This diary is in reaction to this one penned by dhonig, which writes a requiem for rational thought and reality-based reasoning on Daily Kos in favor of idol worship and base hypocrisy favoring Barak Obama and condemning Hillary Clinton. One of the charges in the diary is that Democrats are engaging in the same kind of hypocrisy that defines Republicans during this primary election, blasting Hillary for his about face on the Florida and Michigan delegates while, at the same time, giggling with glee at the notion that Clinton may win "the popular vote" in Texas but not win the delegates because of Texas rules during the primary.
Sorry, but there is nothing more absurd than someone getting all uppity about absolutely nothing at all.
The message of dhonig's diary is crying over this conspiratorial coup that the Clintons are allegedly organizing (using their political favors to strong arm super delegates to vote for them even though the party delegates might elect Obama) while, at the same time, getting all giddy over the prospect of hilary "winning" Texas but losing in the delegate count to Obama due to Texas' wacky primary rules smells of Republican-like hypocrisy. One of the reasons there are super delegates, according to dhonig, is that:
Superdelegates exist, at least in part, BECAUSE the pledged delegate system is not democratic. It is weighted to reward precincts that voted for Democrats in the past (e.g. Texas)and to encourage rural voting (e.g. Nevada). The constant demand that superdelegates vote in accord with pledged delegates, with full knowledge they do NOT represent "the will of the people," is pure hypocrisy, and gets even worse when combined with one of two things, or both. The first, of course, complaints that Hillary is trying to "change the rules midgame," and the second the threats not to vote for the Demcoratic candidate if she "steals the election" from "the will of the people."
What's interesting about this diary is it comes right on the heals of this one, a diary by 2004 Presidential primary delegate Mark Cohen of Pennsylvania, who wrote:
But then the euphoria faded. I was overcome by the knowledge that I had been given a responsibility by the voters to try to nominate a future President of the United States. John Kerry had come in first place in my Congressional District and in the state of Pennsylvania by a large margin.
There was no question that he would be the nominee.
I had not been elected to show creativity. I had not been elected to give a boost to a friend in politics or to get some media coverage. I had been elected to execute a limited but important responsibility--to cast the vote that would most help the Democrats regain the White House.
I will remind posters like dhonig, whose diary is very interesting and well-worth reading, that the reaction by several Kossacks in the diary he is reacting to is natural, especially given the rumored information that the Clintons are indeed strong arming super delegates to vote their way regardless of how the people vote. As Mr. Cohen notes in his diary, the roll of a super delegate is to follow the wishes of the people, even though there is nothing written to say she or he must do so. And for the Clintons to allegedly engage in this kind of activity reeks more Republicanism than anything said in the diary dhonig decries.
I was an Edwards supporter, and I still am. I voted for Obama in the NY primary and live in an area that saw significant disenfranchisement among black voters voting for Barak. I also work at a place where the Hillary love is very high, almost blinding. Of all the Democratic candidates, I have liked Hilary the least during this primary, mainly for his campaign's arrogant way of running things and this "scorched earth" policy they seem to have about this primary.
And despite cries from folks like dhonig, the reason there are so many "Go Mo!" diaries on Daily Kos now is very simple: Obama's campaign is people-powered while Clinton's is not.
We can argue the merits of the candidates until we are blue in the face. I personally will never vote for Hillary Clinton even if she gets the nomination. I simply refuse to vote for anyone who is unapologetic for sending thousands of Americans to die in a war that meant nothing. If I wanted an unapologetic, arrogant aristocrat running the Executive Office again, I'd vote Bush Jr. for a third term. When folks talk Republican-lite, this is what they mean. I want a real Democrat, or none at all. It's how I am. If a real Dem is there, real change gets done. If another Bush bot is there, we have an enemy to point a finger at, raise money against, and rally around. But, that's just me. For the Obama crowd, the anger they have at Clinton is both real and, in many cases justified.
However you feel about Clinton's position in Nevada ("winning" the state, but getting fewer delegates than Obama), the fact of the matter is Obama is crushing Clinton when it comes to actual people voting for him over her. He's crushing her in fundraising, with more small donations to his campaign as compared to her cash strapped operation which relies on big dollar donations from the very people who have benefited from the Bush tax cuts for seven years. Couple this with the arrogance and buffoonery by her campaign staff, employing the tried-and-failed strategy of only focusing on the "important states," and it is simply natural that Barak Obama supporters get skittish over Clinton strong arming her super delegates.
For me, it is refreshing to see someone like Obama employ a 50 state strategy, and to see it work. I'm originally from Indiana, and Democrats stopped caring about my home state a long time ago. It's a big reason why Indiana is so damn red. So, to see a candidate like Obama take interest in states like Alaska, Delaware, Wisconsin, Alabama, and Virginia is very refreshing over the cynical, cut-throat Carvell-like approach that only California and New York matter. And in many of these states, Obama is utterly crushing Clinton, winning 15 states by 20 or more points.
I personally see nothing hypocritical or Republican-like in the diary dhonig is decrying. I simply see people reacting to something that could get very ugly, very quickly. The Clintons have done a astoundingly stupid job of solidifying very myth about them during this primary election; that they will do ANYTHING to win an election. And with the news that Clinton is whispering in the ears of super delegates, telling them to ignore the wisdom of people like Mr. Mark Cohen, it will only reinforce the paranoia of many Obama supporters, whose campaign has soundly kicked the crap out of the Clinton machine since South Carolina.
