I’m really having trouble understanding this fixation on the “Florida and Michigan problem.” Hillary said last night on Larry King, “"I'm going until we get Florida and Michigan resolved." As a Florida resident who took part in the object of this fiasco, I’m under the impression that it had been resolved before it started.

The DNC made it clear to the Florida legislature that their delegates would not be seated if the primary date was moved up. This policy supported a valid democratic principle that candidates should start their campaigns in small states allowing for the electorate to get to know lesser known candidates with less financial ability. As their recognition and strength grew, they would be better equipped to challenge more established candidates in the larger states later. That should appear to every Democrat the fair and American thing to do.

Each of the candidates in the race at the time signed off on a pledge not to campaign in the two states if they chose to defy this DNC policy.  The Republican legislature in Florida, with some Democratic participation, proceeded to hold an early primary anyway, putting into effect the signed pledges.

I was under no illusion that my vote for Edwards would have any more effect than an informal popularity contest. This fact should have been well known throughout the state. The vast majority of the voter turnout was for a referendum on a controversial property tax amendment. I imagine there was a significantly low turnout from those who are not property owners.

But now an irrational emotion has been brought to a boil behind the idea that these voters are being disenfranchised. How often does every state in the union get to play a part in the presidential primary process? It is true that the entire debacle should have never happened. But it certainly was not the fault of the DNC or any particular candidate.

What is troubling is the fact that Clinton is intent on retracting her written pledge upon the reason that it would benefit her ailing position. What type of character or crisis management style does this demonstrate? Would she be this quick to go back on campaign pledges or international treaties at the first moment they became unfavorable in any way to her current status quo.  It becomes even more absurd when you look at the delegate math and realize that even Florida and Michigan would still not solve her problem.