She Said, He Said

Clinton and Obama split over Florida and Michigan - International Herald Tribune:

"....Clinton, in an appearance before a Hispanic business group in
Washington Wednesday morning, argued that the delegates should be seated based on the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries, which were held in January in violation of Democratic Party rules....
...Obama, speaking on MSNBC Tuesday evening, ruled out any solution that accepts the January results. 'We were told that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count, and so we said we wouldn't campaign there,' Obama said...."

So why are these delegates so important you might ask? Why is Obama so adimate that they not be counted? Because they can make all the difference in the world to the vote:

"....Clinton won both contests by sizable margins and would narrow the delegate gap with Obama by about 60 delegates if the January results are honored, but the delegations have been barred because of the party rules violation. She now trails Obama by more than 100 pledged delegates, according to most counts...."

I have to wonder what stance these two would take if it were the other way around right now. My guess is they would be changing shoes.

Personally I'm split on the matter.

After all, the state parties knew the rules and purposefully flaunted their disregard for them ... but then why does one state get to go before any other? I mean what makes Iowa and New Hampshire's votes more important than any other? With the way the schedule is set up states like Mich. and Florida are nothing more than pick up states ... I can't blame them for trying to make their states mean a bit more.

This is why so many people want to go to a straight primary system -- so all states have equal standing ... but that's not always true either. We would see the same thing that we do during the regular elections -- then small states with few delegates would never see the candidates at all.

Its a tough balance.

If I absolutely had to choose, I'd say .... revote. But then I have a feeling that the vote would be terribly tainted by the perception that Obama has this thing tied-up .... when really its up in the air.

I would like to see both states have a revote, but not in the same fortnight and I would love to see more debates {okay I just love to see a good fight} but I think Clinton at this point would really take Obama to the mat for a lot of stuff she has let slide because she didn't realize how strong the Oprah factor was .... and lets face it, if Oprah hadn't endorsed him and continued to do so with little hints on her show , he wouldn't have done quite as well in the beginning as he did.