Add to Technorati Favorites Presidential Politics for America: Three's Company

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Three's Company

Editor's note: This week's blog was written by Sara, a perpetually precocious prodigy, and a colleague of mine at ECSU. If you read more of her work, you'll start to wonder why she went to as bad of a university as I did. (Limited said work can be found at, as well as in countless pages of Word documents and notebook paper.) This blog centers around the ubiquitous Hillary-Obama dilemma. Make sure to soak Sara in now, as it'll be a while until we hear from her again, and I don't write this well.

Darling Reader, I must apologize for my laziness in getting this blog to you. Yesterday was, after all, Christmas, and even this Jew had to take a day off, because as a friend of mine said, “you have to believe in God or Christmas,” and I figured, logically, that since I am far more comfortable with the latter than I am with the former, I would take my small vacation and hope for your leniency the next morning.

That being said, I would like to first mention that my sister sent me an email about a week ago with a link to an MSNBC article titled, Is America Ready? Hillary's hair and hemline won't be issues; her tough national-security approach and famous husband will. This, of course, was an article focusing on the issue at hand: is America ready for Hillary and/or Obama?

My immediate reaction was outrage, actually. The reason being that while they’re both very good candidates for Presidency, and that I would vote Obama into virtually any office that he ran for, I’m having a hard time imagining that America is, for once, totally agreeing with me. Because that never happens. So here’s what I think:

I don’t think Obama will win. Come to think of it, Hillary won’t win, either. If she gets the nomination it’s party suicide, again, for the Democrats. I daresay this country might be more ready for a multi-racial (everyone loves Tiger Woods) VP (because he won’t get the big one, I don’t think, though I’ve been wrong before) than a woman running for President on a viable ticket. And I don’t think John Edwards will be willing to take second place again, and I don’t blame him. He had what it took then, and he’s got it now, plus four more years of experience, campaigning against poverty, and teenagers and post-adolescent women in love with his John Ritter good looks. And unfortunately, you’re always going to have those people who think that a black man (even a half black man) is incapable of running our country – which may or may not be the same group of people who think that a woman is incapable of running our country as well.

Hillary’s biggest selling point is also her biggest downfall: she is married to Bill Clinton. Let’s face it, she’s got real baggage because of this. Everyone except Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr loves Bill Clinton, but not everyone loves his wife. This has always been the case. She was always a powerful woman by whom many, many men were intimidated (very likely the same group that think that a woman or a black man are incapable of running the country…) That being said, she’s one of two things at this point: a) she’s a total bitch harpie flaming lezzie dyke (or something to that effect), or b) she’s that poor, poor woman who got walked all over by her womanizing husband. This of course means that maybe 70% of the country feels one of two things for her: a) contempt, or b) pity. And neither of those emotions will get you elected to the White House, my friend. New York elects her because they’re New York, and there’s a huge difference between being a Senator for a state and being the President of the United States. Obviously the same can be said for Obama. And yes, Hillary has more experience, and yes, Barack has more grassroots appeal, but let’s face it. Neither of them will be sitting in the Daddy Chair come January 2009.

There are easily more swing voters in this country than we seem to count when thinking about a Hillary Presidency – there are enough Republicans and Democrats that don’t want to see her in such a position, that she would be easily be defeated – especially if the Republican Party gets their crap together in 2008 and runs someone reasonable like Rudy Giuliani (boy, wouldn’t that be an interesting choice for New Yorkers) or Mitt Romney. And while there might be enough super-liberal Democrats to vote in those all-important primaries to get her the nomination, when it starts to really matter on a nationwide level, she hasn’t got a chance. She’s got less of a chance, in fact, than John Kerry ever did, who totally blew his load (and any chance of Presidency, ever, might I add) in 2004 and is lucky that Massachusetts still might not throw him out on his ear when the time comes. In fact, I’m fairly convinced that my sister is the only surviving Kerry supporter in the known universe.

And, speaking of John Kerry, he can get stuffed. No one else matters in this race. The media is making a HUGE deal out of Hillary & Barack, but because they’re minorities and that’s fantastic. But I honest-to-god think that John Edwards has a fighting chance, more than a fighting chance, he’s what Bill Clinton was, and what Al Gore should have been (a good looking grassroots southern boy... only Edwards is CHARMING, and that's huge in politics).

And if I said it once in 2004, I said it a million times: names are everything. You're allowed a funny name as long as your running mate has a good solid I’ve-loved-America-since-1605 name (Nixon/Agnew), but most often we’re looking at two good American names (Kennedy/Johnson; Clinton/Gore; Reagan/Bush; Bush/Cheney). It makes the people feel comfortable. It allows people who don't think about politics to not have to think about politics. It's why Lieberman would never be president – his wife’s name is Hadassah, and let’s face it, that’s just too Jewish. It's why Stephanopoulos is a great commentator but will never be president; it's why Dukakis lost in 1988 – you gotta have a name that people can pronounce. You have to have a name that can become a household name. Everyone from your half-deaf grandmother to your college-educated sister to your six-year-old nephew has got to be able to say it, and remember it.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, this country is progressive, but for better or for worse, this country is NOT progressive enough to elect a black man or a woman – and certainly not on the same ticket, in case any nutcase out there is thinking that. If either one of them has a fighting chance, it’s alongside some nice, WASPy, elderly and experienced politician.

Hillary and Obama? No, certainly not. It’s too radical; it’s too much for us right now.

God, I hate politics.


IC said...

I'm with you on Edwards. I wish he was the top guy on the 2004 ticket. My concern is that if Obama runs too long, Edwards won't be able to raise the funds to compete with Clinton. This is why, last week, I asked for Obama to drop out soon. Edwards is the Democrats best hope come November 2008, and that's why I want him to get the nomination.

That and he's totally dreamy.

coyote ♥ blue said...

He's hardly as dreamy as Barack, but yes, he will suffice - in his clean-scrubbed southern way.

PresidentWebb said...

Nice post. I have been trying to work "total bitch harpie flaming lezzie dyke" into my commentary for months.
oh yeah, Barack Obama is multi-racial by the way. His pops was a Black guy from Kenya and is mother is a White women from Kansas. He spent of ton of his early life living in Hawaii and parts of Asia. He is close to Tiger in that reguard.

cash advance

Cash Advance Loans