For the last few days there seems to me to be some big double standards going on in the Democratic primary and hypocrisy that should be checked. There are a few points that I, as a Hillary supporter, feel should at least be made before once again DailyKos goes off into Obama the Savior Mode......
Playing By the Rules FL & MI vs. Superdelegates
Some big bloggers (Kos, Americablog, Chris Bowers) and Obama’s campaign and supporters seem either unwilling or unable to recognize the rank hypocrisy in their sudden breathless denunciation of the possibility that superdelegates may determine the nomination and the Hillary campaign’s call for the seating of FL and MI.
The argument, as far as I can tell, goes that Hillary’s attempts to seat the delegations from FL and MI is unfair because everybody knew the rules going into the nominating contest, FL and MI violated those rules and thus were stripped of delegates. The campaigns then pledged to abide by the DNC rules and therefore Hillary’s call for FL and MI to be seated is an attempt to violate the rules.
Fair enough, but I’d also point out that everybody, including the Obama campaign and these bloggers knew the rules going into the nominating contest and those rules included the votes of superdelegates. There is nothing but pure bias in claiming that FL and MI should not be seated because the rules were set and we must play by the rules but if Hillary tries to win the nomination based on superdelegates it is somehow cheating. If Obama is unable to persuade enough superdelegates to support him and this results in Hillary winning the nomination, well, that is how the rules were set up. You can’t whine that the rules must be followed if it helps Obama but that they should be ignored if they help Hillary. Work to change the DNC rules next time out, but don’t try to change the rules in the middle of the game but denounce others for the same thing. Either the rules should be followed or they shouldn’t.
Undemocratic: Caucuses & Delegates vs. Voters
I also find it hilarious, but more in a sad than funny way, that Obama and his supporters are whining that a Hillary delegate lead based on superdelegates is undemocratic but they have no problem claiming an Obama lead based on very undemocratic caucuses. Take for instance Nevada, where Hillary won the popular vote but (apparently) Obama came away with one more delegate due to the way the delegates are apportioned. There is nothing democratic about that. Take for instance the larger picture that Hillary led Obama in popular votes on Tuesday by some 100,000 votes (according the last numbers I saw) but Obama may come away with more delegates. There is nothing democratic about that either. I’d be surprised if Obama or any of his supporters here think that George W. Bush’s 2000 win was legitimate and fair and democratic, yet they are positively gleeful that their guy may win the nomination despite getting fewer votes.
This is even without noting the inherent problems with the democratic qualities of a caucus in general in that they typically are less likely to be attended by working class people than professionals due to the need to be there at a set time for over an hour. Primaries however allowing people to schedule their vote around their work schedules. Caucuses also tend to leave out people who may well wish to cast a vote for a candidate but find the idea of attending a shouting match wherein they’ll be pressured to go one way or the other unpalatable or find the whole process a confusing and intimidating one. When people are allowed to simply go and cast their vote Obama appears to do less well (yes I do realize he has won primaries, but many of his "big" wins are caucuses except for IL and in Southern states he won’t win in the general).
Money: Rich College Kids vs. Working Class Democrats
Another thing I’ve never really thought about until Obama people began boasting of his ridiculously amazing fundraising was the meaning behind it. Obama, as his campaign and supporters admit, gets large support from the so called "creative class" those making more than $50,000 a year and college students. Whereas Hillary gets big support from those making less than $50,000 a year and Latinos. So Obama is kicking her ass in fundraising, has anyone considered that that may not mean he has more support? Princeton kids who get $1,000 a month from their parents probably have no problem giving $100 every month to Obama, and those "creative" thirtysomethings bringing home $150,000 a year can probably afford to drop more than a nickel in the Obama piggy bank pretty often. But Hillary’s working class supporters and her vast Latino support where incomes are often much lower probably have a harder time putting their credit card info into her website, if they have credit cards at all.
I’m not knocking Obama for getting the financial support of his fans, but I think the campaign and its supporters might consider not being gleeful that core groups supporting Hillary are unable to be so financially supportive. I expect the RNC to be happy that their high income supporters can out raise the lower income supporters of the Democratic Party but to see it within the party is a little disturbing. Again, consider that Hillary may be having money issues because her supporters are not financially well off, and then, consider why those people are supporting her.
Spin: Winning Red States, Winning Each other’s voters
Lastly, I just want to point out that Kos’ and some Obama supporters spin that Obama’s "massive" wins in places like the Alaska and North Dakota caucuses are huge wins for him verge on the point of sillyness. Obama winning North Dakota by 60% of the vote is not indicative of the general election at all. Again, see the problems with caucuses in general above, but also note that these contests were tiny, even if every single person that Obama won in Idaho votes for him in November, he’s going to lose the Gem State. So good for him for having an excellent organization in these states, but they are hardly indicative of what the Democratic Party wants in its nominee, California and New Jersey are for more relevant.
Also, I’ve noticed spin saying that Obama’s performance shows he can win red states while Hillary’s doesn’t. This is outright dishonest. Obama’s red state wins will all be red states in November except for possibly Colorado and Missouri (which was essentially a tie). Obama would not be able to carry Idaho, Alaska, North Dakota, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina or Georgia in a general election (though I will say GA is a possible VERY long shot). Hillary of course, will not win Oklahoma in a general either, but she very well might win Tennesee, Arkansas, or Arizona. So while Obama’s victories in these states is interesting, especially the contrast between heavy black population states with states where there are virtually no black people, on balance Hillary’s red state wins coupled with her wins in the big core Democratic states (IL excepted of course) seems to me the better bet for a win.
Finally, I think the spin going around that Obama was the huge winner because Hillary was supposed to crush him is dishonest. That might have been how it was supposed to be months ago, but Obama has had virtually uninterrupted positive news coverage for two months while Hillary has been treated like dirt by both the media and the Democratic establishment. I don’t think the Hillary camp has been saying Obama had no chance for quite some time and Kos and others who have been implying that are either being ignorant or dishonest about the past 7 or so weeks. The entire story has been almost nonstop about how Obama is surging, how the party establishment is abandoning Hillary, how Obama is the second coming of JFK, so Hillary’s big wins were big wins and Obama’s wins were big wins, but saying that the fact that Hillary didn’t knock Obama out on Tuesday shows she lost big is wrong, the "Hillary is inevitable line" has been dead a long time and nobody expected her to land a knock out on Tuesday.
Where the nomination will end up at this point, I have no idea anymore, but I think these points were worth making, you can now go back to posting "BREAKING: Obama is Awesome!" diaries now.