Letters to the Editor
-
The Notorious W.E.S.
Because if she becomes the nominee, her cause becomes the Democratic Party's cause.
I don't think the sort of trash-talking you engage in accomplishes much of anything. It sows emnity between Democrats and endangers our chances of emerging from this primary season a unified party.
This is how I think things will play out:
Hillary stands a good chance of carrying Pennsylania. Obama has a good chance of sweeping most of the rest of the states, because they are the sorts of places he tends to do well in.
As for Florida and Michigan, I think there will be new primaries, which I think Clinton has a decent chance of winning. (Personally, I think re-doing those primaries works in Clinton's favor, because it erases any stigma attached to those delegates, and if she wins those primaries, it gives her another day or two of CLINTON WINS! headlines).
So they go into the convention with no clear winner in delegates. Which leaves it up to the superdelegates. Now, my general feeling is that insiders in the Democratic Party are not great risk-takers. From their point of view, Clinton is a known quantity, Obama more of a gamble. So they try to work out an accomodation where Clinton runs at the top of the ticket, with Obama as V.P.
I don't think that's a bad ticket. I think it re-unifies the party, and sends us into the general election with a ticket that can beat McCain.
Then, after Clinton's out of office, Obama is a natural successor.
Now, as an Obama supporter, this is not my ideal scenario, but it's a scenario I could live with.
So why make it harder for me to reconcile myself to this idea?
(Of course, if Obama wins Pennsylvania, that clearly strengthens his hand considerably; and if he were to win the primary in Michigan, say, it would tip things even further. Obviously, no one knows what's going to happen.)