Retroactive Action

Whether you sympathize with Hillary Clinton or not, it does seem as if every thinking Democrat (is that oxymoronic?) ought to be able to reject out of hand the idea that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would be seated. It is clear that this was a planned campaign tactic on her part; while others respected the call of the Party, those who refrained even from campaigning in those states, responding to the terms which were set before them - playing the "game" according to the rules at the time. Clearly running against a Clinton they ought to have anticipated that for them reality has nothing to do with the bid for office.
Hillary blatently lies about being shot at while visiting troops overseas, and the media jump all over her like hyenas attacking - well, a nap. Her spokespeople blatently lie about her lie - saying it is because she was tired, it was late - she's been campaigning hard - she did after all live with Bill for many years, and how could that not cause you to be confused over what is actually true? And none of them are called on the carpet. While accepting public monies (matching funds), or donations solicited over the internet, or through the United States Post Office, shouldn't there be some standard of expectation that candidates and their representatives tell the truth? Are we going to hold Roger Clemons to a higher standard of "testimony" before Congress, than someone running for the office of President?
Aren't the candidates, each time the step up to the podium, and have their comments broadcast over the public airwaves, essentially testifying, not only before Congress, but before the electorate? Could they not be sworn in, at the inception of each campaign? I can understand spin - like when Barack wins more delegates on a given day, and Hillary claims victory. I can understand optimism in the face of daunting odds. But this is a person who directly lied - a lie which, if believed, would work to her benefit - then lied about the lie. Isn't that what she and the other lawyers who went after Richard Nixon claimed was the worst, most unforgivable, of his actions?
She and the other candidates entered the arena, agreeing to certain rules. Among those rules it was clearly known that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the convention. Now, again when it is to her benefit, she argues vociferously for their inclusion. Changing the rules now would be like changing the tax burden on a business in the middle of the year - okay, not a good example - they do that all the time. That kind of retroactive re-drawing of the rules is absurd. Of course, that does depend on what your definition of is - is.