This diary is being written through a haze of aggravation, so apologies for a piece that will undoubtedly have a "rant-ish" slant.
I have just finished doing something I have repeatedly sworn I would stop doing, and that is reading the Comments sections to online articles posted about the primary election.
Today's agita comes courtesy of the commenters to Chris Cillizza's latest, Hillary Clinton and the 'I Told You So' Calculation.
Here is what I fundamentally don't understand about Clinton's electability argument:
Let's ignore for the moment that the Clintons come with so much baggage, some of it had to be searched, and contents returned.
And let's ignore the inconvenient truth that if Hillary were truly more electable, wouldn't she have won the primary election? (You know, seeing as how 'electable' is derived from the word 'election?)
Let's just throw all that out and concede this point: The Clintons believe in their guts that she is more electable- so, dammit, she's more electable!
SO FUCKING WHAT?
So what if she is more electable? Since when is that the way it works? In politics, in sports, or in any kind of competitive contest where score is kept and the outcome determined by that score?
When two sports teams are competing for the last slot in the Finals to play the undefeated Team C, at the end, does the ref say: "Well, Team A sure scored more points, which usually determines who goes to the finals, but I just feel very strongly that Team B would have an easier chance of winning...."
Dude, even back when her campaign had more some credibility, and pundits were saying that she had a chance if she could convince the supers that he was unelectable, I was still thinking that argument was specious: "So what? It doesn't matter what happens now to tarnish his image. He has earned the right to fail, if it comes to that."
But as a Democrat first and an Obama supporter second, I realized that if it could be demonstrated that he was totally "unelectable," then of course we should do what we could to still secure a victory, even if that meant HRC. And honestly, it was pretty easy to come to that conclusion because the very nature of the task, proving he's unelectable, seemed pretty much impossible.
And lo and behold, I was right. After Wright, Ayers, BitterGate- boy was I right! So now, HRC has returned to bleating that while "Yes, yes, yes" Obama can win, she can win better or more easily or something.
Well, I say again: SO FUCKING WHAT?
Even if that were true, and it is a theory that cannot ever be proven or disproven, that doesn't entitle her to the nomination. The whole world could think Hillary Cliton is more electable than Barack Obama, but it doesn't matter one good goddamn, and you know why?
Because Barack Obama is electable enough.
*****
On a lengthy side note, I particularly enjoyed using as this diary's title and premise, a variation on what was widely seen as one of Obama's most unflattering moments, the "You're likable enough" comment to HRC that was deemed snide and small and petty.
One criticism said:
There was something very nasty about it. He wasn't gracious or kind. After all, he had just received a compliment.
Because I watched that debate, and in my opinion, it was none of those things. Hillary was being extremely condescending about Obama's own favorability ratings, but delivered the jab with a laugh so she could get away with it. Barack just decided he wasn't in the mood to eat shit served up with a smile, and and he with one quick sentence, took her stuff, so to speak.
Here, take a look for yourself at this now golden oldie:
Ah, it seemed like such a simpler time...