What's in a name?

Juan Cole is the brilliant professor who writes daily about the Iraq War.

Now, in response to the right wing attempt to smear Barack Obama because of his middle name (a disgusting and ignorant attempt to prejudice voters against him), he has posted a brilliant essay about the significance of the name "Barack Hussein Obama."

Please read this inspirational piece. It's well worth your time.

Sexism isn't what is defeating Hillary

The cable news networks are being very careful not to count Hillary out, even as she loses superdelegates and sees her lead slipping in the upcoming primary states. They got burned once before and they could get burned again by a premature political obituary, so they're keeping a race alive that they might otherwise have written off.

In the days when they might have been covering the beginning of McCain vs. Obama, therefore, they are endlessly discussing how the inevitable Hillary got into the underdog position, and what she has to do to win. They are dissecting the politics of the African American vote vs. the female vote and concluding that sexism is more of a barrier to the presidency than racism, and that Hillary's potential slide from frontrunner to loser must be partly the result of sexism.

The problem with this argument is that Hillary Clinton is not a typical woman, nor even a typical candidate. Her candidacy is representative of so much more than just the aspirations of a woman to the presidency.

Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, the wife of a president who was impeached, the wife of a man who publicly humiliated her by having a sexual relationship with an intern.

Hillary Clinton is part of a husband wife team. People do not talk about Hillary Clinton in isolation. We hear about "the Clintons" or about the antics of her husband as much as we hear about her policy proposals.

Hillary Clinton is a woman who aspired to the presidency for at least eight years, and possibly more, running for the Senate in New York even though she was not a resident of New York, precisely because it would give her a good forum from which to launch a presidential bid.

Hillary Clinton is responsible for the failure of universal health care to be implemented and for a near sixteen year setback to the cause of health care reform.

Hillary Clinton is part of the presidential team that is largely responsible for giving us eight years of George W. Bush. Hillary Clinton said that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000, but the reality is that her husband Bill Clinton caused Al Gore to lose. Had Clinton not been impeached, George W. Bush could not have run on a pledge to restore dignity to the White House, Clinton could have campaigned for Gore and touted his excellent economic credentials, and Bush would not have gotten close enough to have Nader's votes even matter.

Bottom line: Hillary Clinton cannot run on her accomplishments alone. Fair or not, the reality is that Hillary Clinton brings enormous advantages as well as enormous baggage to her run for the White House. Any other woman running for the presidency would have neither those advantages nor those disadvantages.

Her huge advantages in being married to a popular former president and having a large contingent of Clinton loyalists behind her do not make her election to the presidency inevitable. They only get her close. But while her gender is significant, sexism in the American electorate will not be the reason she fails in her bid for the nomination. She will fail because of who she is, and the baggage she brings. She will fail because gender alone, and having the name of Clinton, is not enough for the American people. And she will fail because she is up against a superior candidate, and because the American people, having been burned by electing a second Bush, do not want to elect a second Clinton.

It isn't sexism that is defeating her. It is a combination of Clinton fatigue and Obama fever. And no matter how smart Hillary is, no matter how qualified, no matter how clever, these are factors she cannot overcome, and couldn't overcome even if she were a man.

Disgusting, dishonest tactics

I was visiting my elderly parents the other day when the caregiver who looks after them a couple of days a week tried to engage me in a political conversation.

This is a woman, born in France but now a U.S. citizen, who considers herself a conservative. "I sure hope that Barack Obama doesn't get elected," she said. Being an Obama supporter I asked why she felt that way. "Because he's a Muslim," she said.

Now I was in a real bind. The last thing in the world I wanted to do was get in an argument with my parents' caregiver, but as a citizen I didn't want to remain silent when a voter held an obviously erroneous belief, based on a rumor by disreputable people, about a presidential candidate.

So I simply said "He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, but his opponents are trying to get people to believe this about him even though they know it's false."

She continued: "He was born in a Muslim country, his father was a Muslim and he went to a Muslim school."

I replied: "If he was born in another country he could not run for president. He was born in Hawaii, and yes his father may have at one time been a Muslim, though I believe he was really an atheist, and besides his father left the family when Barack was two years old. He was raised by his mother and maternal grandparents and he did go to a foreign school for a year or so when he lived out of the country, but it was not a religious school."

"Well, he's black and a lot of blacks are becoming Muslim, so he might become a Muslim, so I don't think he should be president."

At that point all logic had gone out the window, so I encouraged her to listen to some of his speeches from beginning to end and then see what she thought of him. She admitted she had not listened to any speeches.

I don't imagine she will take my advice. She's a busy woman who has to work to support herself and her family and she is caring for an ill son. She is, like so many Americans, so caught up just trying to survive that all she has time for, in terms of educating herself about the upcoming presidential election, is to watch a few minutes of FOX news or listen to a talk radio nut. These outlets make it easy for good people like this caregiver to be misinformed and to accept what they are told because it matches their own prejudices. This particular woman is probably already primed to be anti-Muslim because there are problems in France associated with the large numbers of Muslim immigrants, and because she still has fears related to 9/11.

Vicious emails have been circulating on the internet for months now, accusing Obama of being a "secret Muslim" and of having been educated in a Madrasa, neither of which is true. These have been sent out by both Republicans and Democrats. Yesterday, an Ohio radical wing nut radio host introduced John McCain by continually talking about his potential opponent, "Barack Hussein Obama." The repeated use of his middle name is obviously an attempt to cause people to make mental connections between Barack and the former dictator of Iraq and thus fuel the rumor that he is a Muslim and/or a terrorist. McCain disavowed the comments, but the damage was done. The clip of the radio host's rant has been shown on television over and over again, as has a picture that the Clinton campaign has been accused of circulating, of Obama trying on a tribal costume in Somalia (taken two years ago).

With no context provided, the picture becomes a visual confirmation of what many, including my parents' caregiver believes. Even someone who should be educated and should know the context of the picture, someone like Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, can muddy the waters when she provides false information. On television yesterday, Clinton supporter Jones, trying to downplay the importance of the picture and the accusation that it was released by the Clinton campaign, said Obama should not be ashamed of the fact that he was wearing a costume from his "native Somalia."

Jones, an African American, should know full well that Barack's native land is the United States, not Somalia. As an elected Congresswoman she should know that had Obama been born in Somalia, he could not be running for president. She should also know that the only connection Obama has to Africa is that his biological father was born in Kenya, not Somalia.

How on earth do we have a legitimate election, with a fully informed electorate, when shills for politicians lie, distort, and fuel prejudice and misinformation just so their candidate can win?

Shrillary will never be president, and she may ruin Barack's chances as well

As I predicted, Hillary Clinton was not going to maintain the soft and gentle persona she showed at the end of Thursday night's CNN debate.

Over the weekend, she both scolded ("Shame on you Barack Obama") and mocked ("The heavens will open up") her rival for the nomination. Yesterday, the Clinton camp was accused of circulating a two year old photo of Obama in tribal dress, obviously released to offer visual confirmation of the rumor (lie) that Obama is a Muslim.

I don't know if these were calculated political decisions or just Hillary's personality showing through. Either way, it was ugly and does no favors to women who aspire to the presidency of the United States.

