Could we please just end it already?

Oh, please, good people of North Carolina and Indiana, could you please just help end this endless campaign?

I'm tired of thinking about it, writing about it, and having my blood pressure raised over it.

Every primary that doesn't finally determine the winner gives bored Republicans, who have no one to vote for in their own party, a chance to vote mischievously for Hillary.

Everyone knows she can't catch up in any of the metrics she has used to declare she SHOULD be the winner, even if she isn't. She can't catch up in pledged delegates, popular vote, states won, or even enough superdelegates to give her the nomination. Yet the media and especially Republican pundits want this to go on and on for their own job security. So they ramp up the Jeremiah Wright controversy, praise Hillary Clinton for being a fighter, and pretend she could pull off a Clinton miracle.

Well I think the Almighty only gives individuals one big miracle in a lifetime, and the Clintons already were granted one when the Senate didn't vote to convict Bill and throw him out of office. They're not going to get another miracle.

I'll tell you the miracle I want to see and it's one only the Clintons can give us. I want to see the Clintons finally come to their senses and get out of the race. I want to see Hillary go back to New york or Pennsylvania or Washington D.C. or Arkansas or Illinois, or wherever her true "home" is, after claiming them all, and get a good rest. Then I want to see the two of them get back on the campaign trail and work their tails off for Barack Obama.

I want to see them prove they really are loyal to the party.

I want to see them prove they really do care about the country.

I want to see them convince all those blue collar voters who were afraid to vote for Obama that they need to get over their racist tendencies and embrace one of the most brilliant and gifted candidates anyone has ever seen, at least since Bill was on the national stage. I want Bill to tell the country that they can and should elect Obama to be the real first black president.

I want to see them campaign actively in states she won and once said Obama couldn't win, and help him win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

I want to see Hillary denounce this silly gas tax holiday idea and tell voters it was just a pander when she still thought she could win, and Obama was right all along.

I want Bill to go to church every Sunday with Barack and convince everyone that his wife's former opponent is not only NOT a Muslim, but that he is a committed Christian.

I want Hillary to thank all of her supporters and contributers for backing her, and then tell them that Obama will truly change this country for the better and that she will be right there helping him do it.

I want Hillary to say she does not for one second think McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama. I want her to apologize for her Iraq War vote and give Obama credit for being the only candidate who was right on Iraq.

I want Hillary to prove she really does care about this country, so much that she is willing to concede graciously, throw her support to Obama, and campaign her heart out for him, not just because she is a loyal democrat, but because a President Obama will change this nation in ways unimaginable a few years ago.

The Clintons are continuing to campaign because they want to win, but also because they don't know how to lose. They don't know how to give up, let go, and be gracious. It's actually much harder for some people to let go than it is to hold on. It sometimes takes more strength of character to acknowledge defeat, but that is what they must do now when continuing to fight is so destructive to the overall cause of rescuing the country from the Republicans who have done so much damage.

The Clintons may not be able to win this time, but they still have an enormous amount of power. They can help guarantee an Obama victory in the Fall. That is their patriotic duty, and will go a long way to redeem them in the eyes of many who have come to hate them for the way they have conducted themselves these past few months.

If the Clintons actually do this, if they turn around and campaign sincerely and whole heartedly for Obama, even I might change my mind about them.

It was never going to be easy

I and other Obama supporters should have known better.

First, we got all fired up over his Iowa surprise win. Then we got ecstatic over his 11 state victories in a row. Then we rationalized that his loss in Texas really got him more delegates so it wasn't a big deal.

But each time we had reason to hope that this time it would be different, that this time the American people were moving past race, ready to finally put the nail in the Clinton political coffin, and really ready to change the way politics is done in this country, we got shot down by the old tactics, the slash and burn campiagns of past years, the pathology of the Clintons, and the lingering racism of far too many voters.

