Cross-posted to Switzerblog, as usual
While sitting home sick this weekend (which sucks, I don't recommend it), I had the opportunity to watch the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee decision and related reaction. I also had ample time to consider things about Hillary Clinton's campaign that have been on my nerves for weeks now. Hopefully I get this all out in a coherent fashion!
First off, the RBC not only did the right thing, they did more than was necessary. Both Florida and Michigan were well-informed of the outcome of their changed primary dates, and importantly, Harold Ickes and other Clinton supporters on the committee, with Hillary's full support, voted last year to strip both states of their delegates. The only reason this is an issue is because she's lost and needs an issue to stir up her supporters.
A (very weak) case could be made for seating the full delegates - tactically, from Obama's perspective, it would really just delay the inevitable, and would assuage Michigan and Florida's voters. Who, of course, have been whipped into a froth about the issue with Hillary's incessant prodding. Realistically, though, this shouldn't happen. Both states knew what the outcome would be of changing their dates, and to give them a free pass would not only send the message that no rules need be enforced, but would be a big fuck you to states like Nevada and South Carolina who would have liked to be earlier, but complied with the rules. Florida's recent complaining that it was all the Republican legislature's fault, not the Democratic voters, rings empty to my ears. Really, Florida Democrats? You let Republicans dictate your party's nomination process? Let's not kid ourselves, they had the opportunity to adapt and use a caucus system to apportion their delegates. So, other than the opportunity to soothe the two state's feelings, the only real advantage to this would have been unplugging one of HRC's many bogus arguments.
Leaving things as they were was, tactically, a non-starter as well. It would have respected the rules, of course, but HRC has worked overtime to get those all tossed out the window anyway (since her campaign didn't understand them to start with, they must not matter). The anger Hillary's ginned up among her Michigan and Florida supporters would have gotten completely out of hand had they just left things alone. (Look at this lunatic for a barometer of the response that would have gotten...this person isn't even from Michigan or Florida, and is this unhinged despite the rules being changed in her candidate's favor!)
So, that leaves us with the solution we've got, which aside from Harold Icke's posturing, was supported by most of Hillary's supporters on the committee. It moves the goalpost out a bit, but frankly Obama should make up that difference this week and "end" it. I say "end" because I've lost faith in Hillary's sense of reason, and until I see differently, I assume she'll refuse to concede until the last delegate casts their vote in Denver. And for you Hillary supporters who are so up in arms about the Michigan uncommitted delegates being given to Obama (and don't forget the four "hijacked" delegates, woe is us!), even if they seated every delegate as is, she'd still be 130 delegates behind, and he'd only need 110 to seal the deal. She'd lose anyway. And frankly, had your candidate not been taking great pains to game the system ex post facto, and had evidence not indicated that Hillary supporters had made efforts to fill those uncommitted delegate slots for the national convention, this action would not have been necessary. Don't like that? Tough shit.
This brings us to the alternate reality on Planet HRC. You see, despite frothing up their supporters with the false hope that she could win if the full delegates were seated, the campaign knew that was never the case. They just wanted to be able to count Florida and Michigan (where, lest we forget, Obama kept his word and removed himself from the ballot) in their interpretation of the popular vote. You see, on planet HRC, if you include Florida and Michigan, both states where Obama respected the rules and agreements and Hillary did not, Hillary leads in the alternate reality popular vote. In the real world, of course, that only works if you throw out caucus states where she lost and ignore the Texas caucus, which counts in the delegate count but went for Obama. But it seems that if you talk to any HRC supporter at this point, their alternate reality has taken over their brain. (shame that the legacy media is buying into this fiction, too)
What other beliefs are truths in the alternate reality of Planet HRC? Well, that Obama will lose nationally to McCain, but Hillary would win. That her primary wins in "big states" translate into electoral college victory, but guaranteed losses for him. That he's run a "sexist" campaign. That he's somehow stolen the nomination from her. That he is, himself, a racist. And if reports yesterday are to be believed, some folks on Planet HRC now believe Obama is a murderer! Hooray - supporters of the woman who will forever be accused by Republicans of murdering Vince Foster now accuse their opponent of being a murderer because he, um, "took" the nomination from her (that chain email should hit the ol' inbox in 3..2..). At least most of them don't think he's a Muslim, although many of them are convinced that this belief is so widespread it will destroy him. Our only hope is Hillary! The one that goes unspoken, but is definitely a subtext here and infuriates me more than almost anything, is the idea that Hillary deserves the nomination because "women have suffered long enough"...which, of course, ignores the fact that Obama is a black man in a country famous for its past embrace of slavery and deeply ingrained racism!
