The Fat Lady Sings

It's not over, they say, until the fat lady sings. As Hillary delivers her swan song to observe what everyone else in the world except those living in deep caves realize by now, perhaps we should reflect why Clinton failed to obtain her life's desire.

Is it sexism? I'm sure some of that is part of the problem. But it is a problem that is a drag on the other two candidates. Some people won't vote for McCain because he is too old and other poeple won't vote for Obama because he is too black. As I said earlier on this blog, my feeling that the strongest prejudice today is not sexism or racism, but ageism. So it is McCain who has the disadvantage. Furthermore, there are women who fill high leadership roles without decrying sexism. In my own heavily Republican state of Arizona, our pragmatic governor Janet Napolitano was re-elected by a large margin and is on the short list for consideration as Obama's vice president. (Obama will tap Virginia Senator Jim Webb for the vice presidency my opinion, however.)

Was it her husband Bill? I admire Bill for his centrist vision that gave us a vibrant peacetime economy. However, Hillary could not have run unless she was Bill's wife and unless she would have tolerated for her own political ambitions Bill's depravity. It may well have being that Bill's role during the primary season was a net gain. But for me it was a deal killer. I think Bill's presence will also disqualify Hillary from becoming Obama's vice president as Obama has no need to have another alpha male prowling the White House corridors.

I think Hillary failed because of her character. Her decision to suport the president on the key policy decision on our time was nothing more than pandering to the general eclection electorate. I also think she has trouble with the idea of truth as an overaching ethical and consitutional value. Citizens such as myself don't want parsing and spin, but the simple truth that you would expect in a question you would put to a five year old: "did you or did you not eat that cookie?" Her "under fire" in Kosovo claim as well as the Clintons secretive financial dealings has brought to the surface deep-seated doubts among many people including myself.

But it is not enough to vote against someone and that includes McCain. So why did I vote for Obama and will vote or him in the general election? His resume is thin , his rhetoric is gaseous, and some of his past associations are deplorable. But I find his post-partisan vision compelling. However, the skeptic in me recalls that Bush made the same appeals-- that he would be a uniter, not a divider, that he would transcend partisanship as he did in the Texas legislature. But I think at the end of the day I gravitate to someone most like me in how I look at truth, ethics, and the world. And for me, that is Obama.

The Wicked Witch of the West Exits

Stage left.

And there is no chance that she will be Obama's vice president. Dealing with the psychodrama that is Bill and Hill would try the patience of anyone. It's a burden President Obama can do without.

Hillary's Faith

Said Hillary: "I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith."

How Hillary Lives Out Her Faith.

"I'm Running on 35 Years of Change!"

Thus said Hillary in tonight's New Hampshire debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA

Hillary is 60 now. 35 years ago, she would have been 26, in 1973. The fact is that she wasn't a public figure until 1979 as First Lady in Arkansas. Clinton's first elected office was in 2001 as a senator to New York.

Once again, you see the Clintonian mutability of truth.

Rove's Obsession

Last week, Rove on the Sunday talk shows, attacked Clinton while declining to disparage any other Democratic candidate, noting:

"She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll," Rove said.

"It just says people have made an opinion about her. It's hard to change opinions once you've been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3505777

Tactically, I believe this is a mistake. Rove believes Hillary is the weakest Democratic candidate, and that his attacks will make her ascendency more likely. His main point appears that people won't vote for someone they don't like-- as if this was a race for the high school student council. However, with Bush's approval rating in the low 30s, all that the Democrats need to do is to run against Bush's phantom in the general election, making 2008 a referendum on the stewardship of the Bush administration. I think Hillary is almost devoid of charisma, but I think people will vote against the Republicans no matter who is the Democratic candidate. The strongest attack on Hillary is not on whether or not she has high negatives but whether or not she is what she says she really is. She has gone through so many mutations and has also played rather loose with the truth at imes while surrounding herself with a inner ring of toadies I may justly wonder if a Clinton II administration will be much different that a Bush II administration. But I think this kind of an attack would work best in the primaries rather than in the general election.

If Rudy is the candidate, I think Hillary has a strong shot at becoming president, as Rudy's liberalism cancels out Hillary's liberalism and his negatives (at least when they become more fully explored) outweigh Hillary's negatives. These include Rudy's draft dodging, his civil rights records as major, his non-spin actions on 9/11, his serial marriages and family strife, and his embrace of an interventionist military.