We should have known that, no matter how different and ecxiting our candidate was, no matter how reminiscent of JFK or RFK, no matter how brilliant and seemingly post-racial, it was never going to be easy for him to secure the nomination. And no matter how many times we try to convince ourselves that he still can, that there are enough good and decent people who will not vote against him because he is black, we inevitably come up against three realities: Far too many older women - women who were there when feminism first began - want to see a female president before they die; far too many white voters still will not vote for a (1/2) black candidate, no matter how brilliant or post racial; and the narcissism and power madness of the Clintons will stop at nothing to destroy Obama.

After Pennsylvania, much of the press seems to be rooting for her and gunning for Obama and exit polls from Pennsylvania show just how powerful a factor race still is. The very fact that a sizable number of her supporters say they will vote for McCain if she is not the nominee is really all you need to know about how much of a factor race plays in elections in this country.

If these were loyal democrats who simply preferred Clinton to Obama, but found themselves faced with an Obama victory in the primaries, they would either vote for Obama, or simply sit out in November, especially since there is so little difference between their two policies. But because so many are willing to vote for someone with a completely different political philosophy which amounts to a continuation of Bush policy, there can be only one reason they would move from Clinton to McCain. They will only vote for the white candidate.

Unlike Clinton voters who say they will not vote for Obama, the far fewer Obama voters who say they will not vote for Clinton, do so mainly because they are appalled by her tactics, many of them subtle appeals to the racism of her supporters. She has so violated the trust they once had in her and her husband, so much trust that they thought of him as the "first black president," that it would be morally wrong - in their minds - to support this tactical but subtle racism on the part of the Clinton campaign.

While we never thought it would be easy to nominate and elect Obama, we underestimated the amount of racism still lingering in the nation. And we certainly weren't prepard for it to be used by the Clintons.

Barack can still win the nomination, but it becomes harder and harder as she attacks him with subtle racial digs, lies and distorts her ability to win, and as the MSM piles on and repeats her propaganda. And should she wrest the nomination from him by her sleazy disgusting tactics, it will be a long time before a viable African American candidate comes forward again. The Clinton tactics, backed up the main stream media, have made it clear. No black candidate will be treated fairly because no black candidate will ever be allowed to win as long as they have anything to say about it.

The Clintons are phonies, with no hearts, and with political plasma running through their veins. Nothing else matters to them except winning. And if that means destroying the most decent and gifted (but black) politician to come along in decades, they will do it.

They will destroy the country rather than allow this young, bold and charismatic leader to win what they believe is rightfully theirs. They will never give up.

If Hillary Clinton succeeds in her ugly tactics to destroy her rival and steal the nomination, using Rovian reptilian tactics, I hope with all my heart that she loses, not just the presidential race, but the next senatorial race that she wages. I hope she never again wins any political office because she has burned so many bridges behind her. I hope she and her husband have finally destroyed their legacy, because what they are doing is immoral, unconscionable, and highly destructive. They even appear willing to destroy the Party to get what they want.

I return to my original realization. It was never going to be easy, in the land that at its founding approved of slavery, the land that fought a war over whether it would be allowed to continue, the land where even though slavery was outlawed, segration and Jim Crow remained, the land where racism lives in the hearts of many Americans, not just in the south, but apparently in Ohio and Pennsylvania. (And some call this a 'Christian country?")

It was never going to be easy, and Hillary and Bill Clinton's pathological narcissism has made it even more difficult, for Obama to be the first black president.

One thing is certain after this nominating process, perhaps the only comfort we can find should Obama lose the nomination: Bill Clinton will never, ever again be called "the nation's first black president." That nonsense is over.

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.

National Rorschach Test

Every national election teaches us something, not only about the candidates, but also about ourselves as voters and, sadly, about the weaknesses of modern democracy.

The 2000 election taught us that in an evenly divided electorate, a third party candidacy can enable the winner of the popular vote to be the loser. We also learned that a ruthless campaign manager/strategist can figure out how to "win" an election, even when his candidate loses the popular vote. And, of course, we learned that it is possible to steal an election if you are bold enough, if your brother is governor of a crucial state and can scrub the voting rolls, and if you have campaign staff thugs who are willing to pose as ordinary people demanding that a legal recount be stopped.

