Hillary Clinton is a Terrible Candidate

If there is one thing that the Democrats have over the Republicans, it is that for the past twenty-four years we have had a lock on terrible candidates.  It's an inherent bi-product of who we are as Democrats; we are the party of ideas and thoughtfulness.  We are the party of optimism, and we, as the Democratic base, tend to expect that the rest of the American electorate will be just as in love with wonky substance as we are.  Ergo, we run candidates like Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.  Each were brilliant men and would have made fantastic presidents, but each were cerebral and stiff (yes, even Gore, who had the life poll-tested right out of him).  While we, as thinking Democrats, like cerebral, cerebral doesn't win elections.  People don't vote with their heads, they vote with their hearts.

Hillary Clinton comes firmly out of the school of these candidates.  Since the inception of her candidacy, she has run on a platform of ruthless competence.  She has run on her experience as a Democratic Senator and her career as a lawyer.  She was told by the same assholes that sunk the candidacies of our other losers that she should be austere and emotionless on the campaign trail.  She should be superhuman.  At root, like all our other losers, Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a terrible candidate, and the wrong choice to carry the Democratic banner into November.

Now, I want to defuse one bomb right now, before we go any further.  The statement that Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate does not translate into her being a terrible Democrat, or a terrible politician, or a terrible person.  She is none of those things.  I have nothing but the utmost respect for Hillary Clinton as a Senator and an agent of good, progressive values.  I suppose, in the end, I'm simply talking about electability.

I know that many think the electability argument is base, and irrelevant.  I have to disagree.  If people voted on the basis of policy and nothing else, we'd be sitting here right now with a solid twenty-four years of Democratic presidents behind us.  The simple fact that we don't proves that electability might be the most important issue to parse, especially in a year when the policy difference between our candidates is minute.  We could argue all day long about whether mandates are necessary for bringing about universal health-care, but it is a minor quibble compared to the Republican position.

"But Hillary has more experience on this issue, and in general," I can hear her supporters screaming right now.  I will grant that, but I will also contend that experience is the least important trait a president can have.  Barack Obama is correct; judgement is more important.  A president is more the captain of a ship than anything else.  They steer where the ship goes, but they rely on a competent and dedicated staff to make the ship run.  The captain doesn't do the navigation, or the cooking, or the teaching, or most of the daily things that keep the ship running.  A president must be ready to stock their advisors and cabinet with the most competent and best people, and it is more important that these people have the experience than the president because they are the crew that make the ship go where the president says it should.  Hillary Clinton has, by the company she keeps, given us a window into how she would stock her cabinet, and it is enough evidence to suggest she should never get the chance.  

The staff of Hillary Clinton, the Mark Penns and Harold Ickes, are a big reason for Hillary's unelectability.  They have given her terrible advice from the start.  They took what was about as close to a sure thing as possible and turned it into a long-shot.  And it is what has happened since the turn in the campaign that really leads me to believe that she is unfit to run against John McCain.  Clinton has said from the start that she is more tested and battle ready than Obama, but if that is true, she sure hasn't shown it.  Ever since the tables turned, Clinton's campaign has flailed, making mistake after mistake.  Take the current flap that is sucking up all the oxygen around these parts.  Here are the words of Clinton:

I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know that Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.

Now, some have chosen to claim that these words are disloyal and think she believes McCain would be better in the White House than Obama.  That is believing the worst possible interpretation of those words.  I tend to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, and believe she was simply trying to highlight what McCain will say in a general election against Obama.  However, it's still an incredibly stupid and counterproductive thing to say.  The statement is begging to end up in a McCain ad during the general, regardless of who is the eventual nominee on our side or Clinton's intent.  If this is how she handles the pressure of a contested election, how can we trust her to take on McCain without flubbing?  She can't even deliver "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night" properly.  Don't believe me? Watch the end of the video.  "It is Saturday Night."  Yeesh.  The flap over her performance on 60 Minutes falls into this category as well.

And that brings me to my final point.  Obama is the better general election candidate.  He has proven it time and again over the course of this campaign.  From his embrace of the 50 state strategy to his ability to draw new and energized voters into the fold, Obama has proven himself to be our best shot at a win in November.  Clinton likes to attack him for just this, calling him all rhetoric and empty speeches, but I don't think even she believes that.  She is a candidate who comes with a built in opposition force of 48 percent of the country.  She will only compete in the "states that matter."  She will follow the same failed strategy of the losers that litter our history.  Because of the negative esteem that much of the country holds (which is not going to change) she will hurt our downticket races.  I know her supporters don't want to hear that, because they truly believe she is the best suited for the job, but that doesn't matter if she (a) can't get elected and (b) hurts the other Democrats running down ticket.  She doesn't inspire people the way Obama does, and it is not bad to inspire.  It is necessary to win a campaign.  

It's time for us to go for broke, people.  We have a chance to nominate a candidate who will grow our governing majority and usher in a new age of progressive values for America.  That candidate is not Hillary Clinton.  If the management of a campaign is a window into the management of a country, she has proven herself to be unfit for the job.  If this is how she behaves when the heat is on, I do not trust he to take the heat in a general.  If she turns half the country off from jump, I don't want her representing our half.  Our past is littered with competent losers.  It's time to win.  It's time for Barack Obama.