We truly would be foolish if we as Democrats make HRC our nominee at this point. It's not because of her mainstream record, her qualitative experience, or many of her fine accomplishments. It's because of her tactics, her divisive campaign, her ties to the status quo, and the needs of this country.
The tactics of the Clintons this year have been abhorrent and disgusting.
I think this comment by a fellow diarist was as prescient as ever. I want to amplify these sentiments.
In Iowa, HRC tried to keep students away from voting because her polls said younger people were more likely to vote for Obama. In New Hampshire it was the false smears on Obama's 100% pro choice record because the polls said choice was a very important issue for voters. In Michigan, it's now Michigan is important despite agreeing to rules months ago. in Nevada, it's let's make it harder for casino workers to caucus because polls say these workers are more likely to vote for Obama. In South Carolina, it was the race card. In Florida, it's now Florida counts despite agreeing to earlier rules. And with Super Tuesday coming, the Clintons (yes both of them) have digressed to "Obama's black, Middle America won't vote for a black guy, thus HRC is more electable, vote Hillary." And while I do not believe there is any racism in either of the Clintons nor do I believe there is any racism in 98% of the Clinton supporters, the bottom line is that for politically calculating purposes, the Clintons are trying to feed into this false "he's black, Middle America won't vote for him" electability sentiment simply to try and garner votes in the primary. (Talk to some Clinton voters on your own behind closed doors and it will come out. Although they are not racist and would support Obama if Obama is our nominee, these voters will tell you that they are voting for Hillary because they fear that other Americans won't vote for a black man and that Hillary is more electable because she will bring women to the polls in larger numbers.)
The Clintons are running a divisive, scorched earth, despicable campaign. This is the cold hard truth. It needs to be said. And if we reward this crap by nominating HRC, we don't deserve the White House although she would still have a better than 50% chance simply because the other choice will be viewed as a lot worse.
In Barack Obama, we have a candidate that can unite us, young and old, black-white-Hispanic-Asian-Pac Isl-Indian, progressive-liberal-moderate-reasonable Republican, rich and poor. We'd be foolish not to back that person.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama apparently agree on 85-90% of the core issues. Each candidate, on the issues, would be a million times better than any of the Republicans. So this isn't about issues. Why wouldn't we choose the candidate who brings more people into the fold? Why wouldn't we choose not only the more positive candidate but also the more electable?
Look at the differences between the two!
Hillary is divisive. Obama is a uniter.
Hillary believes in win at all costs. Obama believes in campaigning honestly.
Hillary will bring millions of Republicans who were planning to stay home in 2008 to the polls to vote against her and possibly prevent 10-15 additional Democratic pickups in the House. Obama will either keep these Republicans home or have them come out and vote for Democrats in 2008.
Hillary is playing the race card. Obama doesn't care about a person's race.
If Hillary is the nominee, I'll hold my nose when I vote (and yes for her) but if Obama is the nominee, it's a vote that will feel good.
I know progressive Democrats who will stay home if Hillary is the nominee. But these same progressive Democrats will vote for Obama.
I know so called moderate/conservative Democrats who have told me that if it's Hillary v. McCain they will vote McCain but if it's Obama v. McCain they will vote Obama. (To be fair they've also told me that if it's Hillary/Romney, they'll hold their nose and vote Hillary.)
I know many self identified conservative Republicans who say they will vote for Obama because this country needs change and the GOP has gone way too far but these same self identified conservative Republicans have told me that if Hillary is the nominee, they will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is.
We would have to be foolish collectively as Democrats to make HRC our party's nominee in 2008, foolish to choose the person who is reviled by 49% of the general population, foolish to reward sleazy tactics, foolish to choose a person who is so status quo in an election where change means everything, foolish to tell young people that these divisive Billary tactics should be rewarded and not punished.
If HRC is the nominee against John corrupt status quo insider McCain, we are looking at a 50-49 election one way or the other in the end. We have 2-3 SC Justices who are going to retire in two years. If the Far Right gets their 6th and 7th radicals on the court, our Constitution will simply be a god damned piece of paper. Should we risk this?
If it's HRC v. Romney, it will be a tight race that we could lose although I'd predict she would win 52-47. Should we risk this?
Obama will CRUSH McCain in the end (See the contrasts) and CRUSH Romney. Obama will beat McCain by 15-20 points and Romney by even more than that. He'll win every state Kerry won PLUS Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama wins another 10-15 states that Bush won in 2004 as well.
So are we going to be FOOLISH and shoot ourselves in the foot by going back to the Clintons (who simply should just go away at this point along with their entire putrid crew of Penn, McAuliffe, Carville, Begala, etc...) or are we going to give this country the better alternative?
As George Carlin once pointed out, politicians are simply a reflection of the people who vote for them. We'll find out a lot more about what the collective Democratic Party public is really like on February 5th.