Now that the primaries are finally over, I feel it's time for another political brain-dump.
First, to paraphrase: someone set us up Obama. All her base are belong to us!
Next, does anyone else feel that Hillary is basically trying to extort a place on the ticket? Here's four words why that will never happen: "Give. Me. A. Break." Yes, that's right, Bill Clinton's looming presence short-circuits any chance of that happen. On an ironic side note, her decision ten years ago to "stand by her man" was politically shrewd, given public perception (right or wrong), but ultimately may be the limiting factor to her further political advancement.
One of the most amazing facts about this race has been the amount of money spent: somewhere short of 100 million dollars by both Barack and Hillary. The Clintons dumped in eleven million of their own money. So in sheer economic terms, it sort of makes sense that she would work to get the best return on those dollars by continuing the race and building up political capital in state after state.
And hence her continued emphasis on the "popular vote", which she claims to have won (depending on how Michigan, Florida and caucus states are counted). This was certainly an argument meant to sway superdelegates looking forward to the fall, because otherwise it makes no sense in a contest that is decided entirely by delegate count. Why repeat it now that she's lost? Ultimately, I think it's evidence that the Clintons are driven by an absolute lust for power, and are willing to risk fracturing the Party in their continued quest for it.
The most disturbing development to my mind, is the non-trivial fraction of Hillary supporters who claim that they will never support Obama [according to one figure I heard, something like 20%]. Why? WTF? It makes no sense to me. I've very happy that Obama has won the nomination, but if it were Hillary instead, I cannot imagine not supporting her. The differences in their policy positions and their experience are just not that great. What is the reason that so many of her supporters are fixated on her, so far beyond mere preference? Like the Clintons themselves, do they assume that the mantle is theirs to take, and how dare anyone challenge that right?
I'd love to see Gen. Wesley Clark instead, as Barack Obama's running mate.
Finally, one constant criticism of Obama has been that he's a great orator, but short on actual ideas. A dig around his campaign website will disprove that notion. But consider if being a great orator is actually a useful metric in determining who would be a good president? Historically that seems to have been the case, and of course there's the anti-pattern: President Bush can barely string together two words even with a teleprompter and directions from his puppet masters, and he's the worst president in history. Besides, as chief executive, the president is not the source of new ideas and legislation, but is the implementor of them. Obama's speeches have shown his inspirational vision, clear judgement and keen insight. All of which will be indispendible in restoring America's prominence, after the the years of unfettered Republican dominance frakked it up so far beyond what even we said it would.
