They're Not Talking Points: It's Simple Reality

It's not too much of a logical stretch to say that today could be as good as general-election day; that today will decide November; that although there's a long, long way to go, a somewhat-strained but still-reasonable aura of inevitability in the general could kick in, starting tomorrow.

I stress, however, the conditionals: today could be tantamount to the big one, and inevitability could start rolling, with both of these sandwiching the "will" of Decision 2008.

It all depends on today's Democratic victor, or, at least, which of these two survivors can convincingly spin today's results into a definitive victory. If it's Barack Obama, the conditionals will rapidly morph into greater certainties. It it's Hillary Clinton, we've a difficult, winding and exceedingly bumpy road to travel, with fewer guarantees of a November victory than nine months of monumental headaches.

The chief and most complicating problem with Hillary as the chosen one carries its own inevitability as well: Progressives who still count themselves among the party's faithful will inevitably split -- and remain split -- over the war issue. The division and disaffection will be deep and largely irreparable. Some will only nominally support the party's candidate, some will wander to a third-party candidate, and many will simply stay home come November.

This is one of those rare elections in which a clear choice on principle offers itself. And for progressives who see this war -- while reflecting on those who supported it, and those who did not -- as the sole decider in 2008, only the murder of their own principles could permit hypocritical apostasy.

Some would manage to choke it down and sell their progressive souls in the process. Some would not. And the latter could be among the necessary margin of victory in November.

Another complication with Hillary as candidate arises from the probable migration patterns of those non-progressive-aligned independents -- the all-important swing vote in every purple state.

The presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, may have his problems with his own base, but already those problems seem to be passing from contemporaneity to history. From taxes to immigration he's taken the mandatory oaths of ideological purity, hence he and his are now in the throes of all-is-forgiven make-up sex. And the issue of war as principle is never a divisive issue for the GOP base, of course, unless its candidate advocates prudence, humanity and global responsibility. Of this, there is absolutely no threat. So everything is looking just peachy over on the solidly dark side.

That puts the swing-voting independents at the forefront. And the prospects of Mrs. Clinton dominating this bloc are less than sanguine. She's seen as the mover of a party machine -- a machine that operates for the benefit of that party alone -- and all of the neatly defined, nicely delineated constituencies within it. McCain, on the other hand, enters the general contest with the presumption of independent appeal. In short, one would have to work for the independent vote with extra effort and one would not -- would, that is, have to make a historical case for its allegiance. One can, and one can't.

Meanwhile, one would have the base behind him, and one would not. So for the latter, it would be a two-front war from the get-go.

There are other considerations complicating a Clinton-McCain contest, and those considerations invariably reflect harm for the oldest party in the world.

There's the "co-presidency" question, which hordes will answer with a resounding "no"; there's the husband-as-corrupt-baggage question, which is certain to become an even graver one as time passes and the campaign proceeds and reporters inquire; there's the greater and real threat of a Bloomberg candidacy, almost certainly drawing votes from the left-center; and there is, at best, but a fuzzy distinction between the two on the supreme question of war, and how it was that we got ourselves into such an idiotic one.

From the start -- from February or March on -- an Obama candidacy clears those obstacles from the problematic road.

The strategic voter is far different from some starry-eyed simpleton who buys into all the hype of hope. This is war -- a ground war, and for now, a progressive civil war -- as well as a war in which today's strategic vote will very well decide November's outcome.

****

to P.M. Carpenter's Commentary -- because, to be blunt about it, things are rather desperate here. This is also the final day I'm asking for your help. Really. I promise.

I am not, as some readers have assumed, of the professorial class who lives off the fat of the ivory tower, though I do hold a doctorate in American political history. Rather, I am but a typically impoverished public scribe who relies on a substitute-teaching income as a too-meager base for this daily column. I therefore must also rely on you, the regular reader, to supplement the production of what you regularly enjoy, or, on occasion, become enraged at. The purpose is merely to stimulate thought and challenge the conventional. So, if at all possible, please click the button above and make a contribution. I beg your indulgence, but with a good and final -- really, final -- push today we can wrap up this deplorable but quite necessary begging. Thank you so much -- P.M.

