2008: What Was And What Will Be
Copyright © by Dan Schneider, 6/5/08
I am a political Independent who has voted in the last three Presidential General Elections for Ralph Nader. I did so, despite my Democratic roots, because I am a pragmatist and the last three Republican candidates for President were unappealing- not a budding Abe Lincoln nor Teddy Roosevelt in the lot. In 1992 I voted for Bill Clinton because of the disastrous 12 years of Reagan-Bush policies that destroyed the middle class, decimated the poor, and threatened civil liberties with their radical agenda for the Supreme Court. The choice was clear. The only other choices were the elder George Bush, who reaped the evil Ronald Reagan sowed, or a psychotic billionaire dwarf named Ross Perot, whose only vindication, all these years later, is that he was correct about the large flushing sound created by NAFTA. In 1996, after turning his back on the working class people who elected him, I turned my back on the President. Bob Dole was old and out of touch, as well as unwilling to shun the vile Right Wing Christians in his party, so I decided to never again do the lesser of two evils schtick. I voted for the most intelligent and honest person running, Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, and one of the greatest Americans of the Twentieth Century. I thereby took responsibility as a citizen in saying no to the corrupt duopoly of American politics, and washed my hands of the nonsense and wasted time that the next four years wrought.
In 2000, two candidates who thought they were owed the Presidency by divine right ran. There was Vice President Al Gore, who thought so because of his political lineage and ties to President Clinton’s shallow economic successes which still left working class people in a worse position than they were eight years earlier. But, I saw Gore as a hack- a Right of Center Democrat with no real defining persona, and the Clinton-Gore years as a disaster for the ecology. Many nature groups claimed that the Democratic pair’s policies were worse than the preceding twelve years under Reagan-Bush. Yet, Gore felt that he was owed the Presidency. Even more bizarrely, the Republican nominee, George W. Bush, felt he was owed the nomination because his dad had been President. After all, his ties to daddy had gotten him the Texas governorship where he actually did a good impersonation of Bill Clinton’s Presidency, not doing much of consequence. Yet, he was clearly even worse than Gore. Everyone, in all parties, saw that Bush was, in a phrase, dumb as shit, but he was more likable than the stiff and arrogant Gore. Both parties had chances to nominate better candidates for their parties. Democrats had the intelligent and principled former Senator Bill Bradley to pick, and Republicans had the straight-talking (pre-Iraq War Look-Aid drinking) Senator John McCain. Democrats ignored Bradley and McCain was slimed by Bush’s Christian Coalition.
Naturally, the American electorate showed its utter stupidity and gave the rest of us the two most miserable candidates to choose from. As I did four years earlier, I chose Ralph Nader. Then, what should have been a blowout win for Gore turned into a nailbiter, and when thousands of black citizens were denied their right to vote in Florida, by Bush’s brother Jeb- the state’s governor, Bush won the state by a few hundred votes, and recounts were demanded, for, even despite the racist nature of denying the vote, Gore still actually won Florida, if one counted ‘hanging chads’ and dimpled ballots that clearly showed a preference for Gore. Then, in a move that vindicated all the worst fears of the arrogant Gore, Democrats blamed not Bush, and not Gore’s errors, for his loss, but the tiny portion of Nader voters for ‘robbing them,’ as if Nader voters were, by fiat, supposed to vote for Gore, who even lost his home state of Tennessee to Bush. The Supreme Court, stacked with Right Wingers from the Reagan-Bush years, then handed Bush the election by voting to not overturn things 5-4. Despite a popular vote win of more than half a million people, one Supreme Court justice selected the next President.
Less than a year later, with the economy failing, and Bush having undercut the Clinton gains with a tax giveaway to the rich, who’ve never paid a fair share of their way in this nation’s history, 9/11 happened. We were attacked despite many warnings of it coming, that Bush ignored. Prior to 9/11, Bush had spent fewer days on the job than any President with a similar length of service as President. Vacationing was his mode, and, yet 9/11 made him instantly popular. He did nothing any other President would not do, yet his approval ratings soared to 90%, even as the economy tanked, and he spent the next year and a half lying the country into war with Iraq over WMDs that were nonexistent. The war has been a total failure and likely a disaster that will haunt American foreign policy for decades. The reality was a handful of psychotic criminals gulled the only global superpower into a war when a few well placed assassins and a trial or two would have ended things nicely. But, Bush wanted to go to war to a) avenge the attempt on his father’s life by agents of Saddam Hussein after the First Gulf War and b) assuage the oil barons that helped him to power.
