I remember Daily Kos. I remember a place where people actually thought, used their brains, remained pretty internally consistent, and wrote thoughtful and thought-provoking diaries and comments. That day is gone, but I hope it will be again after the primary wars. This morning, though, brought home to me just how completely inane it had all become.
Why? Because hypocrisy, once our greatest charge against Republicans, is so rampant this place has become a cartoon of its former self.
The great hypocrisy is the combination of the claim Clinton wants to "change the rules in the middle of the game" by asking the Credentials Committee to seat Florida and Michigan and the demand that superdelegates vote according to "the will of the people," which really means "according to the pledged delegate count."
"Well yeah," you're asking, "so what's wrong with that? Who the hell are you calling a hypocrite?!"
Well, you.
What brought all this home this morning? THIS DIARY. It is a highly recommended diary celebrating the ignorance of the Clinton campaign about the Texas pledged delegate procedure. You see, in Texas the pledged delegate selection bears, at best, only a passing resemblance to "the will of the people." As the diary explains:
n certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.
In other words, the pledged delegate count from Texas will most definitely NOT be "the will of the people," because delegate assignment is based upon other factors. In Texas (again from the diary) those factors include
a formula that is based on the number of voters in each district who cast ballots for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) in the 2004 presidential campaign and for Chris Bell, the Democratic nominee for governor in 2006.
Just as an aside, some of you might also recall Nevada, where Clinton clearly won "the will of the people," but Obama got more pledged delegates because of weighting to encourage rural voting.
Okay, that's interesting, but what about this "hypocrite" accusation? That's easy. You see, the very same people dancing about in glee over the Texas diary are also demanding Clinton bow to "the will of the people or they will not vote for her in the General Election.
One person with comments all over the Texas diary wrote another this morning entitled Hey Hillary - Fairness, Honesty, and Means Matter. In it he writes:
It is non-negotiable that we expressly and concisely make it clear that the person with the most pledged delegates should be our nominee. Should any candidate attempt to subvert this spirit, it is our obligation to come forward and say that we don't want such a candidate speaking for this party. This does not mean by vowing not to vote for HRC in the general election makes me an enabler of John McCain. It means that I adhere to a very simple concept in everyday life known as a "dealbreaker." A person willing to steal a nomination after finishing 2nd is a dealbreaker.
Really? Why? You KNOW, at least after reading the Texas diary, that pledged delegates are NOT "the will of the people." You also know that such a demand is NOT part of the rules, and that you are really "playing Calvinball" at least as much as any Clinton supporters. But the good news is, your diary should be on the recommended list any second now.
Unfortunately, this sort of reasoning is everywhere. A year ago, the hypocrisy would not have been condoned on Daily Kos. Now, it is celebrated There isn't a person here who does not know just how undemocratic the pledged delegates are, certainly not after Nevada. I also have seen few (though there have been some, and I tip my hat to you) Obama supporters demanding Ted Kennedy and John Kerry use their superdelegate vote to support Clinton, even though she won Massachusetts.
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."
Folks, I like spirited debate as much as the next guy. I am perfectly willing to debate the merits of one candidate over another, and to comment on candidate's campaigns (and yes, it is astounding Clinton did not understand Texas until now). But I absolutely refuse to pretend hypocrisy and absurdity has not become the front page and the recommended section of what used to be a fairly intellectual and honest political blog.
I mourn for Daily Kos, and hope it will stop being Daily Obama once the primary wars are over. In the meantime, people, at least try to be consistent.