alternative hippopotamus

One of the most disappointing (even occasionally depressing) aspects of the Great Blog War of 2008 is watching blog authors who I used to read, go the way of spin over substance. I liked the idea of the left being more rational in approaching politics. I frankly think that the left’s claim to be the “reality-based” community has been mortally injured by the primary fight.

This CorrenteWire blog is an example of spin over substance. The notion that’s being posited is that TPM is applying a “new rule” to the contest: that leadership in the delegate count must decide the super delegate vote. As the blog accuses TPM: (emphasis mine)

What Josh is doing there is kind of like the poker game he describes, only the guy with four of a kind says, before everyone lays their cards down, that four of a kind beats a straight flush. If the guy with the straight flush folds, four of a kind wins even though it could have lost according to the rules. The Clinton Campaign is calling that bluff, and demanding that Obama (and his supporters) follow the rules as they are, which includes letting the superdelegates decide what they think is best for the party. Josh is certainly free to keep trying to bully the superdelegates into voting in lock-step the pledged delegates (but it is kind of funny that he never seems to ask superdelegates like Kennedy or Kerry to follow the will of the voters in their state).

Having followed Corrente for a number of years, I find it difficult to believe that any of the regular authors are inclined to believe that super delegates would have a clue what “is best for the party.” A suspicion that a DNC type might act to protect Democratic party insiders over the welfare of the country, sure, but that’s not the sense that I understood the blog author to mean by what “is best for the party.” I would say that the flavor of the blog over the years has been distrust of the elected in so far as they come to see themselves as elect.

And, of course, neither Josh Marshall nor Kos nor anyone else is proposing that there is an unwritten rule that the super delegates must follow the tally of the primaries. What they are saying is that the forseeable consequence of a super delegate selection differing from the delegate favorite is that many people would regard the result as the elect imposing their will upon the people. The People would be rightly pissed off. I think it would be fair to say that the prospect of dancing in the streets during the Democratic convention would be slim to none. Unless of course it’s the right-wing freak show doing the dancing- the NRO’s, Powerlines, and Malkins of the world.

MyDD has a cunning plan to refute the delegate lead: (emphasis mine)

A far more compelling argument to superdelegates, I would think, is to constantly remind them about Michigan and Florida. Not because they’re “two of the big four” necessarily but rather because had they moved to legal dates they would have represented two additional early Clinton wins, likely big ones, and the mere fact that Obama would have had to compete there would have meant fewer resources for him to expend in other states. In other words, Obama’s pledged delegate and popular vote leads, such as they are, have an unavoidable asterisk next to them, one that may not pay dividends for Clinton in the official tally, but one that absolutely would factor into my decision if I were a superdelegate.

But the DNC decision on Florida and Michigan was well known in advance. The two states were just as disenfranchised in January as they are now in March. But no one was claiming back in January that the outcome of the Democratic primaries would have an asterisk next to it. Or that the more legitimate claim to deciding the primary outcome should be in the hands of super delegates.

I hope you will forgive my snark when I say that I intend to support candidate Asterisk in the primaries. And all the little asterisks. And, in January 2009 I fully expect to see President Asterisk being sworn in.

Remind me never to get emotionally invested in a political race. Anyway, there’s some machinations to the whole Obama/Clinton race that remind me of Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood. The poll below points to some accusations along that line. So, for your amusement:

This is just painful enough, that I’m glad there’s a DC primary today to distract me: (TPM)

Let there be no doubt: a majority of senators, and a large number of Democrats, think the telecoms should not suffer the hazard of accountability for cooperating with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) took to the floor last night to give a speech asking, “This is our defining question, the question that confronts every generation: The rule of law, or the rule of men?” The resounding answer: the rule of men.

I tend to believe that if you gave Pelosi and Reid truth serum and asked them what they really thought of the voters they’d tell you either a.) that we’re misbehaved children that need to be told what to do by Mommy and Daddy, or b.) they don’t really care what the voters think. We’re the society of the high-minded, superior creations, they’d tell you from the vantage point of pentathol, and we look after each other.

Nancy Pelosi:

In an interview Oct. 9 with nationally syndicated liberal radio host Ed Schultz, Pelosi defended previous statements in which she had promised that “impeachment was off the table.”

“I don’t see a connection between this and impeachment,” Pelosi said, asked about a newly released secret memo on US interrogation tactics. A moment later, she side-stepped a repeat of the same question by elaborating on her goal to “bring the country behind a return to an America that honors the vision of our founders.”

“I don’t see that impeachment is in furtherance of bringing the people together in that way,” she said.

General Ricardo Sanchez (retired):

Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leaders involved in the management of this war? They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or courtmartialed.

What Pelosi calls “bringing the people together” is a favorable Democratic outcome in 2008, at whatever price that entails. She doesn’t understand that people have a fundamental need to live in a just and equitable society. To betray that need is just the opposite of a “return to an America that honors the vision of our founders.” The effect of her inaction is that the Chief Executive can do whatever he wants without consequence.

That is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

Update: Sanchez quote lightly stolen from Dan Froomkin’s column.