With all due respect to Rodney Dangerfield, the candidates have been kicking Michigan to the curb all year! First, Barack Obama and other major Democratic candidates agreed to not campaign in Michigan because the state moved its primary date up. All but Hillary Clinton took their names off the ballot. When asked about this, she answered out of both sides of her mouth. First she said she didn’t want to alienate Michigan voters. But she also said that Michigan’s vote is “not going to count for anything.”
So, Obama dissed Michigan by pulling his name from the primary ballot. Clinton, in what shouldn’t seem like a new double-speak, tried to play both sides by staying on the ballot, yet also minimalizing the state’s significance to nothing. And what does the Democratic National Committee, a private organization, have to do with when Michigan, a governmental entity sets its primary date for? The DNC can take a flying leap, if you ask me.
Now, apparently, Hillary’s message has affected John McCain. It seems the McCain campaign has left Michigan behind. The state with the worst unemployment doesn’t matter to him. Mark my words: if McCain’s not spending money in Michigan, neither will Obama. Already a beleaguered state, Obama turned his back in January and now McCain’s kicking Michiganians while they’re down. And, oddly, both were in favor of rescuing Wall Street.
So, here’s where I’m at. None of the Democratic candidates were suitable because they pulled their names from the primary ballot (except for Kusinich, who claimed he tried and Clinton). If Michigan doesn’t matter to them in the primary, why should I believe them when they say it does now? And, interestingly, Hillary sure thought Michigan mattered before Obama put her under. Personally, I felt the issue had to do with disenfranchisement, a mantra Hillary seemed to pick up once she realized Michigan really did matter.
Likewise, since McCain has turned his back on Michigan in a rather flamboyant manner, why should I expect him to care out the state and its people if he were president? On a logical level, I can understand the strategy, but the implementation is so overbearing as to cast serious doubt on the man’s credibility to run the country! This is a rather bittersweet conclusion for me to reach as I rather liked McCain in the previous election campaign. But, honestly! Even Michigan Republicans are upset with how this went down. We’ve already had 8 years of a man who does what he wants without considering the consequences. To me, this one single choice, and how it was handled, is far more telling than anyone probably imagined. Until now, I’ve resisted the “4 more years” analogy, but do we really want to continue a leadership style as flippant as this?
That leaves 4 other parties to choose from: the Greens, the Natural Law Party, the Libertarians, and the US Taxpayer’s Party. Of these, polls showed Barr (Lib) and Nader (NLP) at 2% each, nationally, when the two candidates made Michigan’s ballot. Another poll puts Nader at 6%. What do you think would happen if everyone who is as disenchanted with the so similar major parties decided to vote otherwise? We could even reclaim representative democracy for the people!