There are several reasons women have not, until this year, made a serious run at the White House and not all of them are related to Hillary's glass ceiling excuse.

Sure, there has been real discrimination against women in this and many other countries. And yes, it has to do with patriarchy, and male chauvinism, etc. etc.

But women have been or are currently the leaders of many other countries including India, Pakistan, Ireland, England, Germany, Chile and Israel. How is it that women have succeeded in becoming top elected officials in these countries, which surely have their share of patriarchy and male chauvinism? Is the United States less democratic or less enlightened? Do these countries produce many more brilliant female politicians than the United States? Or is something else going on?

The reasons why this is the first year in which a woman is a serious contender for the presidency of the United States mostly have to do with our particular culture. The United States is the world's oldest democracy, and men have been running the show for over 225 years. They have a lot more experience than women at running for the presidency. Not only do they know how to approach the electorate, but the electorate knows how to evaluate them as candidates. Voters tend to favor characteristics that are traditionally thought of – at least in this country – as male characteristics: strength, sense of humor, self-confidence, toughness, resilience, and what could be called "unflappableness," the ability to roll with the punches and not be knocked off message by emotion.

We know that voters don't like too much emotion in their male candidates. Edmund Muskie was condemned for tearing up over an attack on his wife, and remember what happened to Howard Dean when the press and the public saw him as too emotional in what became known as "the scream?"

Women candidates have a slightly different problem. While voters seem willing to accept a tearful woman, they are not as comfortable with a woman who comes off as a scold, as too sarcastic, or as emotionally volatile, which Hillary has been recently. While voters may be ready for a female candidate and even a female president, that female would have to fit into a very specific persona, and unfortunately for Hillary (but fortunately for the United States) Hillary does not have that persona.

To be fair, she has part of what she needs to be a viable candidate. She is smart, tough, and knowledgeable about all the important issues. She has a certain amount of experience and she can string sentences together and sound intelligent. With those qualities, and a husband who is a former president and has a formidable political machine surrounding him, she thought she was a shoe-in. Bush (and Republican) fatique had set in, the Democrats would be the logical choice this November, and thus this was the perfect year for a woman to win. However, Hillary hadn't counted on it being a year when a charismatic, intelligent male candidate would run, and especially not one who did have the exact temperament and persona the voters want.

What Hillary is missing is the cool, even temperament voters want in a president, either male or female. And because women are often seen as emotional, Americans want a woman who can show she is cool under fire, and doesn’t come unhinged when the chips are down. Being the underdog is, after all, a test of how a president would do when facing a crisis.

Lately, Hillary has responded to her desperate circumstances by becoming unhinged. She has been both attacking Obama with shrill and caustic language, and trying to bait him into making an emotional response to her attacks. It hasn't worked. Obama remains cool and composed and has not been knocked off his message, while Hillary sounds increasingly shrill and desperate.

I have noted for a while that in her speeches, she sounds like she is continually yelling at the audience and at her opponent, while in his speeches, he moves from calm rhetoric to soaring oratory and finally to loud proclamations. But now Hillary's speeches are worse. Now she sounds like a school teacher or principal with her "shame on you Barack Obama," and while that might work to energize some of her supporters who hate Obama, it sends the rest of us running away.

Like nails on the chalkboard, it reminds all of us of at least one female teacher whom we couldn't stand for her prudish discipline, her humorless personality, and her domineering manner. In addition to that, she mocks Obama and his supporters. The last time I remember a politician mocking someone, it was George W. Bush mocking the woman whom, as governor of Texas, he had condemned to death. It was ugly then, and it's ugly now.

In the past week, Hillary has gone from soft and sappy praise of Obama to her "shame on you" comments to her mocking sarcasm to her release of a photo to swift boat her rival. This is not the sign of a woman who has the emotional stability to lead the country. It is the sign of desperation.

Hillary seems not to understand one huge psychological fact about the realities of gender in this country. Every single man and woman who is born experiences a woman as the first authority over him or her. During most of childhood, authority figures are women. Eventually, girls begin to identify with those female authority figures, while boys learn to dominate them in order to overcome the fear and often the humiliation they sometimes experienced at the hands of woman.

For a man to then accept a female as the top authority figure in the country it is not just important that he see her as competent. In fact, it is far more important that he see her as calm and balanced emotionally, not somoene who evokes memories of an authoritarian and angry teacher who took out her frustration by humiliating and chastising her students. Hillary's recent schoolmarm antics as well as her sarcasm and overt contempt for Obama (just a few days after she said how proud she was to share the stage with him) prove that she is somewhat emotionally unhinged and that is why she is doing so poorly against Obama, and why she would lose in a general election against McCain.

I don't care what it does to her donors, the Clinton legacy, or even her marriage. Hillary needs to get out now before she does more damage to herself and her future, the chances of the eventual Democratic nominee beating McCain, and possibly sets the cause of electing a woman president back for decades.

A kinder, gentler Hillary? Nah!

The media went nuts over the end of Thursday night's Dem debate when Hillary turned all soft and conciliatory and, in an attempted repeat of her New Hampshire tear-up moment, said she would be just fine no matter what happened, and that she had family and friends to support her, and that all she really cared about was whether the American people would be fine.

Immediately pundits speculated that Hillary saw the writing on the wall and was being a good soldier for the Party, willing to concede after March 4th and not go negative on Barack so as to give McCain any ammunition to use on him in the general election.

Oh Please!

Hillary is about as soft as a pile of scrap metal.

That little display was as insincere as her New Hampshire moment. She has no intention of falling on her sword for the Party. That little display was just a tactic to get attention, and to have people see her as an actual human being.

I have no doubt Hillary is an actual human being. And I'm sure right now she is feeling a lot of fear that the Clinton's long term plan for two co-presidencies is threatened. But when Hillary feels fear she turns ugly. For Hillary, there's no such thing as a "flight or fight" response, there's only a "fight" response. Anyone who thought she was going to give in and flee from the nomination battle is as delusional as she claims Barack's supporters are.

And sure enough, the very next day she renewed her demand that the discounted Michigan and Ohio delegates be counted, even though she agreed with the rules committee that they not be counted.

Hillary will not go gentle into defeat. She will fight, as her husband used to say, "until the last dog dies." And her strategists and supporters like Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe will insist that she does. There's a lot of power and money for a lot of people riding on this, and Hillary isn't going to give up until Barack's numbers make it impossible for her to win the nomination, even with Michigan and Florida.

This isn't the woman we need as the first woman president. This isn't a woman we can trust to care about the American people, no matter what she says at the end of a debate.

Politics and Pride

The morning shows are all attacking the New York Times for its story about John McCain and the female lobbyist he may or may not have had an affair with, and may or may not have done favors for.

It seems that the story isn't really much of a story and reporters are therefore making it a story about the Times rather than about McCain. In the days ahead, it will either become more of a story about McCain or it won't.

Right now, it seems to be more of a distraction than anything. The biggest thing it took off the cable news networks was the ridiculous story about Michelle Obama's statement about her pride in America. For that, even though it was not really a story worth reporting, it was worth it.