Comments

[Realist]

As one of those strategic voters you present, I hope that the Democratic voters heed the call for change rather than back yet another round of cleaning up the Bush mess. I hear from my staunch Republican co-workers in the real world that they will not allow another Clinton in the White House no matter how badly Bush has bunged-up the nation.

It literally comes down to how brave a person is. Are you willing to take a chance on an excellently-speaking unknown? Or, have your become pathologically (and pathetically) frightened to the point that you won't leave the Bush cesspool until you are forced out? KNBC in LA interviewed several people of this mindlessness this morning. At least the reporter had the intellect to attempt to convince them to change their minds and go vote!

I present these thoughts as someone who has serious doubts about Obama while at the same time I am convinced that no other candidate merits the job. I will have to think long and hard about who will get my vote in November no matter who wins today, for if it isn't Obama, then I will have to find someone to support while the nation goes through four more years of corporatist crap.

Thanks, Al Gore. Sitting on your ass in 2000 has led directly to this!

[Mike R.]

Count me among those who cannot "choke it down" any longer. I'm through with that. Hillary and I may have some principles in common, while McCain and I share little if anything because he has few principles, and those I can see are repugnant, but the moral question of war overrides all else, and I can vote for neither. Clinton has willingly contributed to the deaths of other humans out of political expediency, and therefore I can never and will never vote for her. No more candidates who seek success through lubricating the war machine for me.

If Clinton wins the nomination I'll probably end up voting Peace and Freedom for another thirty years, as I did after the '68 convention.

[Paul]

I am a Barack Obama supporter. He has the wisdom and vision to heal this country.

That being said, if Barack doesn't win the nomination, you can't possibly try and reason that there's no difference between McCain and Clinton.

Yes, Hillary voted for the war, but she's FOR ending it quickly. McCain is calling for 50 years of occupation. I'd call that a slight difference.

People saying there's no difference between Hillary and McCain remind me of the same idiots who were saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000. Do you seriously think our country would be THIS fucked up if Gore had rightfully won the presidency? I think not.

[Will]

Voting for Hillary today only diminshes our chance for victory in November. If she takes the nomination, we really don't have a choice, we must vote for her. But we will be fighting on two fronts and taking the battle to the middle. I'd rather take the fight to the right with the left and center in our corps - where we will likely prevail.

[Will]

Voting for Hillary today only diminshes our chance for victory in November. If she takes the nomination, we really don't have a choice, we must vote for her. But we will be fighting on two fronts and taking the battle to the middle. I'd rather take the fight to the right with the left and center in our corps - where we will likely prevail.

[Mooser]

With any luck, a four year Democratic Presidency will be sufficient to take the blame for all the consequences of eight years of Bush rule. Meanwhile, a Pentagon, State Department and a judiciary and Federal Agencies stuffed to bursting with neo-con and theo-con fanatics can hold the place together till the next Republican administration. They'll even keep the war humming along nicely. Hey! I know, let's let the Democrats re-start the draft on their watch!

Both Clinto and Obama are scared stiff of the Republicans, and won't know how to run against them, is my prediction.

[Hotrod]

Mooser,
I am afraid you have foreseen the future. If there is a Depression or even an extended recession, the right wing hate machine will ensure Republican rule for 30 years. I just hope the economy implodes before January-not after.

[beamer]

just returned from my town hall..i am v happy with senator clinton and i hope that she remains our rep in washington..Obama is indeed our best chance at wresting control from the repug's and yet i was so tempted to vote for edwards with anger&abandon..It's now up to the young fella from illinois..don't worry folks,it can't get any worse!

[Realist]

Based on the returns as the 5th rolls into the 6th, it looks like the American voters have chosen to remain mired in the Bush cesspool. Deity help us all.