Is Hillary trying to cheat in Michigan and Florida?

Yesterday, I posted how the biggest concern that many voters have about Barack Obama is that he's all inspiration and persuasion with little substance to his platform. For Hillary's part, the biggest knock against her is that she is an opportunist who won't let anything stand in her way to victory. Her actions and statements with respect to the Michigan and Florida delegates are bound to reinforce the stereotype that Hillary is a little untrustworthy.

I recently posted some rather mundane details about caucuses and primaries, but there is one very interesting issue about the Democratic primaries this year. Florida and Michigan opted to move their primaries forward, but the Democratic National Committee (DNC) opposed these changes and has refused to seat delegates from those states at the national convention. In other words, the voters voted in the Michigan and Florida primaries for no reason.

That would seem to be the end of the story. Or is it? Not if Hillary has her say.

Michigan
Michigan Democrats moved their primary date to January 15 in an effort to increase the state's influence in the presidential candidate nominating process. The DNC has rules that prohibit any state except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina from holding its primary before February 5, so they decided to strip Michigan of all of its delegates to the national convention.

As a result of the DNC decision, Barack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and John Edwards withdrew from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot. Only Hillary and Christopher Dodd decided to remain on the ballot, although Hillary agreed not to campaign in the state. At the time, she drew criticism from the other candidates for not playing by DNC rules and withdrawing her name as did most of her competitors.

Not surprisingly, after her opponents followed the rules, thus allowing Hillary to win the primary virtually uncontested, she's decided that Michigan's votes should count. Hillary is now actively campaigning to have the Michigan delegates seated at the convention--a contention she didn't make until her crushing South Carolina primary defeat. Rolling Stone perhaps weighed in best about this, noting, "the Clinton campaign acts as though they’re entitled to re-write the ground rules of the campaign, ex-post-facto, to their advantage."

Florida
As in Michigan, the Florida legislature voted to move their primary forward. Because the January 29th date violated the DNC rule, the DNC announced it would not seat delegates from Florida. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, three of the four remaining Democratic candidates at the time, pledged not to campaign in the state, although their names remained on the ballot.

Even though Hillary agreed to these rules, her campaign has tried to smear Obama for wanting to following those same rules. Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications chief, mischaracterized Obama's desire to follow the DNC rules as a "campaign to ignore Floridians." This statement, made in advance of the Florida primary, was a blatantly incorrect and sleazy contention designed to sway voters in Florida.

Hillary's actions following the meaningless Florida primary further reinforce a perception she's willing to play both sides to suit her own goals: She flew to Florida following the primary to hold a victory rally in a state she had agreed would not count. Said CNN senior political analyst Bill Bennett: "This was an ambush in Florida! This was not a competition. This was not supposed to be a competition… There’s no field and no competition and no teams. And she’s crying victory."

Outcome
The outcome of all this controversy has been that Hillary is losing support among the party faithful. Outside the Beltway has a great review of left-wing blog posts about the Michigan/Florida debacle, including comments such as :

• “There was a time and a place to stand up for the Michigan and Florida primaries, but she didn’t do it.”
• "If this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory... It’s as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama’s victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate."
• Other liberal bloggers call Hillary's actions “dirty politics,” a “nasty little power grab,” and “bullshit.”

As Hillary is trying to campaign for those primary results to be validated by the DNC, she also continues to fight over superdelegates in a way some find dishonest. In an interview this past week, she accused the Obama campaign of "push(ing) this position" that says Superdelegates should vote in the way their states vote. Hillary called this, "contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been."

But Obama never said that. He is quoted saying, "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates, and the most voters in the country, then it would be problematic for political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters."

Obama's asking a legitimate question--should Superdelegates vote counter to the popular vote and overturn the people's nominee? Meanwhile, Hillary is using language that subtly accuses him of asking for a rules change, which is exceedingly ironic considering he's not, but she is! She wants the rules changed to allow the Florida and Michigan primaries to count after she agreed they shouldn't.

So, where does this leave the Democrats?

• Hillary and Obama will fight tooth and nail for the uncommitted Superdelegates. This group was once felt to largely favor Clinton, since it consists of DNC insiders loyal to Bill Clinton. (The NY Times surveyed Superdelegates prior to Super Tuesday and found them supporting Hillary by a 2-to-1 margin.) Since they are allowed to change their minds, there is no telling the role superdelegates will play at the convention. I will make a prediction, however, and say that I think Obama is on to something--it would be hard, and politically dangerous, for party insiders to overrule the popular vote and nominate a candidate who came to the convention with a decided disadvantage in regular delegates.
  
  
• The questions about Hillary's willingness to play by the rules may be adversely impacting her campaign. While Obama continues to raise large sums of cash, the Clintons had to lend their own campaign money. And in yesterday's voting, Obama crushed Hillary--he won two states (Nebraska and Washington) by a greater than two-to-one margin and easily captured the Louisiana primary by a double-digit margin.
  
  
• There is growing anticipation and concern for the convention. There hasn't been a convention with a nominee in question for over thirty years, but it seems apparent that neither Clinton nor Obama will arrive in Denver for the August convention with enough delegates for a clean win. Some wonder if the two candidates may damage the Democratic party by coming to the national convention with their knives sharpened. And, fair or not, some are wondering if the Clintons will do the most damage, considering Hillary is already trailing in some delegate counts and seems to be losing steam to a resurgent Barack. Is she willing to step aside and allow Obama to win the nomination if he has more delegates at the convention? One interesting twist is a report that a candidate not even running--Al Gore--could be nominated as a "compromise candidate" if Barack and Hillary cannot come to an agreement at the convention.
  
  
• The fight for Michigan and Florida will continue. Some feel the delegates should not count, considering the candidates agreed to the rules beforehand. Others argue the delegates should count since the voters in Michigan and Florida should be heard. And the DNC is now considering a new option--an option that would have to be approved by the states, both of which hate the idea--to hold a second primary or caucus so that the candidates can compete on equal footing.
  

Buckle up--it's going to be a bumpy ride!