Now I get it.

2
Jun
2008

In all the vitriol and brouhaha over the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates, I never could quite understand (if it wouldn’t affect the outcome) why it mattered at all whether the delegates were seated none, half or full. Then I read a piece in the NY Times (I know, I read them a lot) a few minutes ago, which made it clear why the states care:

It’s about having enough votes to do other things — and if you are, say, Michigan, that includes pursuit of your long-time goal of toppling New Hampshire and Iowa from their perches of primacy in the nominating calendar.

So at least I get it now. Still, I think it is important that they be punished in some way for disobeying party rules, that part makes sense. If there were no adverse consequences from breaking the rules, everyone would break them with impunity.

Comments

  1. Mom says:

    There are two very different ways of interpreting rules, however. There is the way you read the rules–which is the way you were raised to read them, btw–and there is the Hillary way, which is to read them as binding when they help you, and as mutable when they don’t…I will be VERY HAPPY when Obama locks this thing up!!

    Your (traitor to her demographic) mother.