Ohio & Texas: Really?! Come on!!!

I've always known in my heart of hearts that there was a clear reason why I would never be a Democrat, regardless of my embrace of Obama in 2008. It took Ohio and Texas last night to confirm it.

Look, I understand there are reasons -- misguided in my personal view, but reasons nonetheless that should be respected because intelligent people hold them -- for voting for Hillary Clinton as a Democratic nominee.

But to paraphrase the late-great William F. Buckley, I'm going to stand in front of the train of Clinto-mentum and shout "Stop!"

Let's examine the facts:

1) Senator Clinton lost 11 (or 12, if you count Vermont's early call last night) straight states from February 5-March 4. Name one candidate in modern media history who has ever survived such an onslaught without being buried by the press as a loser. Still looking? Well, that's because it has never happened. Face it: Clinton has been the BENEFICIARY of the "Clinton mystique" and its hold on the press -- it's the only thing that kept her campaign afloat during a month of blowout losses.

2) Senator Clinton continually cites her 35 years of experience, and her experience in international relations as a plus. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but this is patently ridiculous. She was First Lady for 8 years, a position that I'll grant does carry some international relations-related components, but face it -- it's more protocol/being cognizant of local mores and customs/philanthropy, not negotiating treaties and trade agreements. She's served less time in elected office than Obama (sure, some of his experience was in the state legislature). And her 35 years? That includes time on Walmart's board, time at the Rose Law Firm, and time as First Lady and First Lady of Arkansas -- experience, but not really experience as an elected official. How she is regarded as the "experience" candidate compared to Obama is comical.

3) Senator Clinton has continually questioned Obama's past dealings as evidence that he may have skeletons in the closet that make him unelectable. For a press that is supposedly "in the tank for Obama" (according to Clinton and SNL, which has shamed itself as a legitimate comedy institution by basically airing the same pro-Clinton opening skit two weeks in a row), the fact that Senator Clinton hasn't been called to the mat for this is laughable. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that Obama probably should expose more of his Rezko-dealings, but please mind that there has been to this date no showing of anything improper, and all money that Rezko raised for Obama has been returned/donated to charity.

Let's look at Senator Clinton, though. We have Whitewater (how Clinton has raked Obama through the mud for a real estate deal is the stuff of rich irony). We have her closed-door mangling of health care reform. We have her continuing refusal to produce tax returns (seriously, how hard can it be?). We have the shady investors to the Clinton library (her husband's deal, but if she's going to run using her time as his First Lady as "experience," it's discoverable in my opinion). The stone-walling regarding National Archives materials and her meetings as First Lady. Questions over her true opinions on NAFTA. Refusals to admit the Iraq war vote was a mistake.

I will always be bewildered at how Senator Clinton is skating on this (under the theory that she's already been "vetted") while Obama is somehow shady because a guy who he had very little contact with overall helped him buy the house he lives in? Seriously? Come on!

4) Senator Clinton is more "electable" than Obama, or she's won more "big states" that Democrats need to carry. This is arguably the biggest lie I've seen in the campaign. Senator Clinton's campaign continually survives because she has support amongst traditional Democrats. In other words, she wins the very people that will vote Democratic regardless of who the candidate is.

Compare that with Obama. Yes, he's winning college-educated rich professionals (traditionally Democrats) and African-Americans (ditto). But he's also motivating unheard of numbers of young voters (meaning his candidacy stands for potentially permanent voter realignment in favor of Democrats amongst the rising electorate), Independents, and yes Republicans (count me and my family amongst the multitude that would vote or strongly consider voting for Obama, but will sprint to McCain if Clinton is nominated). As George Will has pointed out, Clinton has a ceiling of 52% of the vote in a general election, and that is only if everything goes well for her campaign. Obama's ceiling? Who knows? The point is, if Democrats want to win (and create a generation of Democratic voters) he's their candidate.

One more thing: Obama clearly puts Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and the heavily African-American South in play in ways that Clinton never could. The only "arguably" swing state Clinton has won is Ohio -- where she hemorrhaged support while Obama campaigned.

5) The phone in the "3 A.M." ad rings 6 times. This is perhaps a cheap shot, but I'd like my Commander in Chief to answer that within 3 rings.