Anything to win
The Michigan legislature adjourned without having voted on a proposed primary revote. The revote is likely dead. The DNC was on board. Clinton donors offered to fund it. Barack Obama was reported to have opposed it, and was piling on legal objections, to prevent it. The Obama camp had already made clear that they would prefer the delegates be split 50/50, and the campaign today repeated that they would consider such a split to be fair. Of course they would. Not because they're evil or bad people or don't think Michigan voters are relevant (as the dishonest bloggers at dishonest blogs would frame it, were Clinton playing this game), but because they're a political team playing politics-as-usual. And as is the case with most politicians, they will do anything to win.
In Florida, plans for a revote also collapsed, this week, and after the same basic dynamic had played out: Clinton was open to a revote, Obama was opposed, with Obama suggesting a 50/50 split of the delegates. Meanwhile, a St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 poll showed one in four Florida Democrats may abandon the Party, if the results of the already held primary are not counted. I'm guessing those wavering Democrats will not be convinced to support a candidate who even obstructed efforts for a fair revote.
In Indiana, today, Clinton made clear that she sees a political advantage in this Obama obstructionism. As reported by The Hill:
“I do not understand what Sen. Obama is afraid of, but it is going to hurt our party and our chances in November and so I would call on him, once again, to join me in giving the people of Florida and Michigan the chance to be counted as we move forward in this nominating process,” the former first lady said at the outset of an Indiana press conference.
Clinton went to Michigan this week to make her case. However, it appears that efforts in both states to hold a re-vote are coming up short. The Clinton campaign is saying that Obama’s refusal to strongly support such primaries is part of the problem.
“I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee,” Clinton said.
I'll restate what I've been saying all along: I do not support seating the delegates as voted on in the original primaries. I do support revotes. Many Obama supporters have claimed that it was Clinton who would try to block revotes. That has now been proven false. Will these Obama supporters now have the courage and candor to call on their candidate to respect the will of the people, and turn around and help support revote efforts? Is preventing revotes in two states that demographically favor Clinton worth throwing away those states' electoral votes, in November? Is preventing revotes in two states that demographically favor Clinton worth throwing away the concept of abiding by the will of the people? Politics-as-usual should not be political suicide.