Ok, so I'm going out on a limb here. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, but as I've stated in the past, not by much. I support Clinton because I belong to that little-known political party: Realisticrats. Realisticrats never fall in love with a candidate. We fall in love with winning. We start at the end -- the actual election -- and work our backwards from there in choosing the candidate who has the best chance at victory. I don't rally around anyone unless they look, smell and act like a winner. I belong to no "team." A reporter once jabbed basketball legend Michael Jordan about his his ego and style of play with "Hey Michael, there's no "I" in team"... His Airness responded with the brilliant, "that's right, but there is in 'win'." It's all about winning. And while I actually prefer to see Sen. Barack Obama become our 44th president, and think he would be much better for the country at this critical military, economic and social crossroads, I firmly believe Clinton is the more electable candidate against the GOP's presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain and the Ruthless Republican Attack Machine (RRAM).
Obama, in order to achieve the historic presidential greatness that might one day be his destiny, needs to first get past the supreme ugliness that he faces with the RRAM. And I am as confident as a caterpillar at a toe-countin' contest that McCain & Company will eat him alive in the general election. He has unfortunately armed the RRAM with way too much ammunition involving his Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, flag pin, BitterGate and Michelle's "pride" controversies. Throw in the inescapable fact that he's a 46-year-young black man with a Muslim name, a drug past and just three years experience in the Senate and the picture deeply worsens. Now before I continue, don't shoot the messenger. I personally don't care about any of this nonsense, but you can bet your ass the RRAM is salivating as we speak. If you believe otherwise, you are beyond naive. I've taken a lot of heat over the past several months over this position. But I am not in the politically-correct business. Remember, I'm a Realisticrat. My only goal is to win.
That brings us to Clinton, who is way too untrustworthy, untruthful and disingenuous to way too many people, including this writer. But the simple truth is, people expect such duplicity from politicians, and especially from the Clintons. There's nothing new on the front. With the Clintons, it's the same old same old. The skeletons are already out of the closet, and have been under the RRAM microscope since '92. Unlike with Obama, her news is old news. But more important, Hillary has the Ruthless Clinton Attack Machine (RCAM) behind her, consisting of Howard Wolfson, James Carville and many other battle-tested warriors who know how to fight the RRAM and win. I'll put my money on them any day of the week.
Now again, don't shoot the messenger. I didn't make up the rules of engagement. That landscape was cultivated chiefly by Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, disciples of 1980s "Happy Hatchet Man" and original "Darth Vader" Lee Atwater, the incendiary Republican operative and brains behind the '88 Willie Horton ad campaign that sank Michael Dukakis' bid for the presidency. Starting in the 80s, and shifting into full gear against Bill Clinton in the 90s and then into massive overdrive against Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004 respectively, the RRAM masterfully perfected the art of dirty politics, and that's the playing field Democrats must navigate through now. While it may be possible many years from now to return to the good old "gentlemanly" days of politics that I keep hearing about but have never personally experienced, right now, a Democrat must fight like a Republican if he or she expects to win. Hillary meets that standard. Obama has proven that he does not.
Now onto Pennsylvania, where I believe Clinton must achieve a clear, decisive victory in Tuesday's primary or she should quit the race and let the general contest begin. PA is the big prize. The hugely working-class state is representative of middle-America and the traditional Democratic base. If she can pull off a double-digit win (or something very close), it'll make it very hard to convince me or any sane Dem that the race is over. What she'll have is a string of critical big-Blue state wins (OH, TX, PA), impressive momentum, and a bruised and battered opponent, who as the NY Times columnist David Brooks has said last week, has fallen to Earth. Indeed, a very compelling narrative for her to offer up to superdelegates, who could very well swing to her corner quick as lightning.
Ronald Reagan rode to victory on the wings of one simple question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago." With a big win in PA, Clinton's question to the Super Ds will surely be, "Are you better off with me or Obama against McCain and the Ruthless Republican Attack Machine." This Realisticrat already knows the answer.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Did the RCAM manage to pass the Clinton healthcare proposal?
The Democrats goal should be to win back the white house. If Hillary is the most viable candidate, the stuperdelegates should vote for her. In my opinion, Obama's weaknesses due to his Rev's sermons and his militant racists connections give the Republicans too much ammunition to scare the public about his ability to defend us adequately (as that ad today pointed out). Please! This is politics. You have to be realistic ... and vote for who has the best possibility to win! We need to change things.