Michelle Obama said in a speech that for the first time in her adult life she was really proud of her country, and then went on to explain the pride was related to people daring to have hope, daring to believe in America again, daring to become more involved in politics.

But of course, the idiots who dominate the airwaves, idiots like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, had to make a big story accusing Michelle Obama, and thus her husband the candidate, of not being sufficiently proud of America, and thus being unpatriotic.

Because of course, to these imbeciles, the most unforgivable sin is to ever say or imply that you might not always, in every instant, and with every action you take, be wildly proud of your country, its policies, its citizens, its wars, its imperialism, its smugness, its arrogance, or its political process. Remember, this is the black and white, right or wrong, Islamofascist vs. God-bless-America Christian crowd. These are people who will never be good stewards of this country because they can never admit that this country makes mistakes, or has been less than perfect in any arena except for abortion and homosexuality (and then it's not the country, it's those commie pinko immoral liberals who want to destroy America).

Michelle Obama said nothing wrong, yet the McCain campaign sent out Mrs. McCain to prissily say how proud she "always" has been of her country. It made me want to throw up.

For what it's worth, which isn't much, I think the Times story was not worth printing. I don't know why they did, unless there's more they haven't yet revealed. After all, they did endorse McCain. But these kind of "gotcha" stories are what make people feel hopeless about our election process, and lose pride in their country and politics. It makes people want to stay away, lest they be contaminated by the stench. The New York Times story is a perfect example of why Michelle Obama is not always proud of how things work in politics.

These kinds of stories, this kind of "journalism," this attempt to use rumor or misinterpretation to impact a candidate's reputation (either that of John McCain or that of Michelle Obama) make all of us less proud of our country. I think Michelle was onto something, and to the extent her husband's campaign has risen above this kind of nonsense, instilled hope and positive language into the process, and given people something to believe in again, it is something to be proud of, no matter what fat heads like Limbaugh and Hannity say.

Here comes McClinton

Now that Barack Obama has won 10 primaries in a row, Hillary Clinton, the underdog in the Democratic race, and John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, are both going after him. They have become a two-headed attack dog we might call "McClinton." Here's what that attack dog is saying:

Who is this guy, really?

Words may be inspiring, but a president must have solutions; Obama is all words.

He's a newcomer and a "roll of the dice." He has no proven track record. We do.

We're the voice of experience, of Washington know-how, of stature.

He talks about "hope," we talk about reality.

McClinton wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee: the Hillary head wants to be the nominee so she can be president; the McCain head wants Hillary, with her high negatives, to be the nominee so he can be president.

The McClinton strategy will not work. Each one of the attacks can easily be countered by Obama.

The "who is this guy?" strategy can easily be countered with a campaign commercial and a series of talking points highlighting all of his accomplishments as a community organizer, attorney and professor, Illinois State Senator, and Senator in Washington. His past and current colleagues can each point to one or more of his accomplishments and show how competent he is.

The accusation that he is "all words" and has no "proven track record" can be demolished with commercials and speeches that pair his inspirational words with both accomplishments and policy plans.

The "newcomer" vs. "experience" and "Washington know how" accusation won't fly as voters in presidential elections prefer candidates with less Washington experience, especially when that experience is intimately connected to lobbyists and gridlock. And let's face it, no matter how much experience you have as a Senator or Washington insider or as a First Lady or war hero, nothing can prepare you adequately for the job of the presidency. The most important characteristics you must have for the job are good judgment and grace under fire. Obama has both.

As for "hope" vs. "reality," Americans have had enough of reality in these past seven years. They both want and need "hope." And the interesting thing about Obama's message of hope isn't that he is asking Americans to hope HE can do something, but to both hope and get to work doing something with him. Unlike McClinton, he isn't saying "I have experience" and "I will bring solutions." He is asking the Americans to accept the difficulty of the task ahead and to join him in the hard work of changing the country for the better.

That is a message the American people cannot and will not resist no matter what McClinton says or does.

After seven long and disastrous years, Hillary is not the change we have been waiting for

I have always admired Republicans and Democrats who were willing to stand up and speak out against candidates or elected officials of their own party when they believed those candidates or officials were acting unethically, immorally, or unadvisedly. To put country in front of party strikes me as the most patriotic thing you can do, especially when the person or persons speaking up are highly vested in their party.

Republicans who oppose George W. Bush and his war in Iraq have shown courage, as did Robert Byrd and others who condemned Bill Clinton for his behavior in the oval office.

I wasn't sure I could do the same. Even though I have no power or status within the Democratic Party, and therefore my view matters very little, I always thought I would support Democrats because the alternative to me was unthinkable. However, with the recent behavior of the Clintons that has changed. Just as I have been unable to bear listening to or looking at George W. Bush these last seven years, I have found myself becoming nauseous each time I see Hillary or Bill on the TV screen.

I can't believe how far I have come.

When this campaign began, I liked a lot of the candidates, including Hillary. I always thought it a bit unseemly that she was running, being a former First Lady and the wife of a president. And I had no illusions. I saw her as a calculating politician who planned her run for the presidency while her husband was still in office by running for a Senate seat in New York, even though she had never lived there, knowing it would be a great launching pad for her eventual campaign. However, I thought she was smart and capable. I always thought the attacks on her and her husband were unfair and I was willing to overlook her raw ambition. I even kind of liked the idea of finally having a female president.

But now I cannot even stand to look at her. She promotes ideas I tend to agree with, but she acts no different from George W. Bush when it comes to political machinations and attacks on opponents, even opponents of her own party. And her husband's behavior has been outrageous, and unseemly for a former president.

Hillary has shown that she is willing to do whatever it takes to win, including changing the rules laid down by the Democratic Party regarding Michigan and Florida, rules she agreed to, using superdelegates to overturn the will of the people, and now trying to peal off delegates won by Obama in caucuses and primaries.

What Hillary seems not to grasp, and what Obama gets, is that the people who despise George W. Bush and who have been in despair over the direction of our country for the past seven years, have not had those feelings solely because of Bush policies they disagree with. In fact, they have felt both despair for the country and contempt for the president because the president cannot be trusted, because he violates rules and laws, because he is more interested in himself and his own power than the well being of the people.

I don't care how brilliant Hillary is, nor how enlightened her policy positions, if her ethics and her political maneuvering serve only to enhance her bank account and her power, while they overrule the will of the people, she is no better than George W. Bush.

The country has waited seven years to put someone in the White House they can trust, admire, and look up to. And it isn't Hillary. If she becomes president, and we have to wait another four years, or even eight to renew our country and rescue our democracy from deceitful, calculating and narcissistic politicians who care nothing for the people, I fear we might never recover.

The best possible thing that could happen to our country in the next few weeks is for the people to send a message loud and clear to Hillary Clinton:

Your time has passed.

It is time for you to exit gracefully and let the next generation repair the damage that you, your husband and George W. Bush have done to this country.

Barkley and Jesus

I'm not usually one to pay attention to what celebrities or athletes say regarding politics or political candidates, but yesterday's appearance by Charles Barkley on CNN was a real treat.

Barkley is supporting Barack Obama, and for that reason Wolf Blitzer conducted an interview with him. Barkley is known for being a republican, or at least for supporting some republican candidates, although he denied that to Blitzer. However, it was what he said about conservatives that made news.

