Somewhere between having to spank the blasé band of pie-throwers on a certain highly self-regarded perch within the liberal blogosphere, and getting into a ridiculous flame war with a Snippy British-accented, Chinese-American (SBaCA) reporter for Wired, I was reminded of Stephen Colbert’s famous line: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Apparently at this stage in the Democratic primary season, transparency now stands accused of having an Obama bias.

In organizing the Superdelegate Transparency Project, my partners and I have been subjected to a few swipes from fellow progressives who just last year would have lauded any citizen engagement they could shake a stick at. Particularly if it had anything to do with Plameology. You’d think they’d be pleased that their fellow citizens are volunteering across the country to enter popular vote and pledged delegate totals, district by district, and tracking that against where the superdelegates currently stand, and how they eventually vote. It’s about having hard data that might just lead to a better nomination process someday. Or we may find that the system works just fine. But STP is about citizens getting involved, learning, taking action. Participating in, and bringing more transparency to our political process.

The anti-transparency bias regarding the superdelegate issue over at FDL these days is puzzling, but I notice a similar vein in the “logic” over there that I see in certain comments at HuffPo on any post having to do with the superdelegate issue. I see the same “logic” on a political email list I’m on—whenever Hillary supporters run out of policy arguments and start desperately taunting Obama supporters with false claims about how Obama wants to “change the rules” about superdelegates only because Hillary has more…and that “cult of personality” crap. I also experienced a particularly potent strand of anti-transparency bias from the SBaCA reporter who also seems to be a conspiracy theorist about my “hidden support of Obama.”

First of all. As you know, dear reader, I’ve been quite open about my support for Obama. I’ve basically been a supporter since he announced his candidacy. In recent weeks, I’ve written about it here and at HuffPo. However, I did not vote for Obama in a primary, as I am registered in Michigan, and he was not on the ballot. I’m just one of those voters who can’t choose Hillary this primary season because of her vote allowing W to attack Iraq–but I’d sure vote for her over McCain.

SBaCA reporter called on Thursday and I told her about the Superdelegate Transparency Project…how the idea for the STP wiki was Mark Myers’ and that he isn’t even a registered Democrat. He’s a technology guy who thought it would be cool to use wiki tools to open up the superdelegate issue, and track info at the granular, district-by-district level. I mentioned that people of all political leanings were now participating in the project, including the nonpartisan Congresspedia editors and folks from the Sunlight Foundation.

She kept pushing to know about Obama supporters on the project and I said I was not going to validate her line that a bunch of Obamabots were running STP. I said she could read about my views—even pointed her to HuffPo—but urged her to be fair about how she characterized the entire project. People can have personal political preferences that don’t interfere with a project to promote a better democratic process. The project, simply put, does not advocate for the candidacy of either Obama or Clinton, and within our ranks are folks whose views run from loving one or both candidates to those who are sorely disappointed by both.

SBaCA reporter’s story came out labeling the whole project as being created by “party activists fearful of a Hillary Clinton superdelegate coup.” Inaccurate and dishonest, given all the information she had to the contrary. When I called her on it, she began a campaign of calling me “dishonest” because I’d told her, when she asked who I’d voted for, that I did not vote for anyone because of the mess in Michigan. Apparently, she didn’t learn to actually read and do research until after I’d called her out for her unfair characterization of STP’s founders…oh, my! She found the posts I’d told her about!

I’m still flummoxed by the vehemence of this reporter’s drive to label STP as basically an extension of the Obama campaign, but it is eerily similar to the other anti-transparency bias I’ve been experiencing of late.

Why are some Hillary Clinton supporters and FDL founder Jane Hamsher so invested in chastising, and/or in not wanting to see sunlight brought into the superdelegate process? Why is a Wired contributor withholding information, simply to advance a storyline that STP was founded only by “party activists fearful of a Hillary Clinton superdelegate coup?”

What possible motivation could there be, other than believing (fearing?) that it’s the only way Hillary can win—to muscle the superdelegates into handing her the nomination? Is that really the side of the line that Hillary herself wants to be on?

Someone get that woman a memo:

Stop letting Howard Wolfson say things like you’re counting on party big-wigs to trump the popular vote. Stop acting desperate and get your groove back. Act honorably. Be on the side of transparency and allowing citizens to have their say about how superdelegates should behave. If you and Sen. Obama are both lobbying and even paying for superdelegate votes (cuz them’s the rules), then certainly the public has a right to know what’s going on and to lobby for a better democratic process.

Let us get back to remembering that most of us liked both of these candidates—a lot—before things headed south (yes, pun intended). And please let us remember that, as Democrats, we’re the ones that are FOR transparency.

Transparency does not have a bias toward either candidate. And no Democratic candidate—or that candidate’s supporters—should stand against transparency.

[And, Wired? You might want to reconsider relying on a reporter with a proven anti-transparency bias. By the way, she wanted to be called a Chinese-American. I have it in writing.]