Requiem for Hillary

The last time I posted, I was confident Obama would win the nomination. I certainly had no idea it would take this long. But even then — despite many of my friends calling me a "Hillary Hater" (ahem, Yashar) — I've always thought it unfortunate that we couldn't have had them both.

Over the last few days, I've had this fantasy that Barack would come out quickly and announce Hillary as his running mate, the party would unite, and this energy that's been going strong since the first primaries would just pick up steam and roll right over old, scary, conservative John "Walnuts" McCain. Even though, on a thinking level, I can understand Jimmy Carter saying that she's the worst possible choice (antithetical to Obama's change message, huge negatives, will bring out the right wing whack-jobs to vote against her), on an emotional level, I've really been hoping that the Thursday night meeting was their secret plan to unify everyone and just go for it.

I feel that even more so after her "suspension" speech yesterday. She spoke her own words, not those of her handlers trying to sculpt her into the candidate they thought she should be. After a long time of not seeing it, I finally remembered why in November 2007 I said that I would be happy with either Hillary or Obama. I really like her. When she's herself, she's just this incredible, funny, likable, smart woman who I'd have at my BBQ any day. The Votemaster over at Electoral Vote said it better than I can:

She is at her best when she is herself. During the whole campaign, her handlers have tried to turn her into some kind of steel robot who always marches forward, ignores all criticism, and is convinced she is never wrong--kind of like a smarter version of George Bush. Many people have said that in person she is warm and friendly. Her handlers apparently decided early on that the only way for a woman to win was to be tougher than Maggie Thatcher and Golda Meir combined. It didn't work.

So, will Obama pick her? I kind of doubt it, thought I completely disagree with those who say one of her negatives is that she doesn't bring him any new states (um, hello FLORIDA???). But either way, he really should support her in whatever the next role is that she wants to take on. She'd be SO much more effective than bland, boring Harry Reid in leading the Senate. She'd also do well as Secretary of State. My own personal favorite would be a seat on the Supreme Court — can you imagine the clashes between Hillary and Scalia?

Whatever's next for her, I really, really hope that it isn't just going away. I hope she follows the Howard Dean route and just keeps going. I mean, she can take a (much deserved) Al Gore-style break and come back stronger and better, but I hope she doesn't just disappear like John Kerry. That, truly, would be a real defeat for everyone.

3 things the mainstream media won't be reporting tomorrow

I've been reading all the coverage of South Carolina and am a bit frightened at what's NOT being said. Hopefully these things will be talked about tomorrow (doubt it). So in case they're not, here's what I think we should take away from the current situation.

1. Barack Obama is winning this election


Looking at any of the mainstream media outlets, it would seem like Hillary Clinton is winning. Looking at their nifty "charticles," anyone can see that she has more delegates than Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Problem is, 4 out of 5 of Hillary's "delegates" were not actually ELECTED. They are so-called "superdelegates." Superdelegates are party insiders - governors, members of Congress, even former presidents and vice presidents - who tend to vote for political expediency. That is, they bet on the horse they think will win, in hopes that candidate will repay them down the road.

By any measure of success in the actual ELECTION, Barack Obama is winning. He's gotten the most votes in the two official primaries so far - winning 50% to Clinton's 32% - and has won the most delegates from both primaries and caucuses. If this were being scored democratically - by the will of what the VOTERS want - Barack would be undeniably ahead.

2. Hillary is engaging in desperate dirty tricks

Hillary must realize that the voters are siding with Barack, because she's beginning to engage in desperate dirty tricks. Months ago, when it seemed like every state was in a race to hold their primary before Halloween '07, the Democratic Party said that any state holding a primary before February 5 (except New Hampshire and South Carolina) would have their delegates stripped. At the time, all of the Democratic candidates agreed with that plan and pledged not to campaign in states that held early primaries.

