Today seems to be a dumping station for conservatives to tell us Hillary Clinton is really winning. There is a three article collection forming a Bermuda triangle like axis of BS about the Democratic race.
In short form, Byron York and Rich Lowry argue that Democrats are betraying the "one person, one vote" mentality that drove outrage following the Florida 2000 election. York and Lowry seem to have written their articles using the same 5th grader's math homework.
Ed Koch, on the other hand, simply takes the position that Hillary Clinton is being treated unfairly, and should fight to the convention.
It worries me greatly that these views aren't limited to the stupid or malicious people writing these articles, but will have an effect on many under informed Democrats as well. That's why we need to push back by at very least exposing how ridiculous their arguments are.
More after the jump.
Ed Koch begins by arguing when people want to destroy a politician, they begin taking their comments out of context. He uses Hillary's RFK comments as proof, and concludes:
The clear meaning of her reference is that primary campaigns have often lasted into June, and many unforeseen events - or statements - can happen in any political race before the Party settles on its final choice.
Of course, that's exactly what many thought, that Sen. Clinton was referencing the possibility of the unforeseen event - namely, an assassination - could befall Sen. Obama, as a justification for staying in the race.
Hillary's sole chance of becoming the Democratic candidate for president is in the hands of the super-delegates.
And following this brief truism, expresses one of the great myths of the campaign season:
Clearly, a majority of them have either not made up their minds or prefer to wait and decide that issue closer to or at the Democratic convention. Why else have they not publicly announced their preference? If Obama were the clear choice, as his supporters believe he is, why haven't they convinced enough super-delegates to announce their support of him and end the ongoing series of primaries? Why shouldn't the last states to vote have a chance to affect the result? The reason is obvious. Many super-delegates are not convinced he can win in November, and they are correct to have that concern based on the outcome in key states a Democrat needs to win.
This argument, that superdelegates would throw their support to Obama if only he could convince them is, to quote the esteemed Sen. Biden, malarkey.
It has been clear for some time the cause of unity would be greatly helped if Sen. Clinton accepted defeat in the course of the primaries rather than being pushed out by a wave of superdelegates. That doesn't "prove" the superdelegates are weary of Sen. Obama. In fact, party leadership has continually sent signs they will not let the race break down into a knife fight through the summer. Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, George McGovern, Nunn/Boren, Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy have all either endorsed Obama or recommended his nomination as a fait accompli. So clearly, the gray beards in the party understand this contest is over, and are simply angling for as much dignity to accompany it's conclusion as possible.
Koch finishes with this barn burner, encouraging Sen. Obama's supporters to follow the rules:
Why are Hillary's opponents so afraid of a fair fight? Let the voters decide this campaign, not the spin doctors in the back room.
This leads nicely into Byron York and Rich Lowry's bogus arguments.
During the 2000 election controversy, Democrats brayed "count every vote" in Florida and discounted George Bush’s eventual victory in the Electoral College because he lost the national popular vote to Al Gore. Hillary Clinton has to yearn for the return of that Democratic Party of yore.
And York begins:
During the 2000 Florida recount, newly elected Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said, "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College."
It was a common enough feeling among Democrats at the time, after Al Gore lost the Electoral College — and thus the White House — even though he won the popular vote. Now, Democrats could be on the verge of recreating that unhappy situation within their own party.
So, both start off by comparing the decision to count popular votes over delegates as a disenfranchisement akin to Florida in '00. But it gets better. These two writers seem to shop at the same outlet for examples.
Obama won more net delegates from Idaho (12) in winning the state by 13,000 votes out of 20,000 cast than Clinton netted from New Jersey (11) in winning the state by more than 100,000 votes out of 1 million votes cast.
And from York:
Or look at Idaho and New Jersey.
In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for caucuses. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes. For that, he won 15 delegates to three for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates.
In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama's 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.
Now under what system does it make sense for Obama to collect more net delegates for beating Clinton by 13,000 votes in one state than Clinton does for beating Obama by 110,000 in another?
Is it me, or did these guys get the same set of talking points?
However, while Rich Lowry bemoans the unfairness of it all, Byron York seems to capture the point after a few more misleading paragraphs:
Now, Clinton does not deserve any great sympathy for running afoul of the Democratic system's idiosyncrasies. The high-priced talent on her campaign team certainly knew, or should have known, how the rules in each state would work.
Obama simply outsmarted her.
So clearly he meandered off the official Clinton talking points... I mean, whoever may have provided these carbon copy arguments to these two esteemed journalists. He concludes by saying this:
But for all his skill at maneuvering through the system, if Obama comes out of the race the winner in delegates but the loser (or even virtually tied) in popular votes, he will be a bit diminished when he should be the unquestioned leader of his party.
This diminishing is exactly the concern which drove me to write this piece. The more we allow mouthpieces in the media to keep repeating the idea that the popular vote is somehow a fair metric, the greater foothold it will earn in the minds of Clinton supporters already inclined to feel she's been cheated.
In my opinion this is the work of three conservatives all trying to stir that pot, undermine Obama's legitimacy as the nominee, weakening his support for the general. The problem is, I don't know how to push back, so I thought I'd pull the three bogus articles together and let the DKos community laugh at them, in the hopes some commenter will have a better idea on how to push back than I have.
It's all up to you...