Clinton may get hit in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina with Michigan choice

[zulchzulu]

Last month, the Clinton campaign seemed to go along with the other candidates who signed the Democratic National Committee's "Four State Pledge". We heard this from the campaign:

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
- Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager

September 1, 2007
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/edwards-obama-sign-four-state-pledge/

Well, that was a month ago. I'm guessing that there will be some fallout for Clinton in the first four states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina) from the decision in what would appear to be trying to play both sides of the issue. Here's a sample of what is yet to come:

...the Biden campaign later issued a statement criticizing Clinton and Dodd, and arguing that the two campaigns "have chosen to hedge their bets, thereby throwing this process into further disarray. In doing so, they have abandoned Democrats in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina."

In New Hampshire, Democratic Party Chairman (DNC) Ray Buckley welcomed the developments.

"Today's turn of events only further amplifies the fact that the Michigan primary is irrelevant," Buckley said in a statement. "Our secretary of state, Bill Gardner, now has more flexibility in his scheduling decision because the Michigan event is no longer a 'similar event' to the New Hampshire primary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_on_el_pr/michigan_primary

How the DNC looks at the Clinton campaign's choice to cross the line would be interesting in how it plays out.

Some here have pointed out how Clinton's decision to stay on the ballot despite saying it was agreed to send Michigan a message will be good for her. However, how good is it if Michigan is now irrelevant and the delegates will not be able to represent themselves in the convention. Add that her decision can only harm her in at least Iowa and New Hampshire.

Note: this is not a "slam" at the candidate... it's meant for civil discussion on the decision to appear to support Michigan's will to change the order of the primary season while in effect condemning the decision through signing on to the "Four State Pledge", thus going against the DNC's job of maintaining order.