Second-class?

What could Joel Ferguson be thinking? I mean, I understand he's a Michigan superdelegate, so he's probably feeling doubly defensive, but seriously - what is this?

Obviously, there are two arguments being made here:

1. Caucuses don't count: The Clinton campaign always counted on winning big primary states, assuming that small states with caucuses would simply fall in line. Now that Obama has won nearly every caucus so far, Clinton has unveiled a new line of attack. She and her surrogates have said that caucuses aren't representative and don't really count. Maybe there's an argument for this, but Clinton never objected to caucuses until she started losing them.
2. Red states don't count: This is an even more odious argument. Clinton suggests that Obama is winning states that Democrats won't win anyway, so his wins don't mean much. First of all, is this really true? Does Clinton really believe that Democrats can't be competitive in Iowa, Nevada, Louisiana, Missouri, Washington, Minnesota, Virginia, and other swing states? Secondly, this runs counter to the kind of 50-state strategy that DNC Chairman Howard Dean has in mind for our party.

Is Hillary Clinton looking down her nose at red-state Democrats? Does she think we're "second-class" Democrats? Is she essentially vowing not to compete in red states? It sure seems like it. But how would I know? I'm just a second-class Democrat.