | Mar 16, 2008 4:13:44 PM

I can't believe the ignorant remarks about why people don't vote for Clinton! And the Obama campaign says Hillary's supporters are uneducated? I guess they have no substantial basis to not vote for her, so they throw out stupid reasons like not needing a dynasty or Bill's indiscretions. For those who compare Obama to Kennedy by the way, have you forgotten President Kennedy wasn't exactly faithful to his wife in the White House? That doesn't seem to change your mind regarding his Presidential qualifications however. If Obama gets elected, people who vote based on such logic deserve what you get, a totally unprepared, inexperienced, easily influenced President who will indeed continue to work with the old political types like Kennedy, Leahy, and Kerry who choose to support him now. And by the way, Obama's supporters seem to be big on double standards and cheap shots. If the Clinton's were close friends with someone like Rev. Wright for 20 years who claimed to be a close personal and spirtual adviser, I can just hear the uproar now! People in this country, including the superdelegates, had better wake up and smell the coffee or we are all in a lot of trouble.

Posted by: DWC | Mar 16, 2008 4:17:00 PM

The comments on here are crazy... Obama dragging his feet on Michigan when everybody knows Sen Clinton is havign just as many issues with that state...she wants them counted as is for goodness sake... Now if that is not just weird... "Michigan won't count" I think is her words just a month or so ago wasn't it. She has as much nervousness about that state (although this woman who suddenly is all about voters rights didn't think that much of the Michigan and Florida primaries when she signed the dang agreement...)...but she needs Florida and so she plays the "I am the only one who cares about these voters... This is all for herself...

The Florida and Michigan issue is a perfect example... She pretends now to care about the voters. WHY didn't she care when it counted.

... ...and they can't even get it together to vote within the state party.

This is four parties faults...the state leaders of the Democratic Party (because look at their state legislative notes...they were NOT forced into this and their constituents should hold them accountable first), Howard Dean, The republican Governor and party in Florida and Senator Hillary Clinton for playing this up for herself...not the voters and tearing those states apart and trying to pull one over on what her motives are.

...calling HIM Machiavellian... that's a good one...

Posted by: dl | Mar 16, 2008 4:19:39 PM

Obama knew about those sermons--the truth will come out.

Posted by: I LOVE MY COACH PURSE | Mar 16, 2008 4:25:51 PM

This man has shown some serious bad judgement. I have never been a supporter of Obama's and I will never be one. If he gets the nomination espaecially after what his Rev. has said I will vote McCain and my years of voting Democrat.

Posted by: Melissa | Mar 16, 2008 4:30:04 PM

I am so sick of people who say they are african Americans,jewish Americans,etc. etc.. You are either AMERICANS or NOT. Why do you people HATE America. If you have a child that is bad and needs help, you do not hate that child, you try and help and or change the child. If Africans HATE America then please get on the next boat and please take the hater OBAMA and his Hatefull church with you. AMERICANS DO NOT WANT HATERS LIKE OBAMA AND HIS RACIST CULT.

Posted by: freedom20082009 | Mar 16, 2008 4:30:31 PM

ah, my new favorite word from these bloggers against Obama, "Machiavellian" - sweet...and my next favorite thing to read is how sometimes an angry person blogs on sites like these that they have decided to switch from Obama to Hillary because of the latest news blurb...wow! that's great to anonymously declare such intentions on a public forum...maybe I will too! thanks and it's nice to see voters' convictions broken so easily by gossip rag...

look, let's get back to the business at hand. in the end, Pelosi's right, this is a delegate battle and whichever candidate has the most at the end of the primary season should win. it's not about a Superdelegate choosing based on the votes of their constituency, but based on the total delegate count. so this "argument" that, say, a John Kerry should vote for Hillary doesn't hold water. A Super in his position should vote for the candidate that leads in the total delegate count, per Nancy Pelosi. And not to ruffle any feathers, but that is going to be Obama by at least 100.

Obama 08

Posted by: Let's Get Real | Mar 16, 2008 4:39:13 PM

Barack Obama is far from being racist. Hes is proud to be an American, a father and a christian. He grew up with his coucasian/white part of the family. He was born in America., America is his native home. He is a remarkable man. Les not forget over 14 million people voted for him,,,,Not just white people, black people, Asian and latino. So stop the bigotry and the ignorance. Lets teach our children to love each other. To respect and honnor diversity. Lets not forget this nation was based on imigration.

