Yesterday Hillary Clinton won the West Virginia primary by a whopping 41% over Barack Obama, with barely a whimper on this site or among the "cognoscenti." That Clinton would win by such a large margin, after the campaign is "over" should be getting a lot more attention, whichever candidate one supports. Of course, what we mostly get is either microscopic analysis sniffing out the favorable nuggets for Obama (like pigs after white truffles) and detailing how WV is tailor-made for Clinton (all of those "low-information" voters, you know) or dismissive yawns over this "expected" result. This is not to say that we got similar analysis (or yawns) regarding Obama's wins in Mississippi, or Georgia, or South Carolina, and the like (all hailed as triumphs royal) or the fully expected result in North Carolina. (In fact, the only unexpected result Tuesday a week ago was that Clinton won Indiana, a state next to Illinois (remember how much credit many on this site gave Obama for winning Connecticut), which the Obama campaign expected to win by 7%. Somehow, however, these results signaled the end of the game for Clinton.
Such situational logic is not surprising here. At times, the contortions and legerdemain engaged in to extol Obama is so wildly irrational (or intellectually dishonest, or ignorant, or stupid) as to be breathtaking. Obama clearly has mastered the narrative, and the strings to guide it. As if saying a thing is so often enough makes it so (a tactic that should sound familiar and, on another day, frightening).
Much credit is due to Obama for the effort so far, but not as much as is given here. But at this late date, it is far too late to expect (or hope for) anything close to thoughtful or objective analysis. The nomination is likely his, but not necessarily. We are ill-served by nonsensical characterizations of the possibility that Clinton would win the nomination by dint of unpledged delegates as a coup or a putsch. It might be unwise or ill-informed, but it is well within (and contemplated by) the rules. Just as, I suppose, if John Kerry had won Ohio in 2004, it would not have been a coup for him to win the Presidency by vote of the Electoral College even though George Bush won the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes (2.4%). So much for subverting the will of the voters. (And how many of us righteously touted the fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000?) Winning a majority of the pledged delegates, according to the RULES, is not and should not be dispositive. And that sanctified "will of the voters?" Not so much, when we defend the patently exclusionary caucus system because their results favor Obama. And let's put aside the disproportion in the proportional system of allotting delegates. Or that Texas caucus voters were voting for the second time! Why? Because Obama wins.
We read much about the potential costs of a sore loser in this game. Rightly so. A sore loser can spoil the day. But an admonishment to all of you Obama acolytes: so can a poor winner. In over 30 years of regular voting I recall voting for only one Republican candidate (in the first election I voted in, although my memory fades -- I may actually have voted for the Democrat in that 1976 Illinois race for Governor). Today I contemplated not voting for Barack Obama. While I certainly will vote for the Democratic nominee, I have spoken to many people, solid Democratic votes, who will not. We have found the maniacal devotion (so much more prevalent among Obama supporters), smugness, condescension and gloating so off-putting, so offensive that it rankles to the core. Unfortunately for you, we are "high-information" voters. I imagine this disposition is worse among the less committed, low rent voters you so openly dismiss. Sometimes, though we know it shouldn't, emotion prevails over intellect, and how one is treated is as important as the deed. Taunting us to stay home is an effective aid to the McCain campaign. Yeah, keep that up. For me, yesterday was the straw. Obama's campaigning in Missouri and Michigan (with primary elections long passed), in complete and purposeful disregard of the vote in WV and of states upcoming (that "saying of a thing" tactic) was profoundly disrespectful and dismissive. One might even find the taint of sexism -- that whole "brushing dust from my shoulder" thing. He surely did not simply leave a congratulatory voice mail on her cell phone, as reported? So much for the "every state matters" meme.
And while I'm writing a bit about rules (ah, the vaunted rules, rules uber alles), here's one regarding dailykos diaries (number 21):
Diaries on contested Democratic primaries: Be positive. Make an affirmative case for your favored candidate. If you do criticize a Democratic candidate, don't make ad hominem attacks - stick to substantive criticisms, and back them up with hard evidence. Be very cautious if you go after a fellow Democrat. Odds are, that candidate will have supporters on this site. Reasonable people will accept reasonable criticism - unfair criticism will only needlessly inflame. And remember, deliberately inflammatory diaries are prohibited.
I know we can't count the "in the pocket" things that kos writes because he has made it pretty clear that he owns this site and can write what he damn well pleases (fair enough). But this clearly is one rule that has been honored almost exclusively in the breach these past few months in regards to Clinton. (I find it rich that Obama supporters now advance the trustworthiness argument against Clinton's electability (polls show a majority of voters find Clinton untrustworthy, or some such) when it is Obama who has tirelessly railed against Clinton's trustworthiness, driving the untrustworthy number inexorably higher. All the while I remember the constant whining from Obama supporters about Clinton making the case for McCain against Obama -- sauce for the goose definitely not sauce for the gander. Obama, slick politician that he is, referred, for example, to Clinton's gas tax holiday proposal as "untruthful." Untruthful? Please. Irrational? Pandering? Short-sighted? Maybe. But untruthful? Not even close. It was a proposal (in other words, it is what it is).). One diary went on comment after comment (launched from a diary of demonstrably false premises) about whether Clinton was a pathological liar or a sociopath. Seriously. There might have been something in there about killing Vince Foster, too.
For a crowd of people so impressed with its ability to rise above the fog perpetuated by the MSM, it is surprising either how gullible you are in succumbing to the received truths of this campaign season, or how shamelessly many manipulate the refrain themselves in service to the Obama narrative. Bloggers seem to be constantly imploring the rest of us to take them as the serious observers they are. For years, I did, happy for a fresher, less entrenched perspective. What my experience here the last few months has taught me is that bloggers are as rife with self-interest as the rest of us (I was naive, I know), and as willing to manipulate facts and opinion in service to that interest. A squandered opportunity, this loss of credibility, if you ask me.