I just saw Eugene Robinson on Keith Olbermann's show tonight. And he made a point I hadn't quite thought of before. He said that, according to Clinton, "some states are more equal than others," paraphrasing George Orwell's "Animal Farm."
And it's true--the media and even Kossacks here are skipping over the significance of the upcoming contests in Wyoming and Mississippi, as if Pennsylvania were the only state left that mattered. She suspects she cannot win WY, because it is a caucus state, or MS, because there is a large African-American contingent. We know the drill.
But why are so many accepting her version of things? Is PA really more important for Obama to win than WY? Why? Why are states like Virginia and South Carolina less important than Ohio and Texas--because there are more black people there? Are black people less equal than others?
If we look closely, we realize the only thing that differentiates the states that count from the ones that don't is whether Hillary does well in them. And similarly for demographic groups. Why is Obama expected to prove himself AGAIN by cutting into the ranks of Hispanics, women and older voters whereas Hillary is never expected to do well in a caucus or to make inroads with the black community.
Michelle Obama was so right. They keep moving the bar. When he proves himself with one contingent, he is not considered legitimate because he still doesn't get Hispanics. Even though he's won a vast majority of the state contests, he's still unproven because he has yet to win a "big" state (by Hillary's definition).
Well one thing is clear. When he locks up this nomination, it will have been the little states that put him over the top. Hillary and the MSM might consider them "less equal," but they will have their revenge in the end.