Right now, I consider myself an Obama "supporter," which means that I will vote for him in Pennsylvania and cheer for him as the results come in. However, my support is not strong enough that I am willing to become an Obama activist. In terms of policy, Obama has the advantage in ending the causes of the Iraq war, but Clinton has the lead in health care and housing policy. While the Democratic establishment prefers Clinton, the Village prefers Obama. I even voted for Clinton in the MoveOn.org endorsement vote because I wanted to block any endorsement. On several occasions, including the vote to condemn MoveOn.org, I actually thought that Clinton is less likely to throw progressive allies under the bus than Obama. Maybe that just means that I should go attend a 70's-style, anti-military love-in, or something.
Still, overall I think Obama holds a progressive policy advantage, I love the greater activist excitement around Obama, and I simply identify with Obama more. Also, as I explain in the extended entry, the ongoing arguments over super delegates and Michigan / Florida could push me over the edge to actually becoming active for Obama: |
Here is one example of what I am talking about:
This evening, I went through the superdelegates that have "endorsed" each candidate. According to CNN's latest count, 193 superdelegates have endorsed Hillary Clinton (D), while 106 superdelegates have backed Obama.
But a quick look at the breakdown of the superdelegates shows that 27 of Obama's 106 superdelegates come from states he's already lost (25%), a percentage that is twice as large as the 25 of Clinton's 193 superdelegates (13%) who come from states she has lost.
While Clinton has racked-up considerably more superdelegates than Obama, she's also doing a much better job of the winning the states they come from. Yet, it is Obama who has raised the concern about superdelegates who cross their state's popular vote winner.
Specifically, Obama stated that superdelegates "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.'"
Seems a little hypocritical to me...
OK, now I am starting to get angry enough to actually throw in a donation to Obama. It isn't just this blog post, either, but rather the entire Clinton campaign argument about delegates that is pissing me off.
Obama and Clinton are virtually tied in terms of the popular vote right now, with Obama holding a slight lead outside of Florida and Michigan because of his performance in South Carolina. While all of the figures are not available, I'm actually pretty sure that if someone were to multiply final delegate percentages in all caucus states with raw caucus participation in those states, that Obama is ahead in terms of popular participation in the campaign even when Michigan and Florida are included. State delegate counts severely undercount popular participation in caucus states.
What irritates me is this: there is no way that Clinton's nearly a 2-1 lead in super delegates should be considered legitimate given how close the popular vote has been. For the Clinton campaign, respecting democracy is the thing to do when it favors the Clinton campaign, while respecting the rules of the DNC is the thing to if democracy doesn't produce the right outcome. On the one hand, the Clinton campaign is arguing they should be considered ahead because of super delegates, but on the other hand arguing that Michigan and Florida primary results should be respected because that is the democratic thing to do. You just can't have it both ways. There is no legitimate means of arguing that Clinton's lead among super delegates should be respected because those are the rules of the process, and that the Michigan and Florida primary results should be heeded because that is the democratic thing to do.
Some may argue that Obama is trying to have it both ways, by claiming that super delegates should respect the will of the voters and that Michigan and Florida should follow the rules. However, before the Michigan and Florida results were known, never once did the Clinton campaign publicly argue that the results of those contests should be respected. Now, they are saying that in about every forum they can possibly find. This does not in anyway compare to a vague statement from Obama that super delegates should vote their districts. Obama didn't name any names, and didn't even say that this would improve his super delegate position. However, the Clinton campaign has pushed super delegate totals and Michigan and Florida as hard as they possibly can.
Without question, the principle that should be respected is popular support. Not only is it the right thing to do, but if the eventual Democratic nominee does not have the most popular support, we will face a major crisis of legitimacy in our party. Right now, it is not entirely clear who has the most popular support, which is why the pledged delegate count is so close. For reasons I outlined yesterday, I do not think that will be the case when the primaries and caucuses have all completed. However, the bottom line is that the Clinton campaign has been far louder and more vociferous in their support for changing the standards of who should be a delegate to earn whatever result most favors them. Further, they are trying to deflect their hypocrisy in this matter by claiming that Obama is just as bad, even though his campaign simply has not been anywhere near as bad. Occasional, vague statements about Nevada and super delegates don't even approach talking about super delegates out of one side of your mouth, and Michigan and Florida out of the other side, in numerous press conferences over the past week. As I found out, the Clinton campaign has even done this in the same answer to numerous questions during those press conferences. There is just no equivalence here at all.
If no candidate ever emerges as the clear leader in terms of popular nomination contest participation, then I am fine with letting the rules take over at the convention, or with some sort of pre-convention deal that will probably necessitate both candidates being on the ticket. Until that time, however, popular nomination contest participation is the only metric that should be respected as a means of determining the state of the campaign. Otherwise, we contradict our own values as progressives and potentially face a crisis of legitimacy in the party. Right now, no clear leader has emerged, but it does appear that Obama has a slight edge (outside of Michigan and Florida). Those who argue otherwise are doing little more than making me angry enough to push me actively into Obama's camp. |
