. . . The reason is because the reality agreed to by virtually all participants in American presidential nominating contests--almost every reporter, pundit, candidate, campaign staffer, donor, volunteer and voter--is an arbitrary construct not in line with the by-laws of the political parties that will actually nominate candidates.
This wailing, as Chris, to his credit admits, comes a little late in the game, and is rather convenient to forward Barack Obama's shameless attempted spin of the Nevada caucus results. Like Bill Clinton on the unfairness of the caucus system. this conversion is suspiciously timed. I am positive, yes I am, that if the shoe were on the other foot, Chris would not be bemoaning this state of affairs.
Nor is Chris really playing by his own rules. As a Open Left commenter notes:
The primary/caucus process is totally screwed up and the media has their own agenda . . . for setting expectations. But you're also making up your own rules. It appears that primary expectations are a bit like Calvinball.
First of all, you use two different points of reference to describe how the media sets it's narrative for the primaries. McCain loses among GOPers and Obama wins delegates. . . . Well, if we want to stick to "the by-laws" we should be counting superdelegates as CBS, ABC, and CNN all count superdelegates in their count. Here's their count from Political Wire:
ABC News:
* Democrats: Clinton 203, Obama 148, Edwards 43
* Republicans: Romney 59, Huckabee 40, McCain 36
CNN:
* Democrats: Clinton 210, Obama 123, Edwards 52
* Republicans: Romney 72, McCain 38, Huckabee 29
CBS News:
* Democrats: Clinton 231, Obama 126, Edwards 59
* Republicans: Romney 35, McCain 32, Huckabee 7
So you're certainly right that Romney is the front runner for GOP nod, but you're wrong about Obama. He does poorly among Democrats and he's behind in the delegate race (you know, those "by-laws").
It galls me when folks get all high and mighty when what they are doing is simply spinning reality to meet their own desires.
The caucus system is an unfair joke. It has always been. It did not reflect the will of the voters in Iowa or Nevada. It is an outrage. It is a form of voter disenfranchisement. My belief on this is not convenient to my support for any candidate. I said so long ago.
But too many now are outraged by the actions of the candidate they oppose, exhibiting high moral dudgeon about this "atrocity" or other, ignoring all the while, are even worse, sometimes winking with a smile when their candidate does it.
No one is perfectly objective. But what passes for honesty from candidate supporters these days is ridiculous. It will be good when the silly season ends and people get back to being serious observers of politics, policy and campaigns. Cuz right now, it ain't happening.