He said: " I don’t like the way the Republicans are taking this country. Every time I hear the word “conservative,” it makes me sick to my stomach, because they’re really just fake Christians, as I call them. That’s all they are."

Blitzer acted horrified and asked him to explain what he meant. Barkley replied: " Well, I think they — they want to be judge and jury. Like, I’m for gay marriage. It’s none of my business if gay people want to get married. I’m pro-choice. And I think these Christians — first of all, they’re supposed to be — they’re not supposed to judge other people. But they’re the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like they're Christians. And they’re not forgiving at all."

Blitzer told Barkley he was going to get a lot of feedback for that comment to which he replied: "They can’t do anything to me. I don’t work for them." - Nice slap at the many conservative Republican politicians who do work for them.

Certainly Barkley oversimplified things. Not all conservatives are Christians and not all Christians are conservative, nor hypocritical. But to the extent that Barkley was speaking his mind about how much judgmentalism and hypocrisy has become evident in the conservative Christian political movement, his words were a breath of fresh air.

Kind of like Jesus saying : "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."

Getting our country back

The Democratic primaries and caucuses have brought out huge numbers of voters. In some races, the winner of the Democratic primary received more votes than all the Republican candidates combined. It's true that Republicans and Independents are making up some of that huge number in states where they are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, but these voters alone aren't enough to account for the huge numbers.

Certainly the presence of the first viable woman candidate is bringing out many voters, especially women, but the candidate who is accounting for most of the excitement, according to the media and reports from the voters themselves, is Barack Obama. Obama is almost single-handledly creating a new generation of excited and involved Democratic voters and because of this the Democratic Party and indeed all loyal Democrats must be forever in his debt. No candidate in decades has created this much excitement and given so many young people the desire to participate in the democratic process.

Hillary Clinton is currently attacking Obama because he gives good speeches, while she offers "solutions." Of course, Obama offers solutions, too, but Clinton must draw a false contrast because she can't offer inspiring speeches.

The job of a good candidate, it seems to me, is to offer solutions as well as speeches, to offer ideas as well inspiration. Hillary is limited in how much she inspires. In fact, she depresses almost as much as she inspires. Part of that is her fault and part isn't, but it doesn't matter. She is who she is and the danger in having her as the nominee is that all the inspiration that has been infused into the young electorate is liable to vanish.

One thing that I look for in a candidate is what they do when they are losing, when they are no longer the frontrunner. Are they gracious, while they continue on with their campaign, or do they get desperate and turn ugly? When Obama was behind, which has been for much of the race, he did not go negative. He did not refer to Clinton's gender, as her husband referred to his race, and he did not play "gotcha." There are so many things Obama could bring up if he wanted to go negative on Hillary, including her husband's impeachment, but he has never gone there. He talks about policy differences, and brings up her vote for the war, but he doesn't hammer her over the head with them or attack her character.

This week, Hillary went after Obama because he wouldn't agree to a debate before the Wisconsin primary, even though there have already been eighteen debates. Her husband attacked Obama's health care plan (I don't recall Michelle Obama attacking Hillary's plan) for not being "universal" while Hillary had to admit that to achieve universality her plan might have to garnish wages of indivduals.

Besides going negative, Hillary's team is trying to overturn the rule that everyone agreed to - that the Michigan and Florida contests would not count. And her campaign is openly admitting that even if she loses the popular vote and the pledged delegate vote, she will attempt to overturn the will of the people by appealing to superdelegates.

This reminds me so much of the tactics of Bush that it discredits Hillary in the eyes of many voters. She may be smart, wonkish, organized, and "ready to lead" on day one, but she is also ready to do anything to win. And we have had enough of that with Bush.

This time around, we not only want to win, we want to win with dignity. This time around, we want to be able to trust our president, as well as be inspired by him.

We want our country back. Not the country that the Clintons or the Bushes create for their own aggrandizement, but our country, that country that is of the people, by the people and for the people. For the first time in many campaigns, we have a candidate who can give us back our country, and move us past Bill Clinton's misbehavior and George Bush's criminality, and that is why so many people are voting for Barack Obama.

I may not support Hillary Clinton

With the Democratic race tightening, and Obama taking over the lead in pledged delegates, Hillary Clinton is seeing her dream of inevitability slip away.

However, she is working hard on two possible strategies to help her win the nomination, even if Barack has more pledged delegates by the end of the primary season.

One strategy is to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, which were punished by the Democratic Party for moving their primary date up. Simply put, the Democratic Party warned Florida and Michigan not to move up their primaries as everyone had agreed to let Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina (each representing a different part of the country and a different demographic) go first, with all the other states allowed to choose any date after that. These states violated that agreement and so their delegates will not count. All the candidates were on board with this and all agreed not to campaign in these states. All the candidates but Hillary took their names off of the Michigan ballot, while all the names remained on the Florida ballot. Hillary "won" both contests.

Now Hillary's campaign is working hard to seat these delegates anyway although, had Obama won in those states, her campaign would be doing just the opposite: demanding the delegations not be seated. Hillary and her surrogates are saying things like "we need Florida and Michigan to win in November so we can't dismiss them now" and "unless we seat these delegates we will be disenfranchising African Americans." Never mind that they didn't say this before Florida and Michigan held their primaries. Never mind that they agreed with the rules ahead of time. Now that Hillary Clinton has "won," but more importantly now that she is losing in overall delegate votes, she wants to change the rules.

This is about as unfair as it gets. First you take one side in a controversy, than when it is to your advantage, you switch sides. (Kind of like Hillary's Iraq War vote.)

As my mother always says: two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe it was wrong for the DNC to punish Michigan and Florida with this rule, but it is even more wrong to change the rule after the voting. It's like agreeing to play only seven innings of a pick-up baseball game and then when you are losing, to insist that seven innings are unfair and everyone knows baseball games must be nine innnings.

Hillary may have "won" in Michigan and Florida, but only because there was no campaigning in either state (Obama always wins over voters when he can speak to them directly) and when only Hillary's name was on the ballot in Michigan. When the voters in Michigan couldn't even vote for Obama, and when voters in both states knew their votes wouldn't count anyway, many of them may have stayed home. The dynamic could have been completely different if the voters: a) got to see and hear the candidates; b) saw all the candidates' names on the ballot; and c) knew their vote counted.

There are suggestions in the party that Michigan and Florida should have another primary or at least a caucus, but this may not be feasible. If there is money to pay for such a scenario, it should be done. If not, the rules that everyone agreed upon should stand and Hillary should stop trying to game the system.

Her second option is to get more superdelegates than Obama and thus steal the nomination from him even if he wins the most elected delegates, the most states, and the popular vote. If she does this, and accepts the nomination, it would be unconscionable. It would also lead to a John McCain victory in November, as I predict millions of Democrats will refuse to vote for her. At first, I thought such a refusal would be self-destructive and that Democrats should all agree to vote for their nominee, whomever it was. However, if Hillary wins the nomination by cheating, she deserves to lose to John McCain. Of course, I don't want a Republican in the White House, and I hate the idea of radically conservative Supreme Court nominees, but a Democratic Senate with a spine (and with Obama taking a leadership role it just might get a spine) could prevent that, and after four more years of quagmire in Iraq and an economy that isn't what it could be, Obama can defeat McCain in his run for a second term.

