My Final Words on the Subject - Part I

The news these days is full of Hillary and her bid to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention and as a Michigan voter, I am sick to death of hearing about it.

The primary schedule was established and agreed upon by all 50 states long before the primaries (? in late 2006 but don't remember where I saw that). Michigan party leaders, in an effort to exert some influence, voted to hold the primary at an earlier date in violation of the rules agreed to, signed into effect by Democratic Governor Granholm, knowing Michigan would be stripped of its delegates. They acknowledged and agreed to the rules, decided they didn't want to play by them, were warned of the consequences, and broke them anyhow. So much for looking out for the welfare of your constituency, huh?

As a result, the candidates signed a pledge, including HILLARY CLINTON:

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

All of the top-tier Democratic candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot - except Hillary Clinton.

Clinton broke with the leading candidates, with her campaign issuing a statement saying the New York senator will remain on the ballot. Chris Dodd also plans to stay on the ballot.

"We're honoring the pledge and we won't campaign or spend money in states that aren't in compliance with the DNC calendar," said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson. "We don't think it's necessary to remove ourselves from the ballot."

The story gets better, though:

The state Senate on Tuesday refused to take up legislation that would have restored the names of four Democratic presidential candidates to the ballot who withdrew earlier from the primary....

Bishop said some of the Democratic candidates threatened to sue if their names were restored to the ballot. Republicans said election clerks couldn't afford to delay any further waiting for legislators to act or lawsuits to be settled.

So Michigan had a chance to get ALL of the candidates' names on the ballot but dropped the ball, leaving essentially only Hillary Clinton on the ballot (who the hell were the other 3 Democrats anyhow?). The "illegal" Michigan primary proceeded on January 15, against DNC rules; thousands of voters stayed home, having been told the primary was not going to count.

I find it interesting that Hillary supported (as evidenced by signing the pledge) neither campaigning nor participating in any state violating the rules but refused to remove her name from the ballot and NOW wants the primary results to stand and delegates awarded accordingly. What I find unbelievable is that people are actually listening to her.

• If she were really so concerned about "disenfranchising" Michigan voters, instead of signing a pledge that advocates in every way this disenfranchisement, why didn't she stand up and say so back then instead of waiting until "last call"? She could have refused to sign, but that would have compromised her campaign in the "approved" early-vote states.
• If she thought of the party process as being "democratic," how can she support a primary conducted with (for all intents and purposes) no other names on the ballot and after hundreds of thousands of voters did not even participate, being told their vote would not count?
• If she signed a pledge agreeing to "not campaign or participate," and then refused to remove her name from the ballot (sounds like "participating" to me) and, worse, urged LATER to seat those delegates (also sounds like "participating" to me), how has she proven her trustworthiness as a candidate - to ANY voter? Wouldn't one reasonably be expected to wonder when the next time will be that she goes back on her word, promising something to someone and reneging later, worrying about the consequences, especially if she were sitting in the Oval Office?

She wanted delegates from those early-vote states, so she agreed to support their bid to maintain their status. After she got what she wanted, now she wants to piss down those voters' backs and tell them it's rain, so she can try to secure a few more delegates from a state that deliberately said "FUCK YOU" in the face of the rules. Ethical? Trustworthy? Loyal?

Had she not fallen behind in the overall delegate counts, I believe Michigan would have been a non-issue to Hillary. We would not be having this discussion, it wouldn't be plastered all over the news, and they sure would not be having a meeting in D.C. to bash it out some more. Furthermore, had she lost the Michigan primary to the "uncommitted" votes cast for Obama and Edwards, who had taken their names off the ballot, we would not be having this discussion because that would be even FEWER delegates for her to try to finagle.

I've thrown this around for months, in various forms and in various forums, making myself crazy and feeling this was all blatantly obvious so why wasn't everyone else getting it, maybe my own spiral into madness. Then as I was pulling this all together tonight, I came across this very excellent article, which proved to me that I was NOT shit-bat crazy and that I wasn't alone in my thinking. For that, I thank you, Dom Pody.

This rant is to be continued....