Clinton, Obama, Florida, Michigan

I'll happily vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the Democratic Party nominee fair and square by winning a majority of the pledged delegates. I'll even vote for Hillary (though not completely happily) if she's the nominee because she managed to twist the arms of enough superdelegates to overcompensate for an Obama lead among pledged delegates. Both of these scenarios are within the rules of the game.

But, I tell you what, if Clinton loses the legitimately contested pledged delegate battles, and can't muster up enough superdelegates to pass Obama, but ends up stealing the nomination by forcing Michigan and Florida's delegates to be seated for her, I'm voting third party in November.

You just don't lie your way into a position of pledging first to accept the Democratic Party's decisions regarding stripping Michigan and Florida of its delegates, then casting off that promise, just so you can begin to act like the GOP did in Florida in 2000 to steal an election from a fellow Democrat who won it fair and square by playing by the rules.

What honest, ethical person can accept a candidate who would act in such a brazenly unethical way?

If it comes down to it, and Florida and Michigan want to do it over again, giving all the candidates (not to mention all the voters) a meaningful and fairly contested electoral competition, that's another thing altogether. I could deal with that as a compromise. But what I will absolutely NOT deal with is an internal and anti-democratic coup d'etat within the Democratic Party.

And for the record, I'd do exactly the same if the situation were reversed and if it were my preferred candidate Obama pulling such shenanigans. But part of the reason why I prefer Obama over Clinton is that I can't fathom him even contemplating such a stunt, even if Florida and Michigan were Obama-leaning states.