To be clear:
A: No one "deserves" the nomination, except the person who earns it by winning primaries and caucuses.
B: Women have suffered. Blacks have suffered. Neither is comparable. And neither fact makes any member of those classes "qualified" to be President. To suggest so is ludicrous and stupid.
So let's address these. The idea that Obama can't win in November but she will is driven from current polls, which show her doing better than him against McCain in the electoral vote (Obama leads in national preference polls, she essentially ties). There are a couple factors at play here. One is Florida. She wins it, he's losing big. Thanks to Hillary's efforts, Florida is a lost cause. She's been at great pains to paint him as the devil there. The main issue, however, is that Obama is right now at his low point in the polls, after two months of constant attacks against his character and relentless scandal-mongering from the Clinton team. During those two months, aside from the Bosnia lie nonsense and the RFK gaffe, Clinton and McCain have both gone unexamined, both in their character, recent actions, and their history. Clinton and McCain are both at their high point in national polls. Clinton is one big bundle of scandals, none of which Obama has examined (nor has the media!). If she's your nominee, it's one after the other for months and months, plus her generally disagreeable nature during this campaign, and you've got a sad loss for a formerly promising candidate. Obama's seen the kitchen sink thrown at him, and a 10% lead in national polls against McCain is his low point. Cleaning up the electoral votes, even without Florida, is not just possible but likely. The reality is, once Democrats start pounding on McCain, and Democratic incumbents (there are more of them, remember!) start working with Obama, states will swing his direction.
The big state argument is laughably bogus. She won California, ergo Obama will lose to McCain? Fucking nonsense. She won New York, ergo he can't beat McCain there? Honestly, what idiot can actually believe this shit? She's guaranteed him a Florida loss, and my guess at the moment is she'll work to undermine him in Ohio as well, but if I'm right, neither state would be a loss on HIS merits, but rather would be due to HER efforts.
He's run a sexist campaign? He's a racist? He "stole" the nomination? Buh..what!? People in the media have certainly been sexist, no doubt, but Obama's been nothing but deferential throughout. The "sweetie" comment would have gone unnoticed by all but the most determined feminists had Hillary not turned the sexism filter up to 11. And the campaign that harbors Geraldine Ferraro and Harriet Christian ("an inadequate black male who wouldn't have run if it wasn't a white woman running!"), or which openly states they're the choice for "hard-working, white voters" certainly has little room to be casting the racism card. And as for "stole" the nomination...well, if your definition of "stole" is "won more delegates according to the rules", then yes.
Okay, you get the point. Planet HRC has some sort of reality-deflecting atmosphere that creates Harriet Christians. I have friends at work about whose sanity I've come to have my doubts...because their arguments about this have gone so far from being reasonable or rational that I simply can't understand them anymore. But the reality is, the only possible reason for all these Clinton supporters who claim they'll vote for McCain in the fall to actually do so is to give themselves the "I told you so" edge. They want to say he can't win, then work to guarantee it. And that, my friends, is a complete separation from reality as far as I'm concerned. Make no mistake: With Hillary's supporters, Obama wins in the fall. Without them, he (possibly) loses. It's that simple, and it's their choice, not his. Remember this when November 6th rolls around and we examine what happened. Did the fog lift? Did they make the right decision, or not? Time will tell.