I've been listening to Hillary Clinton's pledge to fight all the way to the convention and her vow to have the delegations from Florida and Michigan seated. It's all about the disenfranchisement of the Democratic voters in those states. They deserve to be counted.
Indeed they do. Their issue, however, should be with their party leaders who broke the rules knowing the penalty. Not with the two remaining candidates. I don't disagree that Iowa and New Hampshire hold disproportionate sway in normal years. I don't disagree that they do not reflect the issues of all the states. It seems to me if the rules disadvantage the many for the few they should be changed. Not disobeyed.
I also find it interesting I have not read nor heard one single interview with an actual voter in either of those states as to whether they feel disenfranchised and enough so they would not vote in the general election. All I hear is what the pundits "think". And of course what Hillary thinks.
I can't help but wonder if she would be such a champion of this cause if she did not desperately need those delegates. If her delegate count and Obama's were switched would she fight for them knowing it could turn the tide against her? Or would she tiptoe silently into the night?
If the voters in Michigan and Florida are so incensed over this that they won't support their party's candidate they will hurt their party far more than the "party" their delegates may miss. Rules were broken. Penalty assessed. Accept it with some degree of dignity and change your state party leadership.
Don't get sucked in to the hyperbole that is the "ClInton Fairness Doctrine". It really isn't about being unfair to the voters at all. It's about Hillary. As usual.