If Hillary wins fair and square, I will support her. If she wins by cheating, I will not. She won't deserve it, and her willingness to break the rules to win does not portend well for her presidency. I simply will not trust her to be my president.

It's in her eyes

Maybe I'm imagining it, but I am seeing something very different these days when I watch Hillary Clinton's speeches.

After Super Tuesday when, with big wins in California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, she was still the frontrunner, Hillary looked relaxed and confident. You could see it in her eyes. She was not worried. She did what she had predicted and she still believed she would get the nomination.

Last night in Texas, when she did not even acknowledge her opponent or his three blow-out victories over her, making that eight consecutive victories in a row, she looked different. She was smiling, clapping, laughing and acting positive, but her eyes gave it away. They registered fear and uncertainty.

When you compare her eyes to those of Barack Obama, there is a huge difference. His confidence is real. There is no fear, no uncertainty in his eyes. He truly believes he will win, and his recent performances show his confidence is well founded.

She could still win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, giving her enough delegates to stay close, but delegate counters believe she will not have enough to win outright. She knows this, which is why her eyes are looking different these days. She may have to rely on twisting superdelegates arms in order to pass Obama, which would have negative ramifications for her and for the Democrats. She knows this and, although I believe she and her husband are ambitious enough to grab the nomination any way they can, this has to be haunting her. It would seriously damage her legitimacy and might very well lead to a McCain presidency. So she has to decide at some point whether her winning the nomination is the most important thing, or the Democrats winning the White House is more important.

She didn't expect this. It wasn't supposed to happen. The nomination is slipping away and outwardly she won't acknowledge it with her words or her smile. But her eyes give her away.

Voting with head and heart

All over the blogs you can read first hand accounts of people of all ages who go to Obama rallies and come away converted. It is his way with words, his message of hope, his energy that inspires them. Sometimes he talks specifics, but mostly he talks about hope and changing America.

His detractors and political cynics say this is no reason to vote for a presidential candidate. Hillary has more experience, they say, or McCain will be a better commander in chief. Obama may talk pretty, but that isn't good enough. A few years ago, I might have agreed with them. I am a highly pragmatic person who likes to think I vote more with my head than with my heart.

But this election is different. And that isn't to say Obama doesn't have well-thought out policies, or that he lacks experience. He has both good ideas and good experience. So does Hillary. But Obama, with his charisma, and his phenomenal ability to generate hope for the future, has so much more.

What Republicans and media pundits don't realize - and this is why Obamamania has surprised them - is that Democrats have been so depressed, so despondent, so angry, so hopeless since the late nineties, that they were ready for a message and a candidate like this.

At first, Hillary seemed like she would be a good general election candidate. She would bring to the race intelligence, experience, and memories of the prosperous nineties when her husband was president. And besides that, she would offer women a chance to vote for the first time for one of their own. And with the corruption and incompentence of this Republican administration, a Hillary presidency seemed inevitable.

But many Democrats weren't crazy about her, and some really disliked her. Some of that dislike is irrational, to be sure, but some of it is quite understandable. Others simply didn't want the Clintons back in the White House. They still remember defending them throughout the nineties when the Republicans were hunting them, only to have Bill finally let them down and pave the way for a Republican victory in 2000. Democrats have learned that, no matter how talented and capable, the Clintons are ultimately unpredictable when it comes to their personal lives. And that unpredictability has hurt us all.

So after years of fending off Republican attacks, being betrayed by President Clinton, and then enduring nearly eight years under the disastrous administration of an incompetent and dangerous Republican president, Democrats have been yearning for something more than a good policy wonk or a candidate of a different gender. Obama is offering something more, and the more Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans are getting to know Obama, and hearing his message, they are responding with an enthusiasm that has surprised many, but does not surprise me.

I have been one of those despondent Democrats. Obama brings me out of that dark place. Obama brings us all out of that dark place. This year, I will be proud to vote with both head and heart.

Demise of the Reagan-nuts

Check out my take on the demise of the conservative movement on Outraged Citizen.

Transformative election or more of the same?

Two of my sons are caucusing in Wasington State today for the first time.

Like many young people, they have a real interest in this election.

Every so often, our democracy must renew itself by appealing to the younger generation, rallying them to care passionately about their country.

We haven't had such a renewal in a long time. For decades, it seems, the country has grown more cynical, and less interested in voting. For decades, the American people, young and old, have been less than enthusiastic about their parties' nominees for president and less confident that their vote matters.

The last generation of youth that really got fired up about politics was my generation: the baby boomers. They responded to the call of JFK to volunteer for their country, to Martin Luther King, Jr., to fight for racial justice, and to RFK to end the war and fight poverty. Leaders since then have either not inspired (Nixon, Carter, Bush I), disappointed (Clinton, Bush II) or appealed to older voters (Reagan).

This year, young people want to replace their parents and grandparents and become that new generation of activists, organizers, and voters who influence the direction of the country. And it is largely the result of one man: Barack Obama.

Obama is the new face of America: neither white nor black.

He is the new voice of America: for unity and cooperation, and against polarization.

He is the new message of America: of hope and possibility.

The youth of America hear him and see him and believe him and they are willing to work tirelessly to install him as their leader. They do not relate to Hillary Clinton. She is of their parents' generation, divisive and hyper-partisan. She represents the last century, not the new century. She does not inspire.

When Barack Obama said that while he believed Hillary Clinton's supporters would vote for him, he couldn't guarantee that his supporters would vote for her, he sounded arrogant and petty. The reality is that he was only reporting what he observed, that his youthful followers are supporting him not because they are loyal Democrats, but because they see in him something new and different, something refreshing, positive and hopeful. Most of all, they see in him someone who can transcend all that is wrong with the politics of today and they believe if they work hard enough, they can transcend it with him. They can take their miniscule amount of individual efforts, combine it with the efforts of millions of others, and beat a political machine like that of the Clintons. This is what inspires them and renews their hope in democracy.

If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, and especially if she wins because she succeeds in seating the Michigan and Florida delegates, when all candidates agreed not to seat them, or because the establishment super delegates give her the edge even though Barack wins the most state delegates, many of these young Barack supporters will be disillusioned. Many will no longer participate, not because of "sour grapes," but because they will no longer believe their voice matters. They will join the last several generations who are already cynical about the value of their vote.

This is a transformative election in more than one way. Should Barack Obama win the presidency it would transform this nation, by empowering and inspiring an entire generation of voters. But should he lose the nomination, especially in one of the scenarios mentioned above, an entire generation of Americans could become as cynical as their parents, and American democracy would fail to achieve the renewal that it so desperately needs.

A few thoughts after Super Tuesday

The pundits and pollsters are confounded. They seem to get it wrong each time there is a primary or caucus, or a new poll is released. The people keep surprising them by doing things they hadn't expected. Those of us who love real democracy rejoice in this.

The power of women, Latinos and African Americans is one big story this election season. Women and Latinos have kept Hillary in the narrow lead she maintains, while African Americans, as well as white Americans, have kept Obama competitive.

