One last note, before I hit the sack.
People are going to read this, and ask, “well, why should we listen to you? You’re the mook that has a pretty significant logo denoting your support for Obama on your website! Aren’t you a teensy bit biased? Well, aren’t you? You are!!!1!!”
It’s true, I am. I support Sen. Obama, have for some time, in fact, which makes me biased.
There, I said it.
You know what else I’m biased for? Winning. That’s true, I’m biased for winning, and the way we win isn’t by remaining in one camp or the other until the bitter end, but by unifying and coming together as one party.
I strongly support Sen. Obama, so strongly that I actually considered becoming a delegate for him. No matter how stout my support, however, if he were in the same position as Sen. Clinton is today — if he were even closer to winning than she is at this hour, I’d still recommend that he withdraw in her favor, in order to bring the party together and win in the fall.
Gov. Dean is right: John McCain isn’t a strong candidate, so the only way we lose to him in November is if we’re divided. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is fostering and stoking that division — it’s the only way they can win, and I’d do the same in their position, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
I thought that we’d learned that lesson over the last fourteen years of Republican rule, but apparently some haven’t, which brings me to one last point.
In articles like this one, you hear stuff like this:
Some senior members of Clinton’s campaign have no intention of sticking around if Obama is substantially ahead come June; as much as they’re devoted to their boss, they want nothing to do with a black-bag operation designed to destroy her rival, no matter what the cost. But these same people are also deeply convinced—beyond spin, beyond talking points, to their core—that Obama would be doomed against McCain. And Clinton believes this, too, which is one important reason why she persists despite odds that grow longer each passing day. (emphasis mine)
Now, I know why Sen. Clinton believes this — she has to, in order to fuel her desire for the office. It’s not something sinister; everyone who’s ever run for public office needs to believe that they alone can discharge the office they seek, otherwise the whole point’s moot — why run?
But what does it mean that her advisors think Sen. Obama’s “doomed” against McCain? I assume these people are savvy politicos, so I’d like for them to clearly spell out why they think we’re making a mistake as Democrats by nominating him.
And by clearly spelling out why he’s doomed, I’m not talking about recycling some worn out talking point about “experience” or some such; I mean clear, empirical evidence that points to his certain loss against a man who may be the class of the Republican field, in the way that a middling athlete is the class of a winless team.
If it’s because of some factor that he can’t control, well, then, my question is this: isn’t it part of our purpose as a party and, really, ideological movement, to lift each other up as fellow women and men beyond such things as age and race and gender? Isn’t it really part of our purpose as a nation to do that?
And if you’re saying, as an advisor, that we can’t get past that, that defeat is inevitable when placed in those terms…then what does that say about us as a party and as a nation?
If you think that he’s doomed for other reasons within his control, then you need to state those reasons. You owe it to us as voters, and to you as campaigners for a woman that, despite what others may say or think, is truly extraordinary and brilliant, and has courageously served our country.
I care about Sen. Obama — that’s why I support him. I care about winning more. I happen to think that the way we win is with him as our nominee.