Florida, Michigan, and Hillary Clinton

You know, I am just sickened by the dispute in the Democratic party over the Florida and Michigan primaries. Remember back when the DNC decided to strip them of their delegates for scheduling their primaries too early, and no one really cared? Seriously, I don't remember anyone complaining that the people in those states had lost their voice in the democratic process. But now, all of a sudden, people have realized that those delegates could have made the difference at the convention, and are all of a sudden complaining about the nullification of their results.

The facts are thus: in August of 2006, the Democratic National committee decided that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada would be allowed to hold primaries/caucuses before February 5, to slow down the packing of the early primary season. In spring of 2007, the Florida General Assembly voted to hold the primary on January 29, a week before the date set by the party. Michigan also set its primary for mid-January, due to the opinion that the DNC rule gave the four states unjust importance in the process. In August 2007, the DNC decided to strip Florida of its delegates within 30 days. It did not do so, and so the delegates were stripped. Michigan managed to keep their delegates all the way until December 1, when the DNC officially stripped its delegation as well. Following these decisions, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other candidates removed or tried to remove their names from the Michigan ballot, and tried to get off of the Florida ballot as well, in a show of respect for the rules of the party. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd both decided to remain, to demonstrate respect for the people of the states. All candidates agreed that they would not campaign in either state--including Senator Clinton.

Not surprisingly, most of the complaining about this whole mess is coming from the Clinton camp, which has found itself against a wall that it never could have foreseen last fall. Now, with the nomination getting further and further away from her, and ever closer to Senator Obama, she is getting desperate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1206036634-4naVLUR96ihfinrGOTeHHg

Maybe I just read all the wrong articles in the, oh, seven months between the DNC's decision to strip Florida's delegates (only 4 months in Michigan), but I don't remember Senator Clinton complaining that they had lost their vote in those states until she realized that she probably will not get the nomination without them. (Her earliest opposition to this came on January 25, when the early primaries did not go as she had planned.) Now, however, her campaign has taken the position that "Michigan is populated by people, not numbers, and those people need to have their voices heard in this process,"* and she actually went to the state recently to campaign to have the results from the January 15 primary count...even though her principal competitor, Barack Obama, wasn't even on the ballot.

Now, in Florida I can almost understand the desire to count the delegates according to the results of the January 29 primary. All candidates had agreed not to campaign in the state, and therefore no candidate had an unfair advantage, right? But what about all the eligible voters who decided they would not vote in this primary because it didn't count? Their voices would not have been heard anyway, so the only way to have a truly fair election in Florida would be to have a primary do-over (which would also be a bad idea--more on this later.)

But try as I might, I cannot find any justification for Clinton's argument that the Michigan primaries were fair, and should be counted due to the January 15 results, other than the fact that she knows that Obama would get no delegate because he was not on the ballot. How can you possibly claim it was a fair primary if the current front runner wasn't even an option, especially while saying that everyone has a right to their vote? What about all the ones who would have voted for Obama had he not decided to remove himself from the ballot, in honor of the Party's rules? Again, if you want a truly fair election, you would move for another primary in both those states.

Okay, so counting the votes as they happened on the original dates is out of the question. So why not have a primary do-over? Well, it's not that simple. First of all, another primary costs a lot of money, that frankly has better uses elsewhere. Second, and more importantly, it sends a message to all the states that if you break the rules of the party, it won't really matter. This will end up being a huge problem, as it will clear a way for future rules violations in the future, because if your votes will count anyway, why not risk it to make your own state a little more important? This year, with the delegate count so close, and all the media attention on Michigan and Florida, they would appear just as important as any of the first four states anyway. Not a great way to punish rule breakers--in fact, it ends up punishing the states that actually honored the party's decision. The way I see it is this: the DNC set a clear rule. Florida and Michigan chose to violate that rule, knowing that it would result in the stripping of their delegation. You're upset now that your votes don't count? That's called "tough love."

The third option is to divide the delegates from both states evenly between Obama and Clinton. This is by far the fairest option to the other 48 states, plus all the US territories, that obeyed the party rules and held their primaries on or after February 5 (unless they were Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina). The effect on the delegate count is essentially zero--since each candidate has the same amount tacked onto their delegation, there is no net change in the difference between pledged delegates. This would, however, bring the lead candidate nearly two hundred votes closer to the 2,025 needed for the nomination, which would help that lead candidate to win over the support he needs.

Because, lets face it, this primary battle has gone on too long. We have as the current front runner, Senator Barack Obama, who leads in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote. Senator Clinton trails, but not by enough. However, her time is running out, and she will have to win big in the few remaining states (especially Pennsylvania). Unfortunately for her, it is looking less and less likely that she will win by enough to make the kind of gains in this area that will allow her to to say she's caught up to him (unless Florida and Michigan are counted as they stand...), and will thus be forced to rely on the superdelegate vote that will likely go with the candidate with more delegates--Obama.

I don't have a problem with Hillary herself. Whatever people say about her, I believe she is genuinely committed to the causes she fights for, particularly health care. However, she is behind, by a significant margin, in the delegate count, and it is very unlikely for her to catch up. So why is she staying in? She's close enough to Obama that the party leaders can't simply ask her to exit the race, with a fair amount of delegates not yet apportioned, and she is not going to drop out on her own because that's not how she is. She is becoming desperate for the nomination, and that is causing her to launch a progressively more negative campaign against Senator Obama. If she fails to get the nomination, her negative campaigning will come right back at Obama during his race with (presumptively) Senator John McCain. McCain himself is currently not clawing at others within his own party, who presumably share many of the same ideals, he is preparing for the general election. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are still attacking each other, and unless one drops, they will continue to do so right until the convention in August, where the superdelegates will likely be the swing votes.

I doubt that Hillary will be able to make up the gap in pledged delegates in the few remaining contests (although this is a presumption on my part). So, she will be going into the convention, behind in pledged delegates, but relying on the top Democratic Party figures to give her the nomination. What if they do? What if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, even if she didn't win the vote of the Democrats of America? She will be going into general election season as a tainted nominee, a nominee chosen by party insiders as opposed to the people. She will be going against John McCain, a strong candidate with great appeal to moderate voters. If this scenario occurs, and she loses the general election, the Democrats will have blown this golden opportunity, amidtst painfully low public opinion of George Bush, a tired war in the Middle East, and a deepening *recession,* to take the presidency and accomplish their agenda. This disastrous party infighting, the controversy over lost votes, and potentially a candidate who did not truly win will end up destroying the Democratic party. As one who tends to lean liberal, I, as well as many others, will be upset if the Democrats lose in November because of this fight. This is a glorious opportunity, but instead of rallying behind a candidate, the party is in the midst of petty squabling, between two candidates who have policies that are 95% the same. A lot of people will lose faith in the party, if it cannot rally now when so many Americans want change. This needs to stop now.

So, Senator Clinton, stop running against Barack Obama and start running for the Democratic Nomination. Stop viciously attacking the man who may well become the nominee, partly since it will hurt him in the general election, but partly since it will hurt you too. Stop trying to find a way around Democratic Party rules for Florida and Michigan, and endorse the wishes of the party you represent.

Because, as we all know, in the general election, there is no do-over.


*http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Primary-Scramble.html?scp=1&sq=promoted+the+idea+in+a+statement%2C+saying%2C+%22The+best+outcome+is&st=nyt