In 2004 we learned that fear, partly based a real threat, but stoked by lies and exaggerations, can determine the outcome of an election and that "independent" groups can spread lies about a candidate they oppose and sink that candidate's chances. We learned, in other words, that you can lie your way into the White House.

In this election, there are already lessons. Just yesterday we learned that "poverty" will never be the most important issue in a campaign (the corporate media will not allow it to be) and that the candidates who survive in a primary are always the ones with the most money and the most media fascination. We also learned that strategy counts, you can't skip the early primaries and expect to win, and fear isn't the issue it was four years ago. Invoking 9/11 and Islamofascism simply isn't enough to get you the nomination. Even though John Mccain continues to talk about terrorism and Islamofascism, exit polls in Florida revealed that the voters who cared most about the economy as well as the voters who want us out of Iraq cast the most votes for John MCain. So Republicans are voting for McCain not because of his desire to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but in spite of it. Hence, another lesson: voters choose candidates for reasons other than the issues.

What does this mean for the Democratic primary? Who knows? The Democratic electorate seems evenly divided between support for the first woman candidate and the first black candidate. Reading the blogs, and especially the comments by ordinary citizens at the end of the blogs, indicates that this primary is one big Rorschach test, with voters seeing what they want to see in their candidate, or as Bill Clinton says "In the primary, you fall in love with a candidate."

Some people have fallen in love with Hillary Clinton because, after sixteen years, they believe she is a known commodity, or because she is a woman, because they believe she will advocate for woman's issues much better than a man, because they actually want Bill back in the White House, because they trust she can be as good a commander in chief as any man, because she is tough enough to stomp on Republicans. They see Obama as too untested, no matter how good he sounds.

Others have fallen in love with Barack Obama. They like that he is a fresh, new face, that he doesn't have sixteen years of baggage, political loyalties, and corporate interests to define him. They contrast his strategy of uniting diverse groups of people to build a large majority including non-Democrats, in his campaign, rather than pulling together specific interest groups to eke out a 51% victory. They like listening to him, and being inspired by him, and they think those are just as important in getting the country to unite behind a president as are years of experience and toughness.

In the end, what I am learning is that in the Democratic primary voters are divided between trusting someone they know from the past, because of her intelligence and in spite of her baggage, and trusting someone less known, whose oratory, confidence and intelligence inspires them.

How this will all come down on Super Tuesday, is anybody's guess.

A woman of her word?

Just a few weeks ago I wrote that I was sympathetic to Hillary Clinton, and would vote for her if she was the nominee even though I am supporting Barack Obama, because the possibility of another four years of disastrous Republican policies and never-ending war was simply too painful to contemplate.

I probably still will vote for her if she is the nominee, as the Republican candidates haven't yet turned into compassionate and decent human beings, but the thought of voting for her increasingly turns my stomach.

I've written about the pathology of the Clintons already, and stated why putting them back in the White House would be bad for the country (though not as bad as putting McCain or Romney or Huckabee in – just bad in a different way), but Hillary's refusal to honor her word with respect to the Michigan and Florida primaries should be a lesson to all of us.

Hillary can't be trusted to keep her word.

My understanding is that all of the candidates agreed they would not campaign in Florida or Michigan because those two states moved their primaries up after the Democratic Party had agreed that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would be allowed to hold their caucuses and primaries before Super Tuesday. They also agreed that Michagan's and Florida's delegates would not be seated at the convention and so they would have no say in who the nominee was. Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot, in the spirit of honoring their pledge. Hillary kept her name on the ballot, so of course, she won.

In Florida, though, the candidates' names all remained on the ballot. Now, Hillary is trying to curry favor with Floridians by saying that she wants the delegates from both Michigan and Florida to be seated and their votes to count. And tonight she is holding a victory party in Florida in anticipation of her win. Some say she is doing this to leave voters with a memory of a Clinton victory rather than the memory of Obama's South Carolina victory before Super Tuesday.

This may be true, but it may also be true that she realizes the race is so close that the only way she can avoid a floor fight with Obama at the convention is to seat those delegates.

