After complaining in 2000 about George W. Bush being selected instead of being elected president, Democratic Party insiders are being equally duplicitous by maneuvering to steal the Democratic nomination from Barak Obama even as he continues to run up impressive wins over Hillary Clinton as he did over the weekend and on Tuesday.

In a brazen attempt to hand the election to Clinton, who is proving every day that she would be a weak alternative to Republican John McCain in the general election, Democratic Party leaders are hinting that despite their earlier decision to punish any state that violated their edict not move up their primary or caucus to a date earlier than Feb. 5 in order to compete with first-in-the-nation attention showered on Iowa and New Hampshire, they are on the verge of seating delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Both states defied the Party’s directive and held elections prior to Feb. 5. Adhering to the rules, Obama dutifully did not campaign in either state and his name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Yet, Clinton, who conducted a stealth campaign in both states while pretending to comply with the rules, is now arguing that a combined 350 or so delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated at the convention next August in Denver. It’s another example of the anything- goes politics that Obama denounces at every campaign stop.

Even with Obama’s name missing from the ballot, 40 percent of those going to the polls in Michigan supported a slate of uncommitted delegates instead of voting for the New York senator.

In addition to Hillary Clinton, some key elected officials in Florida and Michigan already pledged to her, are making the specious argument that delegates from their state should be counted.

Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, for example, asserts that 600,000 Democrats participated in the primary and that it “would not be fair to throw out the results of the election.” What is unfair is that Party leaders in Michigan decided not to play by the rules and now want to be rewarded for violating them.
Demonstrating a clear lack of character, Clinton is eager to claim delegates she would not have won in a head-to-head contest against Obama.

I understand that voters in Florida don’t want to be disenfranchised. But they shouldn’t be empowered at the expense of Barack Obama or the democratic process. Therefore, the only fair way to satisfy the interests of both the voters who were betrayed by their leaders and basic fairness is to allow Florida and Michigan to hold a second primary or caucus.

Then, everyone can play by the same rules and voters can have their voices heard. But there is already grumbling that this proposition is too expensive. We’re willing to spend millions to ensure fair elections in Iraq yet are unwilling to make that same financial or ethical commitment to citizens of Michigan and Florida.

The second attempt to derail Obama comes in the form of super delegates, usually party insiders accorded special privileges by virtue of their status. It is becoming increasingly clear that by June 7, the last day of voting, neither Obama nor Clinton will have the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Therefore, attention is shifting to the 796 super delegates that may determine the Party’s eventual nominee.

In a year that Democratic voters have gone to the polls in record numbers, including many for the first time, it would be the ultimate insult to allow Party insiders decide who will carry the Democratic banner in November.

Super delegates are members of Congress, governors, state party chairs, DNC members and other VIPs. Naturally, if the nomination turns on the wishes of machine politicians, Clinton will have the advantage. Most were part of the political apparatus that got Bill Clinton elected twice and are therefore considerably more inclined to support Hillary. Of the declared super delegates, Hillary Clinton holds a 270-170 edge. That includes the vote of her husband, who gets a vote as “distinguished party leader.”

Conservative George Will, noting the internal bickering among Republicans, said in a recent column: “The surest way to unify the Republican Party, however, is for Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama, the foundation of whose candidacy is his early opposition to the war in Iraq, would be a more interesting contrast to the candidate who is trying to become the oldest person ever elected to a first presidential term and who almost promises a war with Iran.”

If Obama wins a majority of Democratic delegates from regular voters and Party insiders ignore their wishes and install Hillary Clinton as the nominee, many frustrated voters will stay at home in November. Not me. Too many people have sacrificed their lives so that I could exercise my right to vote. I will vote, but it definitely won’t be for Clinton.