It depends on what the meaning of to participate is

Hillary Clinton's campaign is extending its "Just Words" attack on Barack Obama to the fate of Michigan's disputed Democratic delegates today -- accusing Obama of backing away from his earlier statement that he would be "fine" with a re-vote in a state that risked losing all its delegates to the Democratic National Convention when it scheduled its primary for mid-January, violating national party rules.

The words that matter most on the subject, it would seem, are more than six months old -- from a pledge that Democratic campaigns agreed to last August and a Clinton press release announcing her support for that pledge.
The pledge reads, in part, "I shall not campaign or participate (emphasis added) in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina..."

Today, Clinton's memo argues "Let's remember that the point of the early state pledge was to protect the role of the four states that held early nominating contests. Well the contests in those states were protected and the people in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada got a chance to vote... Senator Clinton signed the pledge and kept it... Senator Obama decided to go further and made a voluntary decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot."

So the issue would seem to be, what does the word "participate" actually mean?

and I'm thinking, you know, if they were seated after their state parties broke the rules and one candidate took advantage of the situation, THAT would call the legitimacy of the candidate into question.

I'm with everyone else who just wants this over.

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -- Ambassador Kosh