By 2004, with the war already having gone over a year past expected, with casualties mounting, and the economy failing, and with the lies that started the war being exposed, and the fact that 9/11 was preventable on the table, the Democrats had a very vulnerable President. They offered up an ex-general, Wesley Clark, who handled the Bosnian War with much more grace than his successors did in Iraq. They offered up a Clintonesque Southern lawyer turned Senator named John Edwards, but they chose the worst possible candidate going- John Kerry- a Vietnam War hero, but one who was divisive, had a very liberal track record, was a patrician, and worst of all, like Al Gore, was stiff as Lurch from The Addams Family, and a terrible campaigner. What should have been another one term Bush Presidency was denied, as Kerry allowed lies about his past to go unanswered, while Bush won another close contest- this time legitimately. I again voted for Nader, given the ridiculous choices the two big parties offered, and shook my head as millions of my dimwitted countrymen refused to take responsibility for their actions. This time, Nader was not blamed, but Democrats were in disarray.
Then came Bush’s Social Security scheme, Hurricane Katrina, a flurry of Republican sex scandals, a tanking economy, the mortgage crisis, soaring inflation due to rising gas costs, and a whole host of lesser problems. The Democrats took back the House of Representatives in 2006 after a generation in Republican hands. Then, by late 2006, the endless campaign for 2008 began. The Republicans offered up ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who like Bush, became a hero of 9/11 by doing nothing any other mayor would not do, despite low approval ratings of his own; the oleaginous governor of Massachusetts- Mitt Romney; and an affable ex-pator turned governor of Arkansas named Mike Huckabee. They all lost to a resurgent John McCain who, after being humiliated by Bush in 2000, became the President’s biggest Iraq War supporter. He stumbled early in the campaign, but rallied to beat the robotic Romney, the surprisingly tough Huckabee, and Giuliani- who ran the worst national campaign in modern political history.
By contrast, the Democratic side seemed easy. Former First Lady and New York Senator Hillary Clinton was declared the ‘inevitable nominee,’ and for a year did little real campaigning. Running against her was a field of mostly unknowns, and now ex-Senator John Edwards, considered by many to be her only possible rival. But, emerging from the field was Senator Barack Obama, from Illinois. He developed a large grassroots campaign that reached out to millions of Americans who were disaffected or had never voted, and got them to donate small amounts of money. His campaign out-organized Clinton’s, and shocked the world with a victory in the Iowa caucuses. Caucuses were not like primaries, in that they were smaller, but with more passionate and informed participants. Clinton backers were stunned, for Clinton’s aura of inevitability was breached. She rallied to win the first New Hampshire primary, after crying in public, a stunt that- had a man done it (recall Ed Muskie in 1972) his campaign would have been done, and reclaimed the mantle of inevitability. But, Obama persisted, and they split wins in states up until February’s Super Tuesday. Getting past that date, which Clinton saw as her crowning date, meant that Obama had already gone farther than expected. Clinton had no plans for a campaign beyond that, and her coffers were running dry while Obama’s grew. He then won eleven consecutive state contests, the thing which gave him an insurmountable delegate and popular vote lead, even though Clinton rallied to split the remaining contests with Obama, and even though she won larger states. Her arrogance and ignorance of smaller states cost her dearly.
Yet, Clinton refused to admit her defeat, and started a campaign of ‘personal destruction’ like that Republicans used against her husband. Whispered rumors of Obama’s being a Muslim were used, the ex-President, himself, alienated black voters with multiple comments of a racial vein, and the Clinton campaign tried to magnify small distractions outside of Obama’s purview (such as an ex-pastor’s televised rants, or Obama’s hazy ties to a real estate developer and an ex-Weatherman) against him, even though incidents like Vince Foster’s suicide, Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky, and Clinton’s own last minute pardons of 1960s radicals were all used against them. Then came the trump card- the faux cries of sexism. As proof were a few yahoos in Clinton crowds yelling misogynistic remarks. But, Obama never played the race card even though he was asked pointed questions of race, and had hecklers of his own. From her New Hampshire crying stunt onwards, Hillary Clinton wanted to be able to cry sexism despite blatant appeals to women touting her ‘softer side.’ By contrast, not once did Obama strike the pose as a ‘gangsta’ to appeal to young blacks. Then there was the now infamous Pennsylvania ‘debate.’ aired by ABC, in which hosts Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos clearly favored Clinton, giving her a pass on such things like her easily disproved lie of being First Lady and flying into a war zone with her daughter in Bosnia. Instead, they focused on the above mentioned nonsense, in an attempt to taint Obama to already racist-leaning whites in Appalachia, with such important queries as to Obama’s not wearing a U.S. flag lapel pin.
