::::::::
CNN is reporting a story on Barack Obama's early years in politics, in which they report they he - legally - used technical rules to challenge the petition signatures of his opponents, to get them off the ballot. In their televised report, they certainly portrayed Obama's tactics as underhanded. But more important, they clearly implied an analogy to the situation Obama finds himself in today, with Hillary Clinton.
But there are major problems with their implied analogy. First, Obama isn't ahead in pledged delegates because of any challenged signatures. He won eleven primaries in a row, fair and square.
Second, if he was being so slick with the rules, then why was his name not on the ballot in Michigan? Remember, voters in Michigan were clearly told that they need to vote "uncommitted" in order to support one of the candidates not on the ballot. I clearly remember (having a relative in Michigan) the instructions being that if they try to write in a name, their vote will not be counted. Now, the Clinton camp is arguing that Obama should get NONE of the uncommitted delegates. That's changing the rules in the middle of the game, and breaking the party's word with Michigan voters. This is honorable?
Finally, the argument that the Clinton camp is using - that they have the popular vote - makes no sense when it comes to the caucus states. Yet, several in the media are starting to repeat this argument as if Hillary is the new Al Gore.
If Barack Obama used "Chicago politics" in his early races to his advantage, he has gained little from following rules not of his own making this time around. It is Clinton who is trying to manipulate the rules.