This year, for the first time ever, an African American or a woman could become president. The dominance of white males in the White House could be over.

It appears the American people are no longer willing to put a dolt in the White House. While Rudy Giuliani had his share of supporters, once people caught on to his personal foibles and his lack of understanding of issues other than 9/11 (and he didn't even understand that), they turned away. Likewise, they seem not to trust Romney and Huckabee, opposite personality types who both lack real knowledge of important issues. While McCain may not be a flaming genius, not even in the same league with Clinton and Obama when it comes to smarts, he has been in the Senate a long time and at least knows more than George W. Bush.

The Republican Party appears to be contemplating suicide. The uncomfortable alliance between neocons, theocons and corporate cons (represented by McCain, Huckabee and Romney in that order) is fracturing, with no one candidate appealing to the entire party. Now that McCain, with the help of moderates and independents, appears headed for the nomination, members of the other factions are threatening to stay home or support the Democrat.

In many states the turnout at both caucuses and primary elections is much greater for Democrats than Republicans. This is true even in states that are toss-ups in the general election, or that tend to go in the red column. The solid red South may not be so solid anymore. So regardless of who becomes the Republican nominee, the chances are good that he will be easily defeated. Of course, the Republicans keep saying that even if their nominee doesn't unite the party, Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, will.

If the contest is between Hillary and John McCain, it will be between two candidates who have a lot of opposition within their own parties. Yet, unlike McCain, Hillary also has a lot of enthusiastic support in the party. No one should underestimate the power of those women "of a certain age" who support her. And even though many in the Democratic Party do not like her and say they will not vote for her, don't bet on it. No Democrat wants a Bush suck-up like McCain in the White House.

If the contest is between McCain and Obama, McCain might as well stay home and nap. The Republican operatives could bring out the racist card and the Muslim smear to counter Obama's popularity, but I'm not at all sure it would work this time. I think the American people have caught on to the disgusting tactics of the right.

And finally, it appears, the evangelical power in the Republican Party is in decline. With Jerry Falwell gone, and Pat Robertson discredited by his support of Giuliani, and with a younger generation of believers chastising their elders for ignoring issues of poverty and global warming, and with the panderers in the Republican Party talking the talk but never walking the walk on abortion and gay marriage, these social issues are no longer the wedge they once were.

So we go forward, the Democratic candidates tied, their supporters pleased with both of them, while the Republicans lament their poor choice of candidates.

It's impossible to predict what will happen in November, but I have a few concerns. While I think Hillary Clinton can beat John McCain, there could be a huge downside to a Clinton victory, especially one that comes because the Republican Party is in such a mess.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, we will have anointed a second family dynasty. Our failure to inject new blood into the White House, and our willingness to live with our dynasties, will mean there is nothing to stop Jeb Bush from running in four or eight years as the heir apparent to the Bush dynasty. This is even more a possibility because there are no obvious Republican candidates not named Bush waiting in the wings for the next election.

That said, I wish the candidates well. My preference is to break the Clinton-Bush hold on the presidency and choose a leader from a new family as well as a new generation. I want to vote for someone who knew from day one that the Iraq War was a mistake, not someone who voted for it to make her seem commander-in-chiefish, but who now says she wasn't "really" voting for war. I want someone who can show the world that America has changed, that we see clearly the terrible injustice and stupidity and cruelty of our early years when we permitted African Americans to be held in bondage, and that we acknowledge and wish to make amends for the terrible mistake we made five years ago when our leaders violated international law and invaded Iraq.

The only candidate who can do all of that is Barack Obama.

McCain and Clinton both represent the past and the status quo. McCain would continue the war indefinitely, and it is anyone's guess what Hillary would actually do, regardless of what she says. McCain is too old to be president, too much a product of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. McCain is not in touch with the real issues of concern to the American people: health care, the economy, jobs, housing, and education. Clinton and Obama say they would stop the war, but only Obama has been against it since the start, while Hillary is partly responsible for getting us into it. Both Clinton and Obama have a health care plan, but Hillary failed to implement hers fifteen years ago.

I may be of Clinton's generation, one of those "women of a certain age," but my concerns are for my children and grandchildren, and the future of my country. Hillary Clinton may be right on many of the issues, but she and her generation of baby boomers has had their chance to make things right, and they have not. It's time for new ideas and new faces in the White House. The youth of this country know that, which is why they are lining up behind Obama.

And this grandmother agrees with them.

Seeing things not as they are, but as we are

While the outcome is by no means certain, today's primary may bring two candidates much closer to securing the nomination of their parties.

John McCain is favored to win the bulk of delegates today, yet some powerful voices in the Republican Party oppose him because they see him as too liberal, an assessment which thoroughly amuses Democrats.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is favored to win more delegates, but the race is presumably much closer than on the Republican side.

It is interesting that what divides supporters of the two major Republican candidates, McCain and Romney, is ideology, while what divides supporters of the two major Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama, is identity.

Among hard core conservative Republicans, ideology is the only true guide to voting. Many, though not all, Republican voters see Romney as more conservative than McCain, mainly because McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts at first, proposed a comprehensive immigration plan, and is apparently not sufficiently pro-life (although I'm not sure what he would have to do to prove he was sufficiently pro-life.) They believe this in spite of the fact that Romney, the man they believe is more conservative, once campaigned on a pro-choice platform, while to the best of my knowledge, the pro-life McCain never has. So while each candidate has changed positions on one or more issues, the radical base of the GOP believes and trusts Romney more than McCain, and trusts Romney's flip flops more than McCain's.

As I have said before, elections are national Rorschach tests: we see things not as they are but as we are. Maybe the Republicans are really voting on the basis of identity, character, likeability, etc. but they want to believe they are voting on the basis of their ideology, because ideology is paramount in the Republican Party. Ideology trumps practicality, compassion, unity, reality, history, and common sense. If it did not, how else do you explain the Bush administration, whose foreign and domestic policy, whatever the reality, is explained in conservative ideological terms by its apologists?

Then again, maybe the blowhards like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and Hewitt favor Romney over McCain because they believe he can be controlled much easier than McCain, and the story they are putting out about Romney being more conservative is simply a well-crafted bit of propaganda.

The Democratic candidates, on the other hand, are not that different ideologically, and their supporters aren't voting for them based on ideological differences, real or imagined. In fact, most Democrats see their positions on the issues as basically the same, and so most Democrats will support either of them in the general election.

What divides supporters of Clinton and Obama is not ideology but identity. Woman of a certain age (mostly those over forty) are supporting Clinton, while younger women support Obama. White voters are more apt to vote for Clinton, while black voters favor Obama. Of course, it isn't true across the board. I am a white grandmother and a feminist who supports Obama, and I know some young women who support Clinton.

There is some truth, however, to the conventional wisdom that women are hungry for female leadership and many will vote for Hillary only because she is a woman. While that isn't a good enough reason for me to support someone, I don't think it should be criticized. Neither should the fact that some Democrats will vote for Obama because he is African American or because he is from a younger generation or simply because his words move them.