Do you really think that anyone is going to vote for a candidate who steals her party's nomination via a superdelegate coup? Seriously?
Yes, Hillary can win McCain. Obama can not. As for her supposed lie...Hillary flew into a war zone. That was courageous. She did not lie. She just shared her experience, for I'm sure she was afraid sniper fire may occur. And it could have! How many other First Lady's would do that? Why did the media make such big deal about this? But, of course, how silly of me! If the Republican's and the media could turn Bill Clinton's wonderful presidency where the economy was booming into a trial about his personal life, they are capable of being completely insane. The Republicans (with the media's help) also gave us Bush, this bad economy and a crazy war that is costing us a fortune.
I too consider myself a realist - and when I looked at Mrs. Clinton's rock-solid negatives, her ability to rally the other side like no other candidate - both in fund raising and voter mobilization - her husband's pullman car full of baggage from the past 7 years (from the stomach turning pardons to the secretive library to God only knows what else) her lack of any real accomplishments (the shiny pr notwithstanding) her reliance on the DLC and big money donors, pollsters and lobbyists, her flirting with the right wing media machine, her deeply flawed campaign and the fact that the Republicans seemed DETERMINED to run against her - made me come to a different conclusion, realistically speaking.
The truth is, we're all just guessing and have no idea how things will play out in the future. This, of course, is the best argument for doing what one thinks is right and letting the consequences play out. This "realist" hogwash is nothing more than an excuse for cynicism, in my opinion. If you're always saying everything sucks, it's good to keep executing a strategy that's likely to make everything suck. Then, you never have to suffer the indignity of being wrong.
Thanks to everybody on this page who denounces this insane viewpoint.
The media treats this race like a sport, a sport with the civility of a dog fight. And it doesn't matter how this distracts us from the mortgage crisis, or dying in corporate wars. Hey, it's just "football". She"s just doing what she needs to do to win; she"s got her game on! She just has to subvert the democratic process using an election aberration called "super-delegates" whose only purpose is to overturn democratic elections.
The greatest Neocon of them all, Bill Kristol, has staunchly defended her, and he also wants to "obliterate" Iran. He was the first to advise her to go negative""The way you puncture euphoria is reality, or to be more blunt, fear. I recommend to Senator Clinton the politics of fear." (YouTube " Kristol "Politics of Fear"). Neocons don't have a problem with Hillary. Has she has promised them Iran? How will the realisticrats feel then"gas at $8 a gallon and the U.S. ruined? Richard Melon Scathe has also endorsed her. What did she promise him?
She is no longer a democrat in any real sense. Randy Rhodes and even Chris Mathews believe that she would prefer an Obama defeat in November against McCain. THIS IS SIMPLY INCREDIBLE.
Hillary can have her "win", her racism, her vitriol, and her disregard for descent human conduct. Howard Dean, John Edwards and the rest of the democrats can cheer her on. Nice job!
It's sad that you admit that Obama would be a better president but we should vote for Hillary because she has the best chance to win, only because she is just as bad as the republicans? Huh?
Man, go get some prozac or something. Really, that is a negative way of life. I DO NOT want a president who blatantly lies about Bosnia and admits it, and someone who tries to distort the facts and use the media to manipulate Americans to believe things that aren't true only so that she can gain power. What happened to integrity?
Let me get this straight, I should concede who I liked to be the president in 2009 for the person who I believe lies, won't represent my interests, and has proven to be guilty of ungentlemanly/unladylike behavior. I should not only vote my fears, but my worse instincts about who I think the American people are.
Why?
Because the Ruthless Republican Attack Machine can be defeated by the Ruthless Clinton Attack Machine.
That is an asinine argument. If I don't press for what I believe to be true, why bother voting? I think the negativity evidences by the Republicans and Hillary/Bill speak to how much cynicism passes for reality in today's world.
Suppress new voters. Slime them.
Suppress liberal and progress voters. It is a conservative right world get used to it.
Suppress freedom. The terrorists use our freedoms against us so we shouldn't have them.
Whatever, Ostray. Wrong party.
