The clause proscribing any religious test for public office is in Article VI, section 3, not Article IV.

I'm sure this is a transposed typo, but just wanted to set the record straight.

P.S. Do I detect the odor of burning sulphur on this thread?

It is important to remember the fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were in vastly different phases of their careers in 2002. At the time, conventional wisdom was that Clinton, as a highly visible senator with an eye on the presidency, would be committing political suicide if she didn't back the resolution. If Obama had been in her position, it would have taken not only great foresight but astounding political courage to oppose the war, and I'm not certain he would have had the courage to challenge the resolution under those circumstances.

I'm not so sure that, had Obama been in Hillary's position, it would have been as difficult a call as you suggest. Both my Michigan senators - Levin and Stabenow - voted against the resolution. Stabenow, like Clinton, was a first-term senator from a relatively progressive state.

My guess is that her vote was motivated by her presidential aspiration: as a woman, she needed to be on record as tough on security.

As a Michigan registered Democrat who voted in this primary, let me clear up some misconceptions posted here about that primary. It is, of course, the continuing saga of how the Democrats eat their young.

The National Democratic Committee set primary rules that did not include Michigan and Florida among those states allowed the earliest dates for primaries and caucuses. Michigan's and Florida's state party committees decided to break that rule and go with earlier dates. The rationale here in MI was to become a key player in determining the party's presidential nominee. The national committee sanctioned both states by declaring their delegates will not be seated at the convention. Party leadership here and in Florida chose to defy the nat'l committee and went ahead with the February 15th date. Dem. candidates at the time had signed a pledge not to run in MI if the primary was on Feb. 15th. Most of the candidates withdrew their names from the ballot. Kucinich's remained because he got his form in too late to be dropped. Beside his name the other candidates still on the ballot were Dodd (who had dropped out by then) and Clinton. The only other option was "Not Committed". I can't remember if Gravel was on the ballot or not.

Party rules prohibited writing in a candidate. We were told the ballot would be discounted if we did. The grassroots rebellion for those of us who had other choices - mine was Edwards - was to vote "not committed" in order to have 15% or more candidates who - if seated - would be free to vote for someone other than Clinton.

If anyone here thinks Clinton merits her delgates from this egregious, disenfranchizing fiasco, I'd like to hear why.

I am going back and forth on the delegates in Michigan, since Obama and Edwards took their names off of the ballots, but I did read an earlier post as to a calculation that may work. Clinton did win the State of Michigan as well, since she did capture the voters who selected her name on the ballot.

The candidates pledged not to run in any state that didn't honor the date requirements of the national committee. Clinton didn't honor that pledge. Further more, voters with other choices were disenfranchized. There was virtually no slate from which to "select".

Today's NYT says the Clinton campaign may choose an "incendiary" strategy and press for these delegates to be seated. Rule or ruin, just so she wins. To hell with the general election outcome. I hope she comes to her senses.

I am going back and forth on the delegates in Michigan, since Obama and Edwards took their names off of the ballots, but I did read an earlier post as to a calculation that may work. Clinton did win the State of Michigan as well, since she did capture the voters who selected her name on the ballot.

The candidates pledged not to run in any state that didn't honor the date requirements of the national committee. Clinton didn't honor that pledge. Further more, voters with other choices were disenfranchized. There was virtually no slate from which to "select".

Today's NYT says the Clinton campaign may choose an "incendiary" strategy and press for these delegates to be seated. Rule or ruin, just so she wins. To hell with the general election outcome. I hope she comes to her senses.