People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons having little to do with their capability or positions on the issues. (A great many Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2000 based only on his supposed religious beliefs, ignoring the fact that he was totally unqualified on several fronts including intelligence and experience, and a great many Americans voted for John Kerry in 2004 just because he wasn't Bush.)

So we will see who comes out with more support at the end of the day, but we will probably not have two solid nominees. It is a primary season full of surprises, mainly because the electorate knows it wants something completely different from George W. Bush, but isn't sure who best offers that.

It is true, I believe, that we see things not as they are but as we are.

Today may not determine our two party nominees, but it will tell us a great deal about who we are.

Obama and the Kennedys: looking for change that lasts

Yesterday, Barack Obama's supporters were surprised as Maria Shriver, Kennedy cousin and wife of California's Republican governor, came onto the stage with her cousin Caroline and Oprah Winfrey, and endorsed Obama.

Some noteworthy endorsements in the Democratic primary have come from America's unofficial royal family, the Kennedys.

Ted Kennedy and his niece Caroline, the daughter of his brother the late President John F. Kennedy, as well as Ethel Kennedy, widow of Robert F. Kennedy, have all endorsed Obama. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has picked up the endorsement of three of Ethel's children, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., noted environmental activist.

Whether these endorsements balance each other out, whether some carry more weight than others, or whether they don't mean anything at all remains to be seen. While the Kennedy family can still make news, their glory has faded substantially from the high point of their popularity and power in the 1960s.

Of course, people my age still remember JFK and RFK, but people below the age of fifty have no real connection to them. Though I was only in grammar school at the time, I remember the day JFK was elected and the horrible days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which Kennedy successful navigated through.

I remember the glamour surrounding the Kennedy White House, the beauty of the new First Lady, who unbelievably was only in her thirties, and the use of the story of Camelot as a metaphor for the administration.

Later, when I was sitting in a High School classroom, I remember the intercom unexpectedly coming on with the words "The president of the United States is dead." I remember having the day off for the funeral, and sitting glued to the television set, with its black and white images of a little boy saluting as the horse drawn casket passed by, a beautiful woman, her face covered in a black veil, holding that little boy's hand and later, flanked by her brothers-in-law Robert and Edward, walking behind the funeral cortege.

I didn't know then what the assassination of that president might mean, as I didn't realize what the assassination of his brother, some five years later, would mean for the country or more specifically for the Democratic Party. As I look back now at those two tragic and violent events, I see how much they traumatized Democrats, and allowed the Republican Party to dominate American politics for several decades to come.

It was after the assassination of RFK, and the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., that something drastically changed for Democrats, leaving them wandering in the wilderness without a leader. Imagine, if you will, what might have happened to the Republican Party had the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan succeeded, and been followed by the assassination of someone like John McCain, perhaps, and then Newt Gingrich or even Rush Limbaugh. The party would most definitely have been devastated and left in disarray for years. It's not that new leaders wouldn't emerge, it's that something inside Republicans would have been so traumatized, so overcome with sadness and loss that it would lose its power.

That's what happened in the seventies. All the things the Democrats stood for: civil rights, equality, opposition to war, progressive tax policies, and so on, lost steam after the sixties. Even the antiwar movement, which has been so artfully used against Democrats ever since, and as recently as in the last presidential election, lost steam in the early 1970s, as troops began to come home, Richard Nixon began "peace talks," and the nation turned to the next presidential election. Ultimately, that election led to the Watergate scandal, which should have helped the Democrats regain substantial power, but it didn't. The short and failed presidency of Jimmy Carter made things worse as it gave Reagan Republicans an opening to take power for the next 12 years.

Election after election, starting with 1968, the year of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, Democrats nominated weak candidates: Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In all those years, only one Democrat, Jimmy Carter, became president, and he was defeated in his bid for a second term. And in reality, Carter's victory was more likely a vote against Gerald Ford and his pardon of Nixon, than it was a vote for him.

Then along came Bill Clinton, who finally gave the Democrats two presidential victories in a row. He was charismatic and young, and his popularity gave Democrats hope that their recovery, and a return to government that would focus on needs of the people, had finally begun. Of course, Bill Clinton's behavior gave the Republicans a chance to weaken him and his potential successor, and so the Democratic comeback didn't last. Once again the nation has been inflicted with eight years of Republican domination while the anger, frustration and demoralization of Democrats continued.

This year is so different from previous years. The entry of so many Democratic candidates into the primaries, and the popularity of two non-traditional candidates, has energized Democrats as they haven't been energized since 1960. I don't understand why some of the younger Kennedys have endorsed Hillary Clinton, but I think I know why the Kennedys who endorsed Obama did so. I believe they see a return of the energy that characterized JFK's campaign and presidency, a presidency tragically cut short. Furthermore, they see something in this young dynamic figure that reminds them of their brother, father, uncle and brother-in-law who was once such a bright star in the party. Obama represents to them a new day for the Democratic Party, but unlike the new day that dawned with the election of JFK, a day that might last. Obama's candidacy is one of optimism, hope and energy that comes with turning a page and moving the country in a new direction, not just for a few years, but for a generation. His candidacy offers a chance to finally overcome and leave behind the trauma of the sixties that cut short the hope and energy of an entire generation of Democrats.

Although Hillary Clinton would undoubtedly move the country in a different direction as well, some of us ordinary voters, along with a few members of the Kennedy family, who lost so much along with us in the 1960s, believe a Clinton presidency would still have one foot in a past that brought shame and disappointment to Democrats and helped hand the government back to those who are intent on destroying it. And the divisiveness that characterized the Clinton years is not something we relish returning to. We don't want the kind of change represented by Bill Clinton, change that will disappear after four or eight years because of a leader's raw ambition and blatant pathology. This time, we want change that will last, change that goes beyond a family dynasty, whether that dynasty's name is Clinton or Kennedy.

To us, Obama represents that change.

Serial apologizer

Michael Moore pegged it four years ago: the Democrats have "battered wife syndrome." No matter how many times George W. Bush - or the their own candidates - knock them around, they keep coming back for more.

And so, once again, we see the spectre of Bill Clinton apologizing for treating one of his wife's constituencies terribly. His many admirers simply can't accept what he really is, a politician who will stop at nothing to get the Clinton duo back in the White House, regardless of who it hurts. And so instead of divorcing him and moving to a new candidate, they fall for it again, until the next time he hurts them, when they will probably forgive him again, giving him permission to do it all over again.

Is anyone else as tired of Bill Clinton's lame and politically motivated apologies as I am?

Do we really want to spend the next four years waiting for Bill Clinton's next apology?

What we don't need: a divisive candidate

As of today, polls show Hillary Clinton slightly ahead of Barack Obama among Democratic voters, with Obama gaining ground slowly as voters get to know him, and more closely scrutinize Hillary Clinton, the candidate with more name recognition. It remains to be seen if he can catch up, but Hillary's popularity is puzzling for one reason: she is an extremely divisive figure.

Even her most ardent supporters would have to agree that Hillary Clinton is divisive. In fact, some of her supporters, I believe, take great delight in that. They think she is divisive because she is a fighter, and after eight years of Republican attrocities, they want to line up behind a fighter.