Now that Hillary realizes that she's losing, she's going back on what she said earlier and is asking that delegates from Michigan and Florida be reinstated. Hillary won Michigan because both Barack and John Edwards asked their names be withdrawn from the ballot (the right thing to do, in my opinion). Despite their pledges not to campaign in Florida, Hillary has spent an awful lot of time there at "fundraisers" and other events and polls show she will most likely win the state in the absence of any real competition.

Is this kind of flip-flopping and smarmy political backstabbing what we should expect from President Clinton II?

3. Barack has a better chance of winning against McCain

I've been saying it since this time a year ago: the only guaranteed lose for the Democratic party is a McCain vs. Clinton match-up. McCain is hugely well loved by western and midwestern independents, and many folk in those same areas are highly suspicious of Hillary. It's why I was so excited to see McCain's supposed "meltdown." But now that he's re-"surging" as the new front-runner, I'm even more worried at the prospect of Hillary winning the nomination.

A recent poll backs up my suspicions: Survey-USA did polls in a handful of states comparing how people would vote in a McCain-Clinton matchup vs. a McCain-Obama matchup. In the five states where who the Democratic nominee is would make a difference, Hillary lost four of the five to McCain. Iowa, Wisconsin and Washington state would go with Barack, but not with Hillary. Oregon would tie for Barack but go with McCain over Hillary. Only in Minnesota would Barack lose and Hillary win.

I grew up in the midwest and I know how we think. It's not that people love McCain. It's that they really don't like "fake" people and Hillary just seems SOOO disingenuous and insincere while McCain seems real and very likable. On a side note, I'd even say that the midwest is more ready for a woman president than a black man. It's not a woman candidate that's a problem - it's THIS woman. And there's no way a Democrat can lose the upper midwest and still win.

Hillary "Boom-Boom" Clinton

In this week's New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg had a piece about how the ever-lengthening Presidental campaign season is becoming absurd and leads to lots of fake controversy as the media tries to make the long, long, LONG election cycle interesting. I agree, but what really caught my eye was this quote:

Similarly, when Obama said he would not use nuclear weapons to attack terrorists, Senator Clinton tut-tutted him, saying, “I don’t believe that any President should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. But I think we’ll leave it at that, because I don’t know the circumstances in which he was responding.”

WHAT WHAT WHAT?!?!?!?! If Hillary can't say that she would definitely NOT use nuclear weapons - weapons with the potential to wipe out all life on earth - then I cannot, in good conscience, vote for her. I mean, come on!

An Eerie Thought About 'President Hillary'

On the occasion of Hillary Clinton's announcement that she is, indeed, running for President, I'm struck by something that the pundits haven't been saying about her "historic" campaign. Namely, what a horrible message it would send about democracy to have another Clinton in the White House at this point in history.

Before I go on, let me say that I haven't decided who I'm backing yet for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Out of the contenders so far, I think Barack Obama is the only potential Democratic nominee who could possibly beat John McCain in a general election. "Maverick" McCain would lock up the independent vote (and would attract many moderate Democrats), which would mean the Democratic nominee would have to go into new territory to beat him. Obama, who can talk about faith and religion with the ease of any Republican, could appeal to many Christians, who have been traditionally turned off by McCain.

That said, I'm not sure who I'm backing yet. McCain is far from a sure thing and there's so little out there about most of the declared candidates.

One thing I DO know is that a Hillary Clinton presidency, while better than any possible Republican administration, would be very depressing in terms of our democracy. Upon Hillary's election, the Presidency of the United States would then be controlled by just TWO families for 24 years (28 if she gets re-elected). Bush I for 4, Bill for 8, Dubya for 8 then Hill for 4 (or 8).

How could we continue to point to our "democratic system" as the best in the world when a Hillary presidency would mean a de facto oligarchy for two or three decades? It just creeps me out to think that we have the potential to have distilled power into the hands of so few in this country. While I'm only vaguely anti-Hillary at this point, due to the fact that she's such a centrist, "Republican-lite" type, I'm not completely opposed to her (like I was to John Kerry). The thought of three Bush-Clinton decades, however, does give me pause.