What these tactics tell me is that Hillary is not a woman of her word. She changes her mind and goes back on a promise in order to win. And it isn't the first time. The Clinton campaign, or Clinton surrogates, also tried to change the rules in Nevada. After the Nevada Democratic Party had decided to hold caucuses in the casinos to allow the workers there to participate, a lawsuit was filed to disallow these caucuses. Of course, the lawsuit, brought by the union that supported Hillary, was only filed after the union representing the casino workers endorsed Obama. Fancy that!

These reversals may be smart politics, but they are also a sign of raw ambition, with honesty and integrity taking a back seat. And campaign tactics aren't the only place where we've seen Hillary put her ambition before anything else.

We all know that Hillary's vote to support the Iraq War was a calculated political move. She knew she could not vote "no," even if it was the right thing to do because she believed it would kill her chances to be commander in chief. I guess she figured the vote would be far enough away from her 2008 campaign to allow people time to forget. And it appears many Democrats have because she is currently the front runner in a party whose members opposed the war when she supported it.

The American people deserve better than candidates who lie, scheme, cheat, and steal. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and most of all Richard Nixon have manifested such glaring character flaws. Hillary's recent actions in the campaign show us that she is capable of the same.

Andrew Sullivan cites one of his readers who calls Hillary "Nixon in a Pantsuit."

I really hate to say it, but I think Andrew's reader was right.

Superman

I don't know if anyone should pay any attention to polls anymore as they have been wrong in every primary and caucus to date.

But the polls are telling us that Hillary is still ahead in most super Tuesday states. Since the vote is a week from tomorrow, that doesn't give Mr. Obama much time to catch up and pass her. But as I said, the polls have been terribly wrong. With two candidates who are unlike any candidates the country has ever seen, the polls simply don't know how to measure the mood of the voters.

Hillary is the first serious woman candidate, and perhaps more importantly, the first First Lady to run. Voters have mixed feelings. Many who would love to finally see a woman president aren't sure they want the first one to be Hillary. Voters are feeling love and revulsion at the same time: love for who the Clintons once were, and revulsion at what they have become. Many who supported Hillary a week ago have switched their allegience to Obama.

Barack Obama is not only the first African American to have a real shot at the nomination, he is an African American who transcends race. Again, voters aren't sure what to think. Just when they agree with Hillary that he is too inexperienced, they hear him speak and hear not only evidence of experience, but evidence of maturity and wisdom. Barack Obama is not just a candidate, he is a phenomenon, a politician with the potential to be a statesman, a visionary and prophet all rolled into one, and many voters are deciding this is their chance to be on the right side of history, to participate in something that could return the country to greatness. They are increasingly seeing Hillary as the past, Barack as the future.

Ted Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy are right to see the potential greatness in him. He reminds them of the two fallen Kennedys who inspired another generation.

If the polls are right this time, and Obama loses to Hillary, then we all lose with him. We will have missed an opportunity to move in a new direction, towards a place we very much need to go. If Hillary wins the nomination, she may or may not beat the Republican nominee in November. Her negatives are so high, and her momentum so poor, that she is likely to ensure four more years of Republican insanity. If she is victorious and does become the next president, however, things could be just as bad.

On the other hand, a surprise Obama victory on Super Tuesday will not only energize Democrats, but also capture the entire country. Already he is causing Republicans to pay serious attention. An Obama come-from-behind win on Tuesday will show us just how powerful a figure he is. If he defeats the Clintons, when they have had an enormous lead, he will be a superhero, a giant killer who did the impossible, and whose momentum will carry him to the White House in November.

And that's just the beginning.

Thoughts as we move through the primary season

The two establishment candidates won yesterday: McCain in South Carolina, Clinton in Nevada.

McCain won by appealing to those who want to continue the war indefinitely. Clinton won by subtly using the race and gender cards and by taking advantage of Obama's "Reagan" statement.

Both candidates supported the war in Iraq and both will preserve the status quo here at home and in Iraq more than any of the other candidates. Both, therefore, are not a threat to corporate America, nor the best hope for restoring the prosperity of the middle class or America's reputation in the world. If you doubt that they are the establishment candidates, just watch what kind of coverage they get by the establishment media, compared to the coverage the other candidates get. It is subtle, but it is real. The press loves McCain and has not, to my knowledge, reported anything negative about him. And while the press dislikes Clinton, they have given her more coverage than most other candidates. With Hillary Clinton, even negative coverage energizes her many female supporters, who see the press as unfair to her because she's a woman.

