Sidenote: Yeah, my last entry sucked, I should have appealed to my better senses and never published it.
=
Since the 2006 midterms, it has become abundantly clear that the Democratic Party lacks the majorities in Congress needed to pass progressive and useful legislation. Thus, the candidate that can bring in new voters and independents this November will help the party, and ultimately the nation, in the long run.
More below the fold...
In newly released general election polls recorded by dansac, we see Hillary Clinton struggling mightily against John McCain in the crucial states of Pennsylvania and Oregon. If Hillary does manage to win in November, it's going to be by a razor-thin margin; not the kind that can build a healthy majority in Congress, or pass progressive state propositions, or at all benefit from the unpopularity of the current administration.
If the 2004 election told us anything, it is that to capitalize on the unpopularity of an incumbent president, the opposing candidate must have clear and important differences on a number of levels. Iraq, which dominated the election four years ago, was something that Kerry didn't distinguish himself on at all. While I would in no way insinuate that Clinton is politically similar to John McCain, her vote for the war, amongst other things, will not allow her to draw the needed majority of independents required for a good election overall for the Democrats across the nation. If there are two things that independents loathe, it's the War and the current president; thus, the less that the candidate echoes, in any way, President Bush, the better.
Thus, history would be doomed to repeat itself. Much like the Clinton administration of the 90's, we would have a Democratic president that would have to bury liberal tendencies in order to work with a polarized Congress. Is this what we want our future to be defined as? More tiny victories, each bloody and hard fought?
Though I do respect both Clintons and their political work, I do not think they can get the kind of turnout that can turn a country blue. All current evidence points to Barack Obama being the candidate that can swing crucial districts to the Democrats, and make the next four years something to look forward to as liberals, progressives, and populists.
The key thing to weigh in any comparison is the distribution of states won by either candidate in the Democratic nomination. Obama has won a great majority of the red states, getting turnout that is miraculously high in places like Idaho and Kansas. A recent New York Times article describes:
But those numbers, and exit polling across the nation, make a case for Obama’s electability and the inroads he has made into places where Democrats are harder to find than a decent bagel. Yes, Hillary-hatred is part of it. But something much bigger is going on among independents and white males, something that can’t all be attributed to fear of a powerful woman in a pantsuit.
...
The larger story is about home-grown identity. Eight of the 11 Western States have Democratic governors. The Democrats picked up two Senate seats in the West in the last two national elections, and are poised to pick up two more this year, in Colorado and New Mexico.
And this is the key factor to me. Now that Dean has instigated the 50 state strategy, the candidates must run 50 state campaigns. Even if Obama loses places like Georgia, North Carolina, or Missouri, the additional turnout he could muster would do wonders for getting Democratic governors, state legislators, or congressional representatives elected. Also, it allows for a presidential election being more than just ignoring most states and fighting bitterly over a handful; to make McCain play defense in many states that are usually sure things throughout the fall would be a sight to behold.
I'm eager to see what this election will hold, and I hope it will yield a progressive majority for years to come!
EDIT: Added some more content to make it respectable.