and it's a lot better than one might think.

Newt (I can call him that because he's my new best friend, at least when it comes to the vote in Michigan and Florida) wrote an opinion piece for Friday's Wall Street Journal that turned my thinking around on whether there should be another set of primaries in these two states.  He did it with one sentence:  "The voters--not the party insiders--have the moral authority to choose the nominee."

In previous posts I have urged Senator Clinton to release super delegates who have pledged themselves to her for both a democratic reason and a self serving reason: first, 20% of the delegates should not sway the choice of the party's nominee away from the will of the people; second, letting go of the pledges would, I believe, show Hillary to be the truly forward thinking one of the two remaining Democratic candidates.  (Don't tell me Senator Obama has already said that the sp should vote with the will of the states they represent; that's as self-interested as Senator Clinton wanting them to be free to vote for whomever they choose.) 

I've also written that it would be politic for Mrs. Clinton to discontinue her efforts to have the contested delegations from Michigan and Florida seated; my thoughts along this line were more pragmatic.  The state parties had been told that moving their primaries up would result in the loss of their delegate votes and you can't enforce party discipline if you don't folow through with your threats; it's kind of like being a good parent and Democrats of all ages can already be very much like annoying teenagers, we don't need to encourage them.  Also, should the delegations be seated and result in HRC's nomination, the RNC should go ahead and book the ballrooms for their Inauguration parties.  And then, of course, self interest once again pops up through all the "good of the party discipline" reasons: at this point should there be another vote in these two states, with her momentum slowed and Oh Thank God, Obama in full swing, Hillary might not win again.

Then - at the behest of a friend - I read Newt's op/ed.  (Did I mention that I'm from the south, had a great uncle named Newt and don't think it's an odd name at all?)  And, damnit, if he isn't right.  For one thing, the voters of Michigan have pretty much gotten the short end of the stick from the git go.  The Wolverine State needs to have a little attention from the candidates and the original date of the primary (February 26) didn't, at the time, allow much hope of that happening.  Florida can't make quite the same case for "hey, look at us" but...we're not talking the mechanics of party politics here, we're talking about having taken away the votes of more than 2.2 million Democrats because we couldn't play nicely together.  I know that in the primary season Democrats rarely play nicely but, gee whiz guys (and gals), if Newt can figure it out, can't we?

It is fundamentally undemocratic to nullify the votes of those who cared enough to get out of bed or take off work or mail in their ballots; and it is equally unfair to tell those who thought the primary was meaningless that, "hey, we've reconsidered, sorry we couldn't let you know before the primary so you could go and stand in line, too."  If the nominee is meant to reflect the will of the electorate, then we must have a second vote - not a convention, not a caucus, not a seating of the delegates from the first set of primaries - in the states of Michigan and Florida.

Move over, Newt and don't be a pillow hog.