While I agree that being realistic is exactly how all of us need to be, I wonder how realistic it is to assume that Hillary will win in the general election without all of the voters that she and the media have managed to thoroughly tick off while they attempt to bring Obama down with sheer nonsense and irrelevant crap that has absolutely nothing to do with his abilities.
Have you ever wondered why her favorable ratings go down when Obama gets attacked? So, while we are getting "real," lets do the math without the majority of African American voters, new and younger voters, and those who don't give a flip about his race---but simply think he is the best candidate. And then lets see how well she does without these folks marching to the polls while she competes with John McCain for the conservatives within the Democratic Party. While of course the Clintons think they will have time after she gets the nomination to visit a few college campuses and Black churches and woo everyone her way, I'm afraid---it won't happen. I know it won't with me and most of the folks I know.
I agree we need to get real. The reality is that the Democratic Party is going to hell in a hand basket! And if you think we can't win with Obama---don't look now, but with Clinton we can't either.
All the Republicans hate her and half the Democrats too, but don't worry she's electable! Puleeeeeze!
The world is evil; therefore we need to make a pact with the devil.
and don't forget, it takes a republican to beat a republican, so vote for our republican!
The rabies-riddled junkyard pitbull-wolf hybrid is what we need to protect us.
rabies.....LOLOL
The sock-down-the-pantsuit gun-totin whiskey-shootin', screw 'em, obliterate 'em, deny everything but vote for war, flights of sniper fancy, crying voice-finder is our Holy Mother.
And you want us to believe this is the best we can do. This is all we should expect. Surrender yourselves to the Divided and Hopeless States of America.
Your post is the very essence of cynicism.
"Obama, in order to achieve the historic presidential greatness that might one day be his destiny, needs to first get past the supreme ugliness that he faces with the RRAM. And I am as confident as a caterpillar at a toe-countin' contest that McCain & Company will eat him alive in the general election."
Nice way to select our leader in a crisis-rife world. We're f*ed.
Just got out of high school and heard the stories about your candidate when she was in the white house... and you fell for them hook line and stinker. Do some home work son before you waste any more server space with this kind of NON researched writing.
Now go do a little research, past and present, about your choice and the read your writings again.
The world is evil, therefore we need to make a pact with the devil.
The rabies-riddled junkyard pitbull-wolf hybrid is what we need to protect us.
The sock-down-the-pantsuit gun-totin whiskey-shootin', screw 'em, obliterate 'em, deny everything but vote for war, flights of sniper fancy, crying voice-finder is our Holy Mother.
And you want us to believe this is the best we can do. This is all we should expect. Surrender yourselves to the Divided and Hopeless States of America.
I do believe your post is the very essence of cynicism.
Do "realisticrats" think it's OK to give George Bush a blank check for 8 years of war? How do "realisticrats" feel about using untrue personal attacks to win an election? What about agreeing not to campaign in a state, but then putting your name on the ballot? How does saying that the Republican candidate would make a better president than your Democratic opponent fit with the "win at all costs" approach? Does "win at all costs" mean "win personally" or "make sure a Democrat wins"?
Just wondering.
Wow, has Mayhill Foul-er morphed into another Devil incarnate?
OBAMA"S AMMUNITION
Regarding the Bosnia lie, Hillary said she made a mistake because it was late and she was tired.
Tim Russert brought up a clip showing her telling the same lie at 3:00 in the afternoon.
Obama has to get tough, or Hillary will win. Then McCain will get tough and beat Hillary.
Obama"s new theme should be:
"IF SHE"LL LIE TO THE PEOPLE AT 3:00 P.M.,
SHOULD SHE BE ANSWERING THE WHITE HOUSE PHONE AT 3:00 A.M."
In REALITY the team with the most points at the end of the game wins.
You're a "FantastiCON."
Other realistocrats have a very different take on Hillary's electability. Do you remember the 1980s and how much the Republicans hated Bill. and Hillary? I recall a poll of Republicans where they voted for the most evil people in history. #1 Bill #2 Hitler #3 Hillary #4 Lucifer. It was something ridiculous like that. Hillary will bring out the Republican base like no tomorrow. It doesn't matter if she can take the heat and sling the muck. We are a divided electorate and it depends on which side can bring out their voters. Hillary will bring out the Republican vote. Guaranteed, cause Bill is the devil to Republicans and they will come out in spades to stop him from getting close to the presidency. Half my extended family are Republicans, and to this day, the name Bill Clinton makes steam come out of their ears.