Some things to consider as we move forward:

A Clinton – McCain race would be very bad for the peace movement and for any hope of removing our troops from Iraq any time soon.

Despite my hopes, and the hopes of many, that this election might well prove that a black candidate could win a major party nomination and the presidential election, I fear we will find by February 5th that a black candidate still is not viable.

As much as she may be counting on the above fact as she savors her win in Nevada, I fear Hillary Clinton will soon find that a woman candidate is still not viable.

We are also learning that a libertarian is not viable, a populist is not viable, and will soon learn that a Mormon is not viable.

If the race continues to elevate McCain and Clinton as the candidates of the major parties, there will be contemplation of vice presidential picks and this could be the most important decision made by the candidates.

In order to win evangelical votes, McCain may have to choose Huckabee. With McCain's age and health problems, Huckabee could very well become president before the end of McCain's term. I can think of few people less qualified for the presidency, except of course for George W. Bush, who could be Huckabee's equal in that category. And we all know what a disaster that has been.

Hillary Clinton, for her part, will probably pick Bill Richardson, or some other dutiful and loyal Clintonite. She will never pick Obama for a number of reasons, not least of which is the bad blood that is increasing between them, mostly because of her campaign's tactics and her husband's statements. Furthermore, as Bill will undoubtedly be her most trusted advisor and the de facto vice president, any man (and it will be a man) who accepts the bid will have to accept that and be content to stay in the background. Obama would not do well in that position – he is too much of a leader and has too many ambitions himself.

A final note on the effect of a vice presidential pick on the Clinton campaign. Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton will get a lot of men to vote for her in the general election is not counting on the effect of seeing Clinton in the top spot and a man in a subservient position on the ticket. This will not sit well with many men, especially republicans and independents who might otherwise vote democratic this year. It might not even go over well with some democrats. I hate to admit that, but it is a real possibility.

I'm not ready to count Obama out just yet. I counted Clinton out after Iowa and that was obviously premature. But things are looking like they are leaning Clinton's way. She and her husband are running a campaign that knows how to win, even with tactics that were once used against them. Look how easily they shifted from an unsuccessful strategy of "inevitability" to a more successful strategy of "come from behind." They publicly prepared for a loss in New Hampshire, thus emerging as the "surprise" victor (this gets tons of press), and then made it appear Obama would win in Nevada with those "unfair" casino caucuses, making Hillary's win all the more miraculous. And the former president's angry and undignified outbursts before every election only seem to galvanize Hillary's support.

A McCain vs. Clinton general election, which appears increasingly likely, will generate much destruction. As mentioned above, the peace movement will be dealt a serious blow. The middle class will lose, as corporate America continues to enrich itself at their expense. And the two minorities who had great hopes of finally achieving the presidency this year could be big, big losers.

If Obama loses the nomination, it is liable to be a long time before an African American has another opportunity to be the party nominee, unless the next presidency is a disaster and Obama comes back in 2012. In addition, the Clinton campaign has pitted Latino voters against African American voters, two essential democratic constituencies. It will be hard to heal this in time for the general election, or even over the next four years.

And if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and loses to John McCain in the general, women will be dealt a huge setback in their quest to elect a woman president. If such a powerful and high profile woman cannot win the presidency against a 71 year old man, what woman can? You can bet the democrats will not nominate a woman for a good long time.

What started out as hope for a transformative election, may turn out to be no different than every other election. With the press solidly behind him (they love McCain and hate Clinton) the establishment candidate (white, male, pro-corporation, anti-people) will probably win, and the rest of us will lose.

There will be no fresh ideas for reforming health care, no wise course in foreign policy, no return to a progressive tax structure, and the guarantee of an increasingly divided country. The same old pro-free market, anti regulation, raise the deficit, fund endless war economics will continue and we are likely to suffer more recessions.

I really hope I'm wrong.