It took me a while to figure out why the rule shifting by the Clinton campaign and supporters was pissing me off so badly until I talked with a friend of mine.
At the outset of this election we had a candidate that was close to an incumbent as you could have without actually being one. Clinton has been a household name for almost 20 years. I bet more voters would recognize her than Dick Cheney if they ran into them in a grocery store. Clinton was earning free air time that Obama and Edwards and the others couldn't get because the media had indicated that she essentially had this in the bag. Before the first caucus was held, Clinton had nearly 10% of the delegates she needed to win already sewn up due to her party connections with superdelegates.
Running against her was the first black candidate that people thought really had a shot to win the whole thing. Obama came in well behind Clinton and he was consistently polling in the mid-20s all through 2007, only starting to pick up there at the end. Further, Clinton was beating Obama by nearly 30 points with black voters as late as October 2007. In other words, Obama had no special advantages here even within the community people would expect him to win and Clinton had the upper hand - a fair upper hand, but an upper hand nevertheless.
My friend noted that among her friends (all black) the talk on the Clinton side about how if we use different measures that she would be winning is causing a real backlash with her AA friends, family, etc. Even worse are the suggestions that the rules should actually be changed out of some kind of fairness to Florida or some other group.
We entered this contest with a playing field with known rules and with no significant barriers to entry for any candidate. While Clinton and Edwards were both better known, Obama earned a fair place in this contest and got equal consideration by everyone in the party. Sure, there were the email smears and so on, but he fought through those and the rules remained the rules. Everyone got invited to debates, everybody got time to make their case and Obama started to improve in the polls and fairly started to win voters.
Starting just before Super Tuesday, the case over Florida and Michigan started to quietly be made. After Super Tuesday, it was made more loudly and we heard comments about 'significant states' and 'second class delegates' and 'states that matter'. We heard about 'big states' and 'boutique states'. We heard that it was unfair to not seat Florida and Michigan delegates - but only after we saw that Clinton had won the states and needed those delegates to be the nominee. As this has gone on, we've heard how the popular vote should matter, and how if we were using winner-take-all rules that Clinton would win and how Clinton should be the nominee because she won this group or that group. Now, not all of these things are being suggested as rule changes, rather as arguments that Clinton should be considered viable by the superdelegates. But some are in fact being suggested as rule changes.
The problem is that all of this talk gives the appearance to some that when the black candidate is winning, even after coming in as the underdog, that the rules should change or that the choice of black voters shouldn't be respected. Remember, the only thing that anyone asked for out of the civil rights movement was a level playing field and an equal shot to participate. The only thing that needed to be delivered were rules that were not biased toward any type of candidate and the willingness to stick to those rules regardless of who was winning.
Now, it would be fair for the Clinton camp to cry foul over the notion that these rule changes/alternate measures are being suggested because Obama is black. There doesn't appear to be any indication of that at all that I can see. However, if you look at the terms being used - big, significant, second-class, states that matter - these are all suggestions that the interests of the minority should be discounted disproportionately. In other words, when supporters of a white candidate are making the case against a black candidate, it's hard to not interpret the argument as being that it's what white voters want that matters. Now, again, that may not at all be what the Clinton camp intends, but there is no question that they are advancing an argument that says that group A should be given greater consideration over group B for the sheer fact that group A should matter more than group B. Well, shit guys, that's what civil rights was all about. It's not just about black/white but about male/female, Christian/Jew, rich/poor and every other situation where one groups has more power than another group simply due to who they are. Some voters will see those arguments as a clear argument for white voters over black voters, while others will see it as simply an argument of these voters are better than those voters. But it's a difference without meaning if you view yourself in the disadvantaged group.
What appears to be happening is that since part of the party is openly advocating for changing the rules mid-course, and especially because the result of the change is already known, that its taking on the appearance that there really is no level playing field here at all - and that even the party that has worked hardest to advance the cause of equality for all is quick to throw that away when it suits them. The danger here is not just for Clinton but for the Democratic party. If the party were to accept a rules change that clearly benefits Clinton or were to openly accept the argument that some measure other than the one originally agreed upon was more relevant to choosing the candidate, that the African American community would view that as their votes, their preference matters less than the same votes and preference of those that support Clinton. And just to be perfectly clear, I think part of the reason why some Clinton supporters are so angry is that they perceive what happened with FL/MI, or putting delegates ahead of popular vote to be a rules change or at least inherently unfair as well and are taking the same view that the female candidate and the votes and preference of women are being trampled on.
The party needs to regroup around the rules as established at the outset and defend those rules. Dean has been clear on this, but most of the party has not been reminding people and the media of the rules and has been quiet on the reason why this must be. The flawed popular vote has gotten far too much legitimacy with the media as it is. The risk that we are facing is not to the candidates but to the idea that the Democratic party (either the DNC proper or the superdelegates collectively) is inherently biased against certain minority groups (women or african americans). That may not be getting expressed explicitly right now in the heat of a candidate battle, but I think that's the underlying sentiment that has yet to be clearly stated. To hear these kinds of comments out of Bill Clinton is especially damaging, particularly when he offers up GOP rules as the alternative given that most minorities automatically assume GOP rules would be biased against them. These arguments against the voters and against the pre-established rules need to end. If any lasting damage comes out of this contest, this is where it will be felt.