Hillary Clinton's "Solemn Obligation"

Sometimes I just want to punch a wall over this issue. Wednesday afternoon I wrote about Senator Clinton's assertion to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that the early, DNC-defying primaries in Michigan and Florida were fair elections:

http://www.dailykos.com/...

And several diarists, including Bobo2020, rightfully excoriated Clinton for repeating her claims the following morning on NPR's Morning Edition.

But Clinton isn't alone in making this claim. Her campaign manager Maggie Williams, too, has asserted that the results of the bogus Michigan and Florida primaries should stand.

But Saturday's logic-defying assertion by another surrogate really made me furious.

In Saturday's New York Times, Clinton spokesperson Mo Elleithee said of the Michigan primary:

Nearly 600,000 Americans participated in the Michigan primary in January, and we have a solemn obligation to ensure that their voices are heard. The best way to make that happen is to honor their votes, but if that isn’t possible there should be a new state primary that doesn’t leave taxpayers footing the bill.

Solemn obligation? How dare you. At a time when Americans are dying pointlessly in Iraq, hard-working citizens can't get decent healthcare or pay their bills, this is Senator Clinton's "solemn obligation?"
Anyone reading this diary can think of a hundred more solemn obligations a sitting U.S. Senator has than to prolong a desperate, shameless and mind-blowingly transparent attempt to win power by breaking party rules.

You want to save the taxpayers in Michigan money? Commit to getting us out of Iraq. Vote against bills that strip protections for people in debt rather than abstaining to have it both ways on the issue.

And now your wealthy supporters in Florida are threatening to pull their donations to the DNC because they want the results of the January primary to stand, a primary that was as fair as any of Saddam Hussein's rigged re-election votes.

This makes me sick. You've lost, Senator Clinton. Go back to the Senate and honor your solemn obligations to the American people.

That's all I wanted to say. Doesn't this entire fiasco piss people off? I came into primary season neutral and leaning towards Edwards. If either he or Senator Obama had tried to pull this maneuver in Florida or Michigan I'd feel the same way. Either we are a party that supports rules, laws and fairness, or we are not.

•  Tip jar for fairness

  We've had enough subversion of the people's will for personal gain in the last eight years.

  by AmericanFactotum on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:12:40 AM PDT

•  yeah I really cringed

  when she used that word solemn obligation....like her voters, braving tyranny and bad weather, attempted to vote for her, willing to risk everything... to the point of risking her life...I am surprised she didn't put "9/11" right next to solemn obligation

  by girlyman on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:17:44 AM PDT

  •  i meant say "the point of risking their lives" nt

    by girlyman on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:24:57 AM PDT

•  What's best for the party?

  I mean that is the only question I'm thinking about right now.  Not what's best for Clinton or Obama, but what's best for the party.

  So, what do we think the answer to that is?  Not seat Michigan, seat them after the nominee is already selected, or hold a new vote?

  by zed on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:24:52 AM PDT

  •  Split the delegates 50/50. n/t

    by highacidity on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:31:18 AM PDT

•  Victim you, victim me, victim us.

  For 7 years.. we have endured a criminal conspiracy to invade Iraq, manipulate world energy supplies, ..do whatever the fuck it is that Cheney is up to....

  4000 fatally victimized families later... we are discussing this kind of shit.

  Hillary to a great extent...and Barack to a lesser extent.. have gracefully moved the righteous and angry majority of American citizens into a group who...

  fear a mathematically impossible McCain victory...
  will make concessions to the right to "occupy the central road to victory"

  The anti-war majority has been lured into the Democratic Party fold.. to rescue the corrupt processes and players which produced this profoundly idiotic invasion.

  God... when the oligarchy screws up this badly.. and backfires its shit on its own face... you'd half expect the political OPPOSITION to point out the crimes.

  by BWildered on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:27:13 AM PDT

•  So did she breach her solemn obligation

  when she said before the Michigan primary that it was "not going to count for anything"? Because that would seem to be the kind of thing that would lead people to, like, not vote. And why'd she sign that pledge thing if it violated her solemn obligations?

  I get so confused about this whole morality thing.

  by insects8mybrain on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:33:52 AM PDT

•  The last Democratic President...

  The last Democratic President was Jimmy Carter.  Bill Clinton screwed it up from the get-go and governed from the hip in a Republican way.  Hillary Clinton would be more of the same.

  by ScarySteve on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:32:53 AM PDT

•  Someone needs to ask Hillary

  If the Michigan vote stands where do the 40% of Uncommitted Delegates go?

  by DeanDemocrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:36:19 AM PDT

  •  Do we really need to ask?

    They go to Hillary, of course. She'll have a convoluted explanation for why the 40% of Michigan voters who came to the polls specifically to vote against her would be tragically disenfranchised if she couldn't poach their delegates. It will probably involve tortured logic and some decontextualized  parsing of the word "Uncommitted" that means she has just as much right to claim those delegates as Senator Obama.

    And when the interviewer picks his jaw up off the floor and manages to stammer out the reasons why this plan isn't exactly fair, she'll just smile and repeat the talking point and pretend to have no idea why he's confused.

    by Wit Whither Wilt on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:06:02 AM PDT