Did Hillary Clinton Conspire with DNC to Rob Hillary Clinton of Nomination?

It's just disgusting what's happening to Florida and Michigan, isn't it? How can the evil DNC tell two states that never wanted anything more than to disregard all the rules and place themselves in what they thought were power positions* for choosing the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Presidency?

Who could be responsible for such a heinous act of fairness?

[A DNC committee] stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later.

Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them — most notably strategist Harold Ickes — voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

And now poor Hillary Clinton is the one who has to suffer. Can you believe that? Where's the justice.

I wonder what she, herself, had to say about that?

"I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

I'm sorry. What pledge was that?

…I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

Yeah, but just because her staff members and supporters were instrumental in stripping the delegates from Florida and Michigan and then she signed a statement saying that she wouldn't be participating in their elections doesn't mean that their fake elections shouldn't count in light of the fact that their results favor Hillary Clinton. Right?

Right?

You know what? On second thought, don't read all those preceding paragraphs. My bad.

(via Daily Kos)

Update: In the comments, I_heart_bears makes a good point…

Yeah, and remember the time when Obama implied he would seat the delegates (in the same week as he signed that exact statement above)? And remember how he then took it back because he lost the primary?

True enough, politicians in general are slimy, self-serving opportunists who will say what they need to say to the people they need to say it to in order to further their own agendas. No arguments here.

And Barack Obama is no exception to this rule. But neither is Hillary Clinton. And she's the one playing victim these days.

* In an admittedly idiotic and unfair nominating system.