But, most insidious of all was the mainstream media’s utter gullibility in swallowing all of Clinton’s claims with no further examination. The first and most obviously disprovable one was her claim of being ‘more experienced’ than Barack Obama. As of the start of this year, Clinton had seven years of public service as a U.S. Senator to Obama’s three. But, Obama had served eight years in the Illinois State Senate, giving him four more years of ‘experience than Clinton. Both had years of service in the private sector, as lawyers, professors, community activists, etc., but Clinton’s claim was, on its face, a disprovable lie the media never mentioned. In effect, Clinton claimed, as experience, her husband’s years of service as President and governor of Arkansas, as if the ribbon-cuttings of First Ladyship were qualifications. Imagine never having gone to medical school, but your husband is a brain surgeon, and claiming that qualified you you to be a surgeon. It’s simply absurd.
There were many other instances of Clinton’s control of the media narrative, even as she claimed that the press was pro-Obama. The most ridiculous being that she has won the popular vote in the Democratic primaries. This is factually wrong. In the five major metrics, Obama beat Clintom in all of them. He won more delegates, more superdelegates, more primaries, more caucuses, and more popular votes. With the last of the primaries, in South Dakota and Montana, done, let us look at the stats. Even Clinton cannot dispute Obama’s delegate and superdelegate wins. Nor can she claim that she won more primaries or caucuses. Her only claim is that she won the popular vote. There are many different claims, but they are all fairly consonant, so I will use the stats of the Political news aggregator site Real Clear Politics: Despite not counting caucus totals, Obama has an over 40,000 vote lead- a much greater than the ‘lead’ Bush had over Gore in Florida in 2000. Yet, that does not count the votes cast in caucus states, and since Caucus states have lower turnouts, it also underrepresents real support. Nonetheless, Obama’s popular vote margin is over 150k with the caucus tallies. Still a close race in a contest where nearly 40 million people participated, and not even counting the organized efforts by Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton to screw Obama. These figures do not include the Michigan primary, where Obama played by the rules and did not campaign. As in Florida, Obama and Edwards played by the rules, and after pledging to also do so, Clinton broke her promise when she ‘won’ the two contests. But, in Florida, many stayed home because they knew the Democrats were not going to certify the vote, and the same is true in Michigan, where, even without Obama on the ballot, he still got 40% of the vote with uncommitted. While Clinton would likely have squeaked by in Florida, Obama, most polls showed, would have won Michigan. Does anyone think gaining 11% of the vote would have been difficult had he campaigned there, and gotten the 40% uncommitted, as well?
Some argue that the compromise reached at the DNC Rules Committee this past weekend means the votes were legitimized. Not so- it only means they were used as a guidestick to apportion the delegates, and the Obama camp generously allowed the Clintons, despite their cheating, to have the majority of delegates for those two states. The penalty was only half a vote for those two states. So, let us start with a 152k lead for Obam,a in all the primaries, and also remove the Florida tally, which, unlike Michigan, the RCP numbers counts. Thus, in all sanctioned contests in states and territories, Obama gains the 294,000 margin he lost the Florida primary to Clinton. That means he actually won the real popular vote by 446,000 votes, or almost the margin Gore beat Bush by the popular vote in 2000. But, even applying Clintonian logic, if we use the DNC judgment that each vote should be half a vote, Clinton’s 294,000 edge in Florida becomes 147,000 and her edge over Obama’s uncommitted- 88,000, in Michigan, becomes 44,000. That changes Obama’s 446,000 vote win to 255,000. A quarter of a million votes is not chump change. Clinton can only claim a popular vote win if she discounts all the Michigan uncommitted, adds the two invalid primaries, and discounts all of Obama’s caucus wins. Now, imagine a professional sports league, at the end of their season, declaring that a team that made the playoffs, due to regular season wins, was being favored for a team that did not, but finished three games behind the in the regular season, but had four more preseason victories- games that all the participants acknowledge do not count. It’s absurd, and would be laughable. Yet, even illegitimately doing that, popular vote is not the issue. Clinton’s own campaign only raised that issue when it became clear she would lose the popular vote legitimately, and after they had, for all of 2007, said the race was based on the delegate count.
