Reply #13: Why reward Hillary for leaving her name on the Michigan ballot

[lapfog_1]

and reward her for entering the primary season with the best known "name" and presumptive nominee (which is why she won Florida).

Even though you take away half the reward for that type of sleazy politics, why reward at all?

And I don't really like the entire concept of a redo or seating any portion. Mostly because what does this mean to the other candidates (not Hillary and not Obama).

Let's take the case of John Edwards.

Let's suppose that Florida was on Super Tuesday along with everyone else. This would have been OK with the DNC and the candidates... and known well in advance. Let's further suppose that instead of throwing all of his eggs into the Iowa basket, Edwards had decided to make a stand in Florida. Now let's say he still came in second in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, etc.... but he campaigned heavily in Florida. Being a "southern white male" with a populist message, let's say he wins or comes in a close second in Florida... Now maybe the MSM finally pays some attention to him, or at the very least, he has quite a few more delegates in his hip pocket (his campaign is only suspended!) come convention time. He really does get to play king maker OR the party turns to him as the convention stalemates with Obama and Clinton.

But Florida screwed him out of that opportunity. He played by the DNC rules and didn't campaign in Florida... how would HE feel about a Florida "do over"? Is it fair to him or any of the other candidates?

The only fair thing is the honor the DNC rules and their stated punishment for breaking the rules. Don't seat the delegates.