That's not to say that Obama would dance into office(!) He'll face a difficult uphill battle, and it is entirely possible that he will fall short. But I put better odds on him than on Hillary. And those who think he cannot go negative because he hasn't gone super negative on her are being silly. Many democrats love the Clintons almost as much as the Republicans hate them. Of course, he can't go nasty negative -- he'd be vilified for smearing an icon!
He can't smear her because she is a woman who is a First and Only. She hasn't promised to bring new women into office. Her symbolic nature means if Obama roughs her up, then Obama rough up all women. It is non sequitur but all this stuff is emotional.
I am tired of people giving this argument in the media and not bringing out the reasons why not Obama. We have established he is black. I can see it with my own two eyes. Jon Stewart asked him if he was going to enslave the white race. Obama said no. If there are some real concerns about what Obama might do to the country if he is allowed to win, I'd like to hear what they are.
Don't give me this reality stuff without explicitly telling me why not Obama.
This is yet another specious argument built atop the twin conceptual pillars of the Clinton campaign and its supporters:
1. The will of the majority of Democratic voters does not count in this contest.
2. The rules for governance and conduct of primary elections codified by the Democratic party do not apply to this contest.
Everybody has an opinion about the relative electability of Clinton or Obama. I personally do not believe a Republican can win the white house this year, no matter who he or she is. But, this is all opinion... fun to read, up to a point, but no more realistic (or real) than anyone else's opinion.
If you understand the rules governing the contest, can perform basic high school-level mathematics, and apply your logic and reason to the equation (leaving emotion out), the only conclusion one can possibly draw is that Obama had the nomination won the better part of two months ago. THAT is the reality. Anything else is wishful thinking.
You can call me a non-Realisticrat all you want, but I fail to see how Obama has proven that he cannot stand up to Republicans. Is it because he refuses to shred Hillary? Restraint is not the same thing as weakness.
It's just as dismissive to think of Obama supporters as people 'in love' with a candidate as it is to think of Obama as 'an empty suit'. This is a man who has spent most of his adult life organizing, teaching, and campaigning. All of these are very active pursuits. To believe that he wouldn't do anything in office is insanity, and to believe that he doesn't have a fairly firm grasp on how Republicans operate is naive. There are Republicans in Chicago and at the state senate level.
If Realisticrats want to install Sen. Clinton as the Dem nominee, I believe she runs a real risk of losing. Not because of the Republican attack machines, but because of how many constituencies she has happily thrown under the bus, insulted or deemed unimportant. She can forget about younger voters and the African American vote, both of which were crucial in her husband's elections. Not to mention the uproar within the party itself. While it may be a safer bet on paper to go with the white woman whose husband was president instead of the young, half-black guy with the funny name, I just don't think she has any advantage at all when you put it in practice.
I absolutely agree that Obama (who clearly now will be the democratic nominee) will have a very difficult time beating McCain. However, I can't see the logic in thinking that Clinton would have an easier time. Many Clinton supporters keep spouting the lines, "She's been vetted" or "All of her bad stuff has already been put out there." You all know that there is more that hasn't been put out there. Lets start here, Bill Clinton has developed many questionable relationships since leaving the White House. He has collected millions for the Clinton Library and for his Foundation. And if you think that's all that the Former President has been up to since leaving the White House, think again.
I am not naive enough to think that the odds would not be against Obama, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that there isn't a ton of stuff (both old and new) for the RRAM to work with on HRC.
The bottom line and the saddest commentary for the Democrats is that we had (have) a sure thing candidate and we could not convince him to run.
Al Gore, I don't think I will EVER forgive you.
Joe P.
I agree 100%. I don't think I'll ever forgive Gore either, although some days I wonder if I make him into someone he isn't. I suspect he is a political coward at heart and just doesn't have the backbone to spell that out to us.
Great article! I am a realistocrat also and completely agree with you. Obama would be destroyed by the RRAM. It would be a rout.
Very interesting: A realisticrat who lives in a alternative reality.
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
***UPDATED BELOW*** During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made...
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
Loading comments…
Posted April 22, 2008 | 04:08 PM (EST)