Now, let’s turn to a final issue, re: Senator Clinton. We have seen that two major claims she makes are phony. 1) she is less experienced than Obama in politics, and 2) she has lost in all five major metrics for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Why was she running for President? Given her inexperience, her support of Bush’s wars, and her lackluster Senate record, her candidacy would be a joke, save for her last name. Imagine she were Hillary Jones, Senator from Idaho. Would she have ever been considered ‘inevitable’? Would she have won a single primary or caucus? Would she have even outdone Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 run for the Presidency? Given her temperament, her horrible skills on the stump (just watch Bill campaign for her and the chasm between their people skills is gaping), her lackluster debating skills, and her air of arrogance and personal baggage, it’s a joke. And, had it not been for Rudy Giuliani’s disastrous run for President, her campaign would be proclaimed the worst run primary campaign in recent history. If she could not even run a good campaign, with all of her built in advantages and pedigree, her claims of being ready from ‘Day One’ to be President seem utterly silly. Who else but someone with her last name (and recall how quickly the ‘Rodham’ disappeared when it was convenient to siphon off her husband’s name) could have lost eleven consecutive races by blowouts, wasted millions of dollars, and survived politically? And, if she could not discern Bush’s lies about the Iraq War, nor handle her husband while he was n office, much less on the stump, how can she be expected to clean up the Bush mess? Add to that Clinton fatigue, her delusions and narcissism (witness her supposed concession speech after Obama clinched the nomination)- especially opposed to Obama’s ‘new politics. Her whole campaign was based upon the fallacy that Democrats wanted a third term for Bill Clinton. They did not. Nor do they want a third term for George W. Bush.
Thus, I turn from where we’ve been to where we are going, and the McCain-Obama race. I voted for Obama in the Texas primary, and will do so in the fall, because he embodies many of the traits that Ralph Nader does. He has risen above the politics of division- just read the text of his ‘race speech.’ He has also seen circumstances favor him- a black man, like rarely happens. Five years ago he was unknown. Now he has a better than 50-50 shot against McCain, and I will sketch out his path to electoral victory, which I feel will split the difference between the two electoral victories Bush and Clinton claimed.
But, let me just state that there will be a female President. But, she will follow the Obama path to victory, not the Clinton one. She will be relatively unknown, but savvy, not fat and sassy. She will work hard and catch a historical break like Obama did- the wake of the Bush disaster, thus be created by her times; most likely unforeseen even in the prior election cycle. She will represent the best of her sex, not the worst, as Obama does of his race; and she will exude humility and vision- two things Hillary Clinton cannot even define, much less embody. Recall how, in the early 1990s, Hillary Clinton- like many arrogant Feminists, mocked stay at home moms with her ‘cookie-baking’ remark? And I won’t even mention Clinton’s none too subtle implication that Obama could or should get shot like RFK. The first female President will also work to win the nomination, not just expect it giftwrapped because of who she is. Recall, the last time we had a President with such a sense of entitlement we got the current President. She will also show more aplomb and class in defeats- witness Clinton’s demagoguery about Florida and Michigan- after she broke her word, comparing them to Zimbabwe’s human rights violations or the civil rights movement, despite the fact that the two states knowingly flouted party rules, thus disenfranchising voters, no matter the outcome. Yet, still Obama compromised, only to be scorned as a fool by the Clinton supporters for his fairly playing by the rules. Even Donna Brazile- a well known Democratic flack, was stunned at how the Clinton people treated the magnanimity of Obama, when he was wholly in the right.
