Counting uncontested primaries would bring boycott

I'm glad major media outlets are finally starting to weigh on the Clinton campaign's attempt to count the results from the unsanctioned Florida and Michigan primaries. Over the last few weeks, I've spoken to several people who were either Clinton supporters, or were on the fence, and had no idea that her campaign wanted to count results from uncontested primaries, in states where all of the Democratic candidates had pledged not to compete.

Last Friday, The New Republic - which has not endorsed a Democratic candidate yet - weighed in with an editorial titled "Stop Thief!":

The back story is simple: The Florida and Michigan legislatures moved their primaries forward in the calendar to exert greater influence on the nominating process. But, by scheduling their primaries before February 5, they broke rules set by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. The GOP punished these scofflaw states by stripping them of half their delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took them all away--and, so, the Democratic candidates did not campaign in these states.

Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives.

You can certainly debate the merits of the DNC's move. What is beyond debate, though, is that all the major Democratic campaigns accepted this move without complaint. Clinton, along with her rivals, signed a pledge not to "participate" in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game . . .

. . . There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do "democracy," a concept Clinton seems not to understand . . .

. . . The New Republic hasn't endorsed any candidate in this race. Our staff is divided, like the Democratic electorate.

But neutral observers can't stand idly by as one campaign openly discusses stealing the nomination at the convention. Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process. Clinton would not be laying the groundwork for this ploy unless it was potentially decisive. And the damage to Democrats (and democrats) would be profound. If Clinton is truly willing to trample so many institutions she professes to care about in pursuit of victory, she will have proven her enemies correct. [The New Republic]

I agree with this column completely. While I'd like to see Florida and Michigan's primary voters' voices heard, it is totally irresponsible for the Clinton to claim victories in states in which she pledged not to campaign (and, in Michigan's case, where neither Obama nor Edwards was on the ballot!). This is kind of stuff we've come to expect from the Bush crowd, and if the Democratic Party counts these unsanctioned primaries, it think it will face a boycott that could threaten its future. In the meantime, as more Democrats (and democrats) come to understand what Clinton is trying to do, we can expect her campaign to start losing support at an even faster rate than it has been.

"Stop Thief!" [The New Republic]