by Tom Shields
March 16, 2008

Imagine it’s November 1990. You’re sitting in a Renaissance Hotel suite, huddled with the Blanchard Campaign. It’s 4:00 a.m. and the results are in. Your candidate has just lost by 17,000 votes. Everyone is kicking himself or herself for what should have been done. The legal team is mulling a recount.

Finally, a staffer pipes up and says, “Wait! We don’t have to recount this. Let’s just have a re-do.”

Ah. If the election results aren’t exactly as you’d planned — just do the re-do.

Re-do is bound to be the term du jour for this political campaign season, taking its place right alongside the hanging chad in the political terminology guide.

As absurd as the above scenario sounds, it’s exactly what the Democrats are considering in the wake of the duff they hit during Michigan’s January presidential primary election. It’s a Mulligan, if you will — shank the first shot, use your Mulligan and hit another.

The Michigan and National Democratic Party apparently see our presidential primary process as something they own. They get to accept the results, reject the results or simply tell Michigan to re-do the whole thing.

The governor has stated that no mater what happens, “it has to be fair to both candidates.” Wait a second. I don’t remember seeing Barack Obama on the ballot in January. And, if the issue is fairness to the candidates, what about John Edwards? Back in January, he was a viable alternative who with union support could have been a major factor.

And what about poor Hillary? While she followed the national party’s edict not to campaign in Michigan, at least she had the balls to put her name on the ballot. She was attacked for that decision in Iowa and New Hampshire. And, who knows, it may have been a factor in her early losses. But, she won Michigan, as people appreciated her standing up for our state by at least keeping her name on the ballot. Now, are we going to reward her loyalty by making her go through it all over again?

Worse still, the Obama Campaign has suggested just splitting the delegates. Where is the fairness in that? He wasn’t even on the ballot. Where’s the relevance? If we are just going to re-write history, why have an election in the first place?

Last year we heard all the speeches that Michigan needed to move its presidential primary date up to become relevant with New Hampshire and Iowa. It was great to see the Michigan Democrats stand up to their national party brothers and not back down. But now since that decision didn’t work out as nicely as they’d thought, state party leaders want to move the primary back again to become as relevant as…Puerto Rico?

We’ve been assured that whatever the Dems decide to do, this re-do will not cost Michigan taxpayers a dime. Of course, that implies we’ll all conveniently forget about the $6 million it cost taxpayers to run the Democrat half of the January primary.

Pennsylvania’s governor has said it won’t be tough for the Dems to raise the $30 million necessary to pay for re-dos in Florida and Michigan. The thought of the Dems spending that kind of money on a two-state re-do instead of advertising against John McCain should make Republicans giddy.

Most important, where is the fairness for the more than half-million Michigan voters who braved winter’s bite to go to the polls on January 15 and vote in the Democratic primary? They went to the polls to make their vote count for something. A majority voted for Clinton. A bunch voted uncommitted because they supported Obama, Edwards or maybe someone else.

State party leaders, including the Gov, encouraged voters to get to the polls and express their franchise. Leaders and voters knew full well the national party folks didn’t approve what they were doing. Now it appears voters are being abandoned and ignored by both their state and national parties.

Michigan’s Democratic Party would earn a lot more respect by abiding the wishes of the voters in Michigan than by kowtowing to the national party.

Hillary and Obama need Michigan in November. If the national party wants to ignore the voters of Michigan, Michigan voters might just undo the support they’ve traditionally given to the Democratic presidential candidates the last four elections.

Let them try and re-do that.

Tom Shields is founder and president of Marketing Resource Group, a Lansing-based political marketing and public relations firm.