Follow my rules

Not that you asked, but...
I am by nature a rule follower. From childhood on, when I've observed rule breaking, I have tended to get rather holier than thou in my response. Fortunately with age I have developed a healthier co-attitude. I now recognize that sometimes rules are dumb or ill-conceived, and that common sense dictates a different--and reasonable direction. I also see where it's in breaking the rules that big breakthroughs are occasionally made (though this last one is very risky, and I am also by nature risk averse). Anyway, my righteous indignation still burns deep, and occasionally an issue arises that brings the fire to the surface.

As my friends and regular readers know, I am an Obama supporter. I'd like to think that my reaction to the Clinton campaign's comments and actions with regard to the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries has little to do with partisanship. I don't honestly know. What I do know is that the continued sound bites on the subject are irritating me, because I see someone breaking the rules for their own political gain.

Here's the deal: the Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida moved up their primary election dates without permission of the Democratic National Committee (the whys and hows of this is subject for a whole 'nother blog, but suffice it to say, this is as it has always been--state groups report to national). The DNC told Florida and Michigan Dems that if they chose to go ahead and hold a primary, no delegates would be used from their states. The various candidates at the time of this decision were given option of removing name from Michigan ballot as part of the DNC's ruling. Almost all did, presumably in the name of party unity, including Edwards, Richardson, and Obama. At the time, Clinton was the clear front runner and she opted not to remove her name from ballot. No such request was made of the candidates in the case of Florida's ballot, although they did agree to basically not campaign there. When primary election day came, Clinton "won" (56% in Michigan and 50% in Florida). Florida included Obama and Edwards on the ballot, who received 33% and 14% of the vote, respectively. In Michigan, it was a choice between Clinton and three likable-but-very-minor candidates; given this slate, 40% of Michigan Democrats selected Uncommitted.

What irks me is how Hillary Clinton has continued to pull for the two states' delegates to count in the Democratic Convention (even today). I totally understand where any competitive person would want to gain an edge, but in this case I think it's the wrong approach. Argue that the decision not to count delegates is a silly way to "punish" states for moving up primary date without national's permission--absolutely! Talk to people in the state (now that primary is over) about their worthiness of being heard in general--all true! But don't try to change the rules after the fact.