On Florida and Michigan

I've become very tired of the revisionist history surrounding, and the insinuations attached to the decision to strip both Michigan and Florida of their Democratic nominating delegates by the DNC. If I read one more post about how Barack Obama and his supporters don't want to "count every vote" or how this rules issue -- not voting issue -- has somehow become a feminist cause celebé, I think I'm going to throw up...

So, let's look back and see where all this started, shall we?

• August 25, 2007: Democrats previously created rules for the primary voting season to come, scheduling primaries based on region, ethic make-up of the electorate and a desire to have an orderly nominating process. The rules ban states from holding their 2008 contests before Feb. 5, except Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Florida and Michigan are both given the "death penalty" for their attempts to leap-frog other states in the primary rush. The candidates are allowed to visit Michigan and Florida to raise money and can send their spouses to campaign, but they can't run advertisements, hold rallies or do most of the other things that would help give them a leg up on their opponents. The hope is, with electoral hostilities settled likely by SuperTuesday, February 5, 2008, an orderly convention in Denver can follow in the summer, nominee selected and general election victory all but assured. All front-runners, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and then-upstart Barack Obama agree to be bound by the rules.
  
  In fact (!), Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the Democratic Nominating Committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them -- most notably her chief strategist Harold Ickes -- voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)


• Friday, September 1, 2007: Hillary Clinton agrees to the following statement: "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."


• Thursday, October 11, 2007: Hillary Clinton, during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange" says of Michigan's rule-breaking Democratic Primary:"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."


• Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008: Iowa Caucuses. In mid-2007, after other states advanced the dates of their nominating contests, Iowa Democrats joined Republicans in making their caucus the first in the nation and the earliest ever. Why? Iowa has been historically the first plebiscite of the political silly season. Obama goes on to an unexpected victory.
  


• Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2008: New Hampshire's Primary Day. Months earlier, that state's Secretary of State moved its primary ahead of Michigan's -- which moved its primary up because it was seething at the power New Hampshire and Iowa had in shaping the political discourse. New Hampshire State law says New Hampshire must vote at least a week before any other primary. Clinton, in the now-infamous tear-jerker interview, goes on to win.
  


• Tuesday, Jan 15, 2008: Michigan Primary Day. It was Mchigan's attempt to move ahead of the other states triggered the earlier-than-normal primary contests -- and got them stripped of all 156 of their delegates. Clinton wins Michigan -- running unopposed because Obama and Edwards weren't on the ballot and had not campaigned there -- with 55% of the vote. A shocking 40% of voters vote "UNCOMMITTED" on their ballots, and another 4% vote for Dennis Kucinich. "Uncommitted" actually beat Clinton in some counties and held her below 50 percent in others, including Detroit's Wayne County.


• Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2008: Florida Primary. Months earlier, despite warnings and candidate pledges, Florida persists in shifting its primary forward. Florida hoped for a bigger role in the nominating process but got nothing as DNC strips delegates. Here's the important point that's lost in all the partisan hand-wringing: what most people seem to miss in this whole fracas is that the move by the Republican-controlled Florida legislature to move the primary date ahead of that authorized, is in violation of both DNC and Republican National Committee rules, leading to sanctions from both parties. The RNC strips Florida of 1/2 its delegates as punishment for the infraction. Clinton wins about 50% of the Democratic vote. Edwards outpolls Obama slightly for second.
  

As of today, Obama has a lead in the popular vote, the pledged delegate count and the increasingly important super-delegate count, the trifecta all but assuring him of being the first non-white nominee of a major party in a race for the Office of President of The United States.

A cynic might be tempted to remind Clinton that these disputed primaries only became a concern when it looked like they could help her, and only became a crusade when she had no other path to pursue.

But there stands Hillary Clinton, arms folded, pouting and petulant. She wants to be the nominee, by hook or by crook.

Her most obvious line of attack to lay any claim to the nomination would be to claim the popular vote lead -- despite the fact that the Dems agreed that the delegate count, not the popular vote would determine the winner. Again, a cynic would probably feel compelled to note that the only plausible way Clinton can accomplish this feat is by awarding herself 328,309 votes in Michigan and awarding Obama (whose name wasn't on the ballot) a whopping zero -- and convincing about a hundred super-delegates to switch sides. Even if she could pull off such a stunt, can you imagine the sense of betrayal felt by Obama supporters? It's a guarantee that should such tomfoolery occur, many Obama supporters -- to their own disservice, perhaps -- would either not vote, or cast write-in ballots, or (gulp) vote John McCain come November.

The bottom line -- and what should be the end to all this BS -- is this: the candidates agreed on ground rules. They played by those rules. And Barack Obama has won by those rules. This isn't some anti-feminist conspiracy, nor is this situation one forced on Mrs. Clinton. This situation is a result of the rules she and her own people agitated for.

Only, when they were agitating, it was her nomination to lose. But now...Well let's just say, maybe Hillary Clinton conspired with Hillary Clinton to cost Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination for President.

Rules are Rules. Either play by them, or get out of the sandbox and go home.