Posted by: Marie Sue Ann | Mar 16, 2008 4:39:45 PM

It was Obama's choice to remove his name from the ballot.The votes should count as voted. Rev. Wright, Farrakhan and Rezco are all Obamakins. Would you like to be one??

Posted by: onenibble | Mar 16, 2008 4:43:45 PM

no, it wasn't Obama's "choice...please read the DNC campaign guidelines for Michigan in the wake of the primaries being moved up. it clearly says that each candidate could not participate and each candidate was told to remove their names...it's just happens that Hillary didn't and Obama did. just another example of how the Obama campaign is run.

Say what you want about the Pastor thing or the Rezko thing, but at least he is decisive and transparent when the moment calls for it. and we if we want to list Clinton scandals side-by-side with Obama "scandals", I'm sure she would win that total...at least she's ahead in something right?

Posted by: again, you sound so... | Mar 16, 2008 4:51:03 PM

Obama is a RACIST and he is not Proud to be an AMERICAN. He knew and agreed with his pastor and he wrote about it in his book. Take your head out of the sand. He is a liar and you will see more facts of this in the next 3 weeks. He was in church when his pastor preached hate of America and White People.

Posted by: freedom20082009 | Mar 16, 2008 4:51:28 PM

I agree we democrats should stop playing silly games. We need to pick our nominee and move on. Its a fair play Barack won more states than Hillarty. He won more of the popular vote, he has more delagetes and more pleadge delagates..So do the math and stop the denial. Back is the front runner and he deserves it. He campaing in states the Hillay said did not matter. So Im being a realist. I will not support onother failed policy of george Bush. I will support Barack Obama. In regards to the pastor issue. Well it was Hannity the realse this information to the main media. Fox are pro-republican and of course they are going to go after democrats so that they will have a better chance in Novemeber. Its all pure garbage. Barack cleary denounce and rejected his pastor and his view.

Posted by: Barbra | Mar 16, 2008 4:54:57 PM

YES IT WAS OBAMA'S CHOICE TO REMOVE HIS NAME FROM MICHIGAN AS IT WAS EDWARD'S CHOICE. THEY REMOVED THERE NAMES AND ASKED PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN TO VOTE UNDECIDED.

Posted by: freedom20082009 | Mar 16, 2008 5:00:36 PM

it wasn't a choice and I want you to find where it says it it's a choice to remove your name. and writing in all caps doesn't make it you right either...

Posted by: freedom is just another word for... | Mar 16, 2008 5:06:44 PM

If you are legally a person running for president it is your choice as always to either put your name on a ballot or remove it. After all this is America

Posted by: freedom20082009 | Mar 16, 2008 5:14:56 PM

This country spent millions and millions of dollars in Ken Starr's ridiculous hunt to find the Clintons guilty of something. This country went through a ridiculous impeachment process based on sex. Now, the Obama campaign, relying on those past negatives to fuel an anti-Hillary campaign and divert attention from Rezko, want the Clinton campaign to stop their campaign in order to give Obama material to sift through for more diversion from his own problems and his troubling double-talk. Hillary has been fully vetted; Obama has not, and the real issue now is whether or not he can be trusted with the highest office in the land.

He wants transparency alright, even though he has not given it to the American electorate. Michigan transparency? If he could have a caucus there, he would grab it. We know why. He can pack the caucuses with his base of the new young voters and the AA base. It's no wonder he does not prefer primaries, because the people know when someone is not believable. He thinks he is already nominated, but does he have the delegates needed. We still have a few more primaries. Besides, the electorate needs to know more about his character, and whether or not he is just a bunch of double-talk.

Posted by: georgia | Mar 16, 2008 5:26:22 PM

I don't care about her tax records at all. I don't even think Obama should have released his tax returns for the last 8 years. Just because he released his returns for the last 8 years doesnt mean she should. However, I would very much like to see then donor list of people who've contributed to her campaign and the list of people that have contributed to his charity and his library. If she really wants to be open, then let us see that stuff.....financial stuff is person and is none of our business, the other stuff is our business though.

Posted by: Sandra | Mar 16, 2008 5:26:43 PM

OHHHHHHHH I just read Obama is planning an attack against Hilly billy for all her goodies she has wanted the public to know, he is cleaning his slate and she is wild.....GO GET HER >>>could not happen to a better person nail her to the wall.

Posted by: h | Mar 16, 2008 5:34:03 PM

Post a comment