Now, on to the general election. I said that Obama will win with a count
between the Bush and Clinton margins- thus in the low 300s of the 538 total
electoral votes. There are many electoral maps, but let me use this
one. And let’s start with the 2004 electoral map, which had a 286-251 win
for Bush over Kerry, which was really 286-252 because of a Kerry voter switching
to Edwards. Working on the presumption that McCain and Obama would win the same
states, that’s a 286-252 win for McCain. I will now be generous in my
estimations for McCain. Of the Democratic states McCain could pick up we have
really only Michigan and New Jersey, with 17 and 15 electoral votes
respectively. Those lost 32 means Obama’s got a solid 220 electoral votes. On
the other hand, there are far more many states in play on McCain’s side,
because, unlike Clinton (who would follow the Gore-Kerry losing strategy), Obama
would be waging an offensive not defensive campaign. Let’s see the Bush states
that are no cinch for McCain: The Democrats have made big gains out west, so
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico are in play. That’s 3, 3, 9, and 5
votes. Toss in Nevada’s 5, and Bush's 286 goes to 261. Iowa went Bush, but
went crazy for Obama- so I see that in play. Minus 7 = 254 for McCain. A bad
economy and the war means that the Mississippi Valley is in play. Missouri has
11, Arkansas 6, Louisiana 9 (adding in Hurricane Katrina resentment), and
Mississippi 6 (more Katrina) are in play, especially with likely record black
turnouts. 254 minus 32 = 222. Now, McCain’s secure lead is only 2 electoral
votes ahead of Obama. Florida is in play- so that’s 27 votes McCain has to work
for- or down to 195. The Carolinas are likely still Republican, but one might go
for Obama. Let’s be conservative and say it’s South Carolina’s 8 votes.
McCain is now down to 179. The two Virginias are in play. West Virginia is 5,
and Virginia 13 votes. McCain now at 161 solid electoral votes. That leaves Indiana
and Ohio as Bush states in play. Ohio because of the economy and Indiana because
it’s close to Illinois. That’s 20 and 11, 31 more Red State votes in play
means 130 solid votes for McCain and 228 for Obama.
That means McCain needs to rack up 140 electoral votes to Obama’s 42. Let’s go with likely results and polling. First up is out West: McCain gets 11 votes from Wyoming, Nevada and Montana- in two squeakers, while Obama turns New Mexico and Colorado blue, for 14 votes = an Obama 242-141 lead, as the Democrats pick up growing Hispanic bases in both the states, as well as immigrants from back east. Now, let’s give McCain Michigan and Florida, due to resentment over the Democratic primaries, and Obama leads 242-185, although I think Michigan will likely stay Democratic, and Florida could also flip. But, the best case for McCain, here. Onto the Mississippi valley: Missouri and Iowa border Illinois, so Obama gets them- he’s up to 260. Of Arkansas, Mississipi, and Louisiana, I think Obama gets 1 of the 3- likely Mississippi, with the biggest black population. That’s 15 for McCain, and 6 for Obama. Tally = 266-200 Obama.
Now, Obama will retain New Jersey and win over Ohio- the economy is just too bad, and even a half-hearted help from Clinton and local politicians will put him over the top. But, McCain picks off Indiana’s Republican majority. So, now Obama has a 301-211 lead, and he’s the first black President, with 3 Dixie states to go. Georgia stays Red- 15 votes = 226, and the Virginias split- Virginia goes Blue with 13, and West Virginia stays Red, with 5. Obama wins 314-224. But, let’s say Dixie stays red, and Virginia, South Carolina and Mississippi go McCain: McCain- now it’s 287-251 Obama- or an electoral vote better than Bush in 2004. But, if being realistic, ravaged Michigan stays blue, due to record turnout- so now it’s 304-234, Obama. Now, let’s say the West (Colorado & New Mexico) stays Red and Iowa and Missouri stay Red. Obama still squeaks by 272-266. But, that ignores demographics, the Obama phenomenon, the war, and the economy. Whether slim or solid, Obama will have McCain on the defensive throughout the year. Giving Obama Michigan, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia, and ceding South Carolina, and Mississippi gives Obama a reasonable 317-221 win.
Plus, there are a variety of events that could lead to even better Obama numbers- the reverted loyalty of Clinton supporters, the enthusiasm of Obama supporters drowning out unrepentant racists, a good VP choice like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana to turn Indiana and Ohio Blue, and McCain’s gaffe-ability. Can you imagine the shit-eating grin and sneer McCain used against Mitt Romney working in a debate with a younger, more informed, and more confident Obama? The stench of a flustered old man could easily give Obama South Carolina and Mississippi back, plus Nevada and Montana. and we are at 339-199, Obama. And, if we are going best case scenario, if one of the Carolinas flips, it could be North not South, and in that case were are 346-192, or if both go, 354-184. In 1992, Clinton beat Bush 370-168 and in 1996 he bumped it up to 379-159. So, when I state Obama can and will likely win between Bush’s totals of 271 and 286 and Clinton’s margins, I think it’s a reasonable outcome, barring Obama’s campaign derailing after defeating a much tougher Clinton candidacy.
