Hillary Clinton isn’t a Myth, She’s a Donkey’s Noose

Look, the fact of the matter is that at this point there is NO scenario in which Clinton wins either the Democratic nomination or the general election, so please, for the love of God, stop giving in to this sensational form of political analysis and don’t mention it any further. What’s really interesting is that Clinton has rolled out the Democratic nomination electoral map to show that she is the more qualified candidate in the general election. Psychologically interesting as it seems in describing Clinton as a wishful thinker, there isn’t any general election scenario that has a Democrat winning Texas or some of the other states she’s claimed to have won in the nomination process. The translation being is that they don’t have any value to a Democratic candidate, no matter who’s nominated.

The simple truth is that if Barack is nominated, all of Clinton’s supporters will vote for him and if Clinton is nominated, despite overwhelming Democratic public opinion to the contrary (i.e. by way of the not-so-super-delegates), many supporters, myself included, will abstain from this election altogether and voter turnout will be stymied. Not to mention the cynicism that will boil up, almost certainly creating a mountain for future Democrats to climb in converting voters. It also may very seriously create a schism in the Party.

The reality of the general election electoral map and any professional political scientist will tell you this, is that despite the sorry state of affairs, the general election map this year varies very little from the outcomes of 2000 and 2004. The reason is partisanship is the defining factor. All the statistics show that it is very clear that people vote with their Party. The only hope for a Democrat to shape the 2008 election is turnout. That can happen 1 of 2 ways. Either people turnout for the Democrats or the Republicans don’t show up to vote for John McCain. Both scenarios are possible but what is also clear is that Hillary Clinton is not going to generate the same levels of turnout as Barack Obama. And the reality is that although many conservatives are really proud of their 3 and 1/2 million popular vote victory over Kerry/Edwards in 2004, the truth is that Kerry would have been elected president if just 60,000 voters in Ohio changed their minds. This is because the Electoral College elects presidents, not necessarily the popular vote total.

So how’s this for a couple of likely scenarios; Hillary Clinton gets the nomination due to Party insiders who flip-off the will of the Party membership. Republicans mobilize the greatest conservative get out the vote movement to stop her as if Ronald Reagan was somehow resurrected. Hillary, since she’s such a polarizing political figure is resoundingly defeated in the general election because many of the newly-energized Democrats pulling for Obama, have stayed home, feeling slighted by a Party that, just like the Republicans, only cares about the how’s of attaining power, instead of the why’s.

The other scenario involves Barack Obama getting the Democratic nomination. The electoral map from 2004 doesn’t change at all except for 2 states, Virginia, which seems to be tending blue with the recent elections of Democrats Tim Kaine and Jim Webb and New Mexico, due in large part to its very popular Governor Bill Richardson running on the Vice-Presidential ticket. And while I don’t have a electoral map sitting in front of me, if I’m recalling correctly from my analysis of the 2004 election, that’s just enough to put the Democrats over the top. No need to win any other states. Democrats don’t need Florida and they don’t need Ohio. They can forget ‘em. They just won’t get any credit for electing the most transformative political figure since FDR.

Throwing Stones

Recently I sent out an email to every contact in my address book with a transcript of the speech given by Barack Obama on March 18th. I received quite a response and I’m still puzzling over some of them. I have so much to say, so many clear contradictions and hypocrisies to point out that I just don’t have the time or energy to respond to them all. Although, a couple of points stick out.

For instance, I really didn’t expect the ease in which some threw around the term “racist” when referring to Obama. What shocked me the most was that these same people who so easily used the term with Obama would be appalled if the term was used to describe them. They saw clips of Reverend Wright, coupled it with Obama’s strong friendship with the man and simply concluded that Obama must be a racist and an America-hater to boot. Now keep in mind, the email went out to people I know well. I’ve stood next to these people when “black jokes” were told and fairy tales like black welfare queens perpetually popping out kids and driving Cadillacs were bandied about to describe the majority of black women. I listened to these prejudices and have been present on many occasions when words and phrases like “nigger” and the lovely southern gem “blue gum” have been easily thrown around without anyone even batting an eye. I don’t know about what goes on in gatherings of solely black people but I can tell you that if you’re white, you’ve inevitably heard these kinds of things too. Yet I can testify to the fact that not one of the people calling Obama a racist has had the courage to denounce the racists in their own lives.

Somehow they think it’s perfectly reasonable to associate the words of a man’s Pastor with the way Obama thinks. Using the same line of thought, should it be claimed that the words of your racist friends came out of your mouth as well? These people either ignored or didn’t bother to listen to Obama’s strong denouncements of Wright, though he has never personally heard him ever say anything racist about white people or disrespect them in any way. And the glaring hypocrisy that many haven’t had the courage to ask of themselves, though they expect so much of Obama despite what he has already done, is when will they denounce the racism that surrounds them?

Many people I know want black people “to just get over it” but how can anyone get over it when the good people of the world aren’t even willing to stand up to ignorance in their own private circles? Is their silence due to a level of agreement? I think that’s a much better question than whether or not Obama is a racist and certainly much closer to the heart of the problem affecting this country.

I’m also left wondering who exactly the multi-racial Obama is racist against? Which half of his family does he hate? Which half of himself? Which daughter? And just why exactly would an America-hater not only seek the highest political office in the country but base his entire higher education and the way he earns a living on studying the Constitution and the political system of the United States? It’s not logical. But logic isn’t what all this hubbub is about, is it? And it certainly isn’t about fairness either.

If being fair was what this was all about we would examine the people that John McCain and others on the Right have chosen to surround themselves with. Surely it wouldn’t be easy to claim that many of these people are “America haters” or racist per se, but a very strong case could be made that many of them hate anyone who isn’t like them. They might not “hate America,” they just hate the equality it stands for and the people that compromise it. Like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson whose endorsements were highly sought after by those on the Right, especially the so-called “Maverick” John McCain, who even after these men made public comments blaming 9/11 on “the pagans,… the abortionists, the feminists, the gays, the lesbians… the ACLU, [and the] People For the American Way,” still actively sought their endorsements. Or we might publicly question why John McCain would actively seek the endorsement of “Pastor” John Hagee, the same man who has claimed that all Muslims are obligated to kill Christians, called Catholicism “the great whore,” blamed Hurricane Katrina on homosexuals and sin in New Orleans and even in light of those utterly ludicrous statements, the truly scary one is where he publicly stated that the U.S., along with Israel, should preemptively strike Iran to hasten the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. The fact that the media has yet to publicly highlight these and the many other questionable associations illustrates the depths of the double standards that continue to exist.

Barack Obama should only be considered in the light of context as the flawed man that he most certainly is. When evaluating him as a candidate we should not only look at his speeches but his judgment and experience. We should recall that not only is he a man that graduated at the top of his class at Harvard Law School but that he worked with low-income residents on Chicago’s South Side. We should think of him not only as a civil rights lawyer and professor at the University of Chicago’s Law School but as a husband of 16 years and a father of 2. We should think of him as not only an Illinois State and U.S. Senator but as a man who had the courage to speak out against the Iraq war when it was extremely unpopular to do so. And we should certainly consider the courage, strength and lucidity that he approached this tumultuous issue with Reverend Wright and expect that the next President of the United States will do the same when it comes to the problems that face this nation.

Next Page »