I don't think the candidate herself wants to be divisive. I would imagine that a presidential candidate wants to attract as many voters as possible, so divisiveness is not something she embraces. Even as she has a reputation for being tough, Hillary Clinton is a woman, a wife, a mother, and a human being who believes in helping the less fortunate. So I have to think she has a soft side that secretly wants to be liked, or even loved, as a good and decent person and a candidate whose heart is in the right place. Her semi-tearful moment prior to the New Hampshire primary sent that message quite clearly, even if it isn't clear whether the moment was spontaneous or calculated.

Yet, in spite of what she might desire, Hillary Clinton is and will always be a divisive figure. It is important to acknowledge why this is so, and what it might mean both in the general election, and in an imagined Hillary Clinton presidency.

Hillary Clinton has a history as the wife of a president who was impeached and who, before her husband's Monica Lewinsky moment was acknowledged, claimed that both she and her husband were under siege by a "vast right wing conspiracy." Now many of us felt at the time that there was, and still is, a strong right wing attempt to defeat Democratic politicians, although the use of the word "conspiracy" was not a wise one in that it was an attempt to make her and her husband look like victims, and displayed an unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of their failings.

The Clintons were divisive figures long before Monica, however, in that they came to the White House with an agenda that was never intended to bring their opponents on board. Their arrogant and clumsy overreach in several areas (eg. gays in the military, health care) is partly why the Republicans took the leadership of the Congress in 1994, just two years after Bill Clinton was inaugurated.

Hillary Clinton's divisiveness may have begun during her husband's campaign when she said she wasn't a "Tammy Wynette stand by your man" kind of wife, but that divisiveness blossomed during the Health Care initiative, which was her project. It was then that she earned a reputation as a fighter who did not know how or was unwilling to work with her political opponents to reach her objective of universal health care. As a result, the Congress has been unwilling to return to the question of universal coverage, leaving millions and millions of Americans uninsured for the past fourteen years. That's an enormous price to pay for someone's arrogant and divisive behavior.


Hillary Clinton is divisive for a second reason: because she is such an obvious power hungry politician, and in this election, a consummate divide and conquer one. In Karl Rove fashion, she and her strategists seem willing to cobble together a slim majority by pandering to Hispanics and women and tossing African Americans aside, as they did in North Carolina. So even if she shares a tearful moment with voters, and even as she sounds brilliant on the issues, behind the scenes she is a consummate politician who knows exactly where the Democratic votes are and how to manipulate them in her favor.

One more thing makes Hillary Clinton divisive. She is still married to one of the most divisive figures in recent American politics and, if elected president, will bring him back into the White House. Anyone who doubts the divisiveness of Bill Clinton need only remember his behavior of the past few weeks, using racial innuendo and heavy handed attacks against his wife's opponent. It has even been reported that one of the things that convinced Ted Kennedy not to endorse Hillary was Bill's outrageous behavior.

If the former president's behavior can divide Democrats, how much more can it divide the country in the general election, or if by some miracle Hillary becomes president? In those few weeks after Iowa, Bill Clinton nearly demolished her candidacy with his arrogance and outspokenness. If he can cause that much damage in the campaign, what might he do once he is back in the White House? In a general election, I suspect voters will decide they don't want Bill Clinton's narcissistic ego and unchecked appetites distracting his wife and scuttling her agenda, and so the ultimate risk of a Clinton candidacy is that she would hand the White House to John McCain and the Republicans.

Anyone who thinks a Hillary Clinton general election campaign would not be filled with reminders of her husband's peccadilloes, her willingness to forgive him, and his ultimate impeachment, is living in an alternate universe. The Republicans say they know how to run against Hillary and they are storing up their ammunition, waiting for the fall campaign. I think we should take them at their word.

I can see it now:

Commercials attacking her for her inability to see reality when her husband was having fun in the Oval Office;

Commercials attacking Bill Clinton for being so engaged in the scandal that he took his eye off of Bin Laden;

Commercials pointing to her "experience" in things wives don't want to experience;

Commercials showing the victory party on the White House lawn after impeachment.

It will go on and on. The Republicans have reams of videotape with Hillary and Bill Clinton doing and saying things that will remind voters of things they'd rather forget. It won't be pretty. And when Hillary's "flip-flop" on the war is highlighted, and her past is compared to McCain's war hero past, she won't win.

As we go to vote on Tuesday, we need to ask ourselves, no matter how much we may like a candidate, can he or she win? Hillary Clinton's divisiveness must give us concern.

We also need to determine not only if this is the right person to be president, but if this is the right person for this time? Some may look at the differences between Clinton and Obama and calculate that she has more experience on the national stage, and that is true. But is that enough? After eight years of a tumultuous Clinton presidency, no matter how good the economy may have been, and eight years of a tumultuous Bush presidency, the country is hungry for something new. They're just not yet sure who offers that, which is why the voters are still so uncertain for whom they will vote in just four days.

Hillary and Barack both look like someone new, but aside from her gender, Hillary is not a new kind of candidate, while Barack, race aside, is indeed new. Voting for her would be going back to something that we may remember fondly, as we compare it to the disastrous Bush years, but we forget at our peril how divisive the Clinton years were, and how that divisiveness meant that much of the Clinton agenda failed or had to be seriously modified to please Republicans. We also forget how serious distractions can be in the White House. Without the distraction of Monica and impeachment, for instance, might we have managed to stop Bin Laden? That isn't to leave the Republicans off the hook for their politically calculated actions, or to say Bill Clinton deserved impeachment. But if he had been acting as a president, rather than a philanderer, in the Oval Office, he would never have given them an opening.

Throughout this primary season, one thing has become obvious to me. There are going to be huge problems when the spouse of a former president becomes president herself. No matter how talented or brilliant, that spouse is going to have a problem like no other president. How does the new president both pursue her agenda and still protect the legacy of her spouse? How does her spouse, once the most powerful person on the planet take a back seat? Or does he? And if he doesn't, are we really electing him for a third term? Human nature and marriage being what they are, will there be conflicting loyalties between that to spouse and that to country? And beyond that, when that spouse was impeached because of bad behavior, no matter how trivial it may have seemed to some, how can we trust that the bad behavior will not return? The best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior. We should have known that when we voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Many warned of his sexual misconduct, but we overlooked it, and it ultimately became a terrible distraction.

We can't afford another distracted president. We can't afford another divisive president. We must turn the page on the Clinton and Bush dynasties and inject new blood into the White House.

If, in spite of all the problems with a Clinton candidacy, we choose her as our nominee, I fear we will have lost the best opportunity we have to rescue our country. Hillary Clinton may be a good person and a brilliant politician, but that is not what we need now. Even if she is the right person, she is the right person at the wrong time, which means she is the wrong person.

That is the primary reason I cannot vote for her, no matter how much I admire her intelligence, her ambition and her accomplishments.

Like so many others, I believe we need someone who can inspire, who has a vision, who brings us together, who has no history of scandal or brutal divisiveness. We need someone who will not be distracted by a larger-than-life ex president and spouse. We don't just need a candidate from a different party, we need a different kind of candidate, one who can move us in an entirely new direction.

Hillary Clinton may say she is that candidate. She is not.