As to other pundit’s predictions. I don’t think there’s a chance McCain can win Pennsylvania- it’s gone more Democratic in the last eight years, and has reams of black voters who will cast their first votes for Obama. Michigan and Ohio could both go blue, but, even in my above scenarios, I give McCain Ohio and Obama Michigan. If Obama gets Ohio and its wretched economy augurs he might (forget the primaries) then he could reach Clinton’s electoral numbers. Republicans feel Minnesota and Wisconsin are in play. I lived there a dozen years, and they might go Red with a Republican who was against the war and not a Bush acolyte. McCain keeps them Blue by 5-10% points. This is not 2000 nor 2004, and Obama is not Gore and Kerry- he is now tougher due to the Clintonian mud machine, and people respond to it. But, like it or not. McCain is neither himself from eight years ago, nor has he the affability that Bush used to get over the top. Add to that a wrecked economy, Obama touting McCain’s support for a war 75% of Americans oppose and acknowledge a mistake, the most unpopular Republican President in office since Nixon or Hoover (depending on which polls you believe), and a desire for change, and you have the makings of history.
But, let me now outline Obama’s strengths, since the bulk of this essay has detailed how he differs from Hillary Clinton and John McCain. First, while there is a broad consonance with the overall views Senator Clinton has, there is a great deal of difference, and it only starts with Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq. As a grassroots organizer, Obama’s solutions are bottom up, not top down, as Clinton’s are, with Beltway insiders and ‘experts’ crafting policy. Obama wants to throw open the political process and have commissions and hearings broadcast on C-SPAN. This is precisely why many Republicans, and more Independents, lean toward him. While they may not agree with an end, they find his approach more suited to theirs, Clinton’s, or Bush’s. His healthcare plan is the best offered this year- far better than McCain’s health accounts nonsense, and without the No Child Left Behind-like mandates of the Clinton plan. The fact is that there will be no truly universal medical coverage unless Medicare is expanded, and that’s more likely to come under a freethinking Obama than Clinton or McCain. His foreign policy of being open stands in stark contrast to the hundred years war of McCain and the ‘Nuke Iran’ posturing of Clinton. Unlike McCain and Clinton, Obama made waste of the silly and gimmicky gas tax holiday those two touted. This augurs well for his Presidency. However, if like Bill Clinton, he turns his back on those who elected him, I will have no hesitation in voting for someone else when he runs for reelection.
And, even with all the bruising of the Democratic nomination battle, McCain is still a few percentage points behind nationally, and Obama can win states Clinton would never have a chance in. McCain has squandered the opportunity that most early clinching candidates get, while Obama conserved cash over the last several months, forcing the Clinton campaign into virtual bankruptcy, while flying in on cruise control the last two months, splitting the last 16 contests, and actually winning Texas- his slim 100,000 vote loss (due to Republican tactics) was more than offset by a huge caucus win that netted him more delegates from the state. As for Obama the man? He has just one real negative to work on- he has to man up, and be a little harder on McCain. He went easy on Clinton, partly because she’s a woman and partly because he did not want to appear the Angry Negro. He wanted to be Sidney Poitier not Wesley Snipes. But, while spurning the Good Negro, he need not become Angry, merely Passionate. He will kill McCain in the debates, especially on the Iraq war. What could Clinton really say to differentiate herself from McCain?
As for Clinton as Vice President? Forget it. She would cost far more votes than she adds. 50% of people won’t vote for her to start with, and her recent petulance and deceit has only turned off more people. Obama might reap 1 or 2% in the female vote, but lose 3-4 times as many voters to the Independent-appealing McCain. Plus, Bill Clinton and his post-Presidency financial ties, could cost even more, while Hillary could never sublimate her ego for the good of the ticket. She has not done so for the party even though, as shown, were she not a Clinton her candidacy would have been long over. Instead, Obama should just blithely ignore her like the crazy old aunt of the Democratic Party she’s fast becoming. He is the best candidate for President left (I originally backed Edwards, but his game-playing in the endorsement folly lost him points in my book- speaking of manning up)- easily better than Hillary Clinton and John McCain and, yes, even better than the man I voted for the last three times out. There won’t be a fourth one. Sorry, Ralph, but you’re still a hero in my book. Be ready to serve when President Obama calls on you next year.
[An expurgated version of this article originally appeared on the Talking Points Memo website.]
Return to Bylines