But as Greg McNeilly points out at the Political Machine, the real story here may be that Hillary hasn't agreed to skip the Michigan primary yet. While Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson are showing unity and party loyalty by announcing their withdrawl simultaneously, Cliton once again seperates herself from the pack by declining to join the announcement.
The first thought in my mind is that this is a major "test" of party loyalty - not just in following the nationally set state-primary schedule, but also in allowing Hillary to compete uncontested in a significantly populated state.
Hillary does not need to demonstrate party loyalty. In many ways, "Clinton" is already synonymous with "Democratic Party Leadership." Quite unlike how Republicans seek distance from Bush during elections, the Democratic hopefuls tend to owe much of their personal success to patronage and assistance from the 1993-2001 crowd: Bill, Hillary, and Al Gore. Bill Clinton's popularity numbers remain high despite several scandals and fifteen years of national public scrutiny; Hillary is in a huge lead against any competitor; and Al Gore continues to profit from his apocolyptic prophecies despite legal proof of innaccuracies and exaggerations in his movie. Considering the level of influence these three have maintained even after being out of office for so long, the party power of Senators Obama and Edwards seems almost non-existant.
At this point, these 'second-tier' primary candidates may just be looking for a promotion from Congress and into an executive appointment. Handing Hillary Clinton a free victory in Michigan may be just the expression of "party loyalty" that can make such an appointment materialize. Even if she does eventually withdraw from the Michigan primary, she will have done so with her and her challengers knowing full well that she could choose to run uncontested in one of the earliest primary elections ever. Talk about an ego booster.
