Flexible Party Rules

The plot thickens!!!! I think it is rather ingenious how the Democratic Party rules committee took the easy way out and moved to seat Michigan and Florida and give them only half a vote. I watched the motions and process and I never heard the total popular vote awarded to anyone, but Ms. Hillary immediately claimed she had the majority in the popular vote. Imagine that!

It is unimaginable to think the press never mentioned the fact that the Democrats in Michigan and Florida took themselves out of consideration at the convention. Voluntarily!!! This action was accepted by Ms. Hillary and her "people", yet she now decides the poor, down trodden and unsophisticated in the two states didn't know what they were doing and she must save them.

Also never considered by any pundit I have ever found is the fact that there were many other candidates running in Jan. at the time of the primary votes in these States. In accordance with the rules, none of them campaigned in either state. All except, guess who, Ms. Hillary removed their name from the ballot in Michigan. Had Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and Gavel as well as Obama campaigned vigorously in these two admittedly critical States, the dynamics of the entire process might have been completely altered.

Also not reported widely is the fact that in the caucus states, four I believe plus a portion of Texas all won by Obama, the popular vote is not counted in Obama's popular vote totals. So much for fairness and unity in the Democratic party.

Even with the eventually of the above, Obama still wins. So what is Ms. Hillary to do? As I have stated previously, my opinion is she will not be VP. For many reasons but importantly, she and Obama just don't even like each other personally and she knows the President can assign the VP to funeral duty if he so chooses. There is no way her ego and sense of entitlement to the Presidency will allow here to accept such a subservient position.

So what will she do? I believe she will, in a back room of course, deal with the Party so she quits and promises to back Obama. The spin will be she is so wonderful and thinks only of Party unity rather than herself. I believe she will insist on a quid pro quo such as the majority leader of the Senate. Since she is on the record many time saying Obama cannot win, she would use this position of leadership in the Senate to thwart all initiatives of President McCain so as to make him look totally ineffective and she could then run in 2012. This is the only scenario in which she could likely ever be elected President and I am convinced she is so ego driven she thinks she is due the Presidency. If you think she would not drag the Country down for four years just to make herself look good, then I suggest you have not viewed her actions and record very closely.

As is obvious to most people who care to look, the Clinton's don't have much of a record in maintaining the loyalty of many of their former appointees, friends and political allies. Just look at the former Clinton supporters who, as super delegates, have switched to support Obama. Wonder why? The Clinton's record on holding up their end on a quid pro quo is rather dismal. Check out the California case of Paul vs. Clinton to see just one example.