I'm sorry, but we simply cannot risk a Hillary Clinton nomination [View All]

[FatDave]

I know that what I'm about to say will not be popular in some quarters. I'm also fully aware that it has been said before. And I realize that now is a contentious time here on Democratic Underground as everybody dukes it out over their favorite candidate. I've tried to stay out of that for the most part, but I can stay silent no longer. I feel I must say what I'm about to say in hopes that I can illustrate the danger we may be approaching to some of those who have not yet seen it or those who just plain refuse to see it. I am going to attempt to do this with reason and fairness, but I know that no matter how coldly I try to present the situation, I will be accused of built-in bias, of having been corrupted by the right, and probably of good old-fashioned sexism.

Also, before I really get into it, I need to make something else clear. I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, neither personally nor politically. She may not be my first choice for a nominee, but I do believe she would make a fine president if elected. On points where I disagree with her, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because I am reasoned enough and seasoned enough to know that politics is often a game of compromise and that there will never be a politician I agree with on every single point, at least not until the unlikely day I run for office myself. And rest assured that come November of 2008, I will be voting for whatever democrat is at the top of the ballot and whatever democrats are below.

But all that aside, I still must say it: We simply cannot risk choosing Hillary Clinton as our nominee for the presidency in 2008. The stakes are just too high.

I doubt anybody needs reminding, but I won't let that stop me from reminding you anyway. Our country, the country we love, the country we would all fight and die for, is facing the greatest peril it has faced since the Civil War. Some would argue that it's facing a peril even greater than that, for which is worse: The country splitting into two democracies or staying together as a fascist dictatorship under the rule of an imperial "president"? A democrat elected in 2008 will begin to correct our course, but the likeliest republican candidates will, if elected, continue the march toward fascism, and I'm afraid that it won't be a long march at all. Those who think I'm being alarmist need to open their eyes and smell the secret prisons. Or the wiretapping. Or the preemptive wars. I could go on, but I trust you all know the score.

And it's because of these things that some say the presidency is already a done deal for democrats. The American people are ready for a change and the democratic nominee, any democratic nominee, will win the general election handily. I would say that our odds are good, better than they've been in a long time, but now is not the time to rest on our laurels, and now is not the time to take unnecessary risks.

It has long been said that Hillary Clinton is polarizing, but that term is misleading. The sad fact is that Hillary Clinton is polarizing within the democratic party. There's no polarization on the right. They unanimously hate her with a passion. They have hated her since 1992, and nothing has happened to change that. What has changed is the regard she is held in by democrats. Among democrats there is what appears to be at least a 50/50 split.

When someone brings this up, Senator Clinton's supporters often say that democrats who oppose her have been corrupted by right-wing slander, and you know what? Maybe they're right. We could argue all day what has led to the situation, but that does not change the fact that Hillary Clinton has strong opposition, stronger opposition than any other candidate, within the democratic party. This is a simple, obvious, provable fact and how we reached this point is irrelevant. Pointing out that water turned to ice because of the cold does not change the fact that it is currently ice. Every day here on Democratic Underground we hear a self-identified democrat say that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. While I think this is horribly misguided, I believe that they are sincere. I am not saying they are right, far from it. But it is what it is, and we need to face that reality.

My mother, who is 78 years old, is a life-long democrat and she has never missed an election. I remember her taking me into the voting booth back in the days when they were curtained off panels of hundreds of mechanical switches and I could not yet even write my name. And she has made the same sad pronouncement we hear here every day: She will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Ever.

But on the other side of the ideological fence, there isn't even any debate on the subject. Republicans would sooner vote for Satan Himself than for Hillary Clinton. On the right, she is loathed with a level of vitriol that is as viscious as it is illogical. While their hatred flies in the face of reason, it is not hard to understand. The right-wing media (and through its echo chambers, the mainstream media) have demonized Hillary Clinton since she appeared on the scene in the early 90's. If there's one thing the right doesn't like, it's a strong woman.

And while it has taken me a long time to get to it, this is my point. Nothing will bring out the republican vote like a Hillary Clinton nomination. And nothing will keep democrats home like a Hillary Clinton nomination. This, my friends, is the ultimate recipe for disaster. Are we seriously going to let this happen? Are we going to let this happen when the stakes are so high?

And need I point out our slim majorities in both houses of congress? What will happen to those if we help their turnout while simultaneously hurting our own?

Everyone is fond of saying that America is ready for a change, and you know what? I think they're right. Many republicans have begun to wake up and feel that they've been betrayed by their party. Many would be willing to vote for Edwards or Obama. I've talked to some of them. But they would die before they ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. We've actually got the potential to peel some votes from the opposition here, but we're going to throw it away?

But let's go back to those asshole "I'll never vote for Hillary" democrats for a moment. Yes, I think they are assholes, and I think most rational democrats agree with me, but that doesn't matter. They exist, and that's a fact we must deal with. Now, if the tables were turned, would those currently supporting Senator Clinton refuse to vote for Edwards or Obama? I posit that they would gladly support whoever the eventual nominee is, even if they were not their first choice. Yes Hillary supporters, that would make you the bigger persons and the better democrats, and I have faith that you would do what was needed for the good of your country.

We've got what is pretty much a three-way race right now. It may not look like it from national polls, but in Iowa and New Hampshire Obama and Edwards are competitive, and I'm sure I don't need to point out the importance of those races. Edwards, though in third place, seems to be picking up steam, so I consider him still very much in the game. So let's look at likely scenarios based on our three front runners.

If Barack Obama is our eventual nominee, all democrats will rally behind him. He'll also easily pick up a majority of independents and probably even peel enough republicans (especially Christians) away to be significant. A fair number of republicans, disappointed in their party and unhappy with their nominee would just stay home.

If John Edwards is our eventual nominee, again, all democrats will rally behind him. His populist message will pick up the majority of independents and probably a few republicans also. Again, many unhappy republicans will just stay home on election day.

If Hillary Clinton is our eventual nominee, every republican in the nation will turn out on election day to vote against her. You can take that to the bank. What's more, a significant number of democrats, unhappy with their nominee, will stay home on election day.

And I know, if you count registered democrats vs. registered republicans, our chances look good no matter who our nominee is. But one scenario looks far riskier than the others. I'm not saying that Hillary can't win the general election, and I'm not saying that Hillary won't win the general election. I'm merely saying that she is the riskiest candidate we've got, and now is not the time to take any chances. Especially if one considers that we don't just have to win the election, we have to win it by a large enough margin that it can't be stolen.

And lastly, has anybody noticed that the right-wing media seems to really want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee? Do you think maybe, just maybe, it's because they know what it will do for republican turnout? Or do you think it's because they've strategizing against her for 15 years?

But I don't know why I bother. I don't really expect anyone to listen to me. If there's one thing the democratic party has shown me time and time again, it's that they have a remarkable ability to screw up a sure a thing.