The Billary Tagteam Tiptoe
There appears to be this edgy sense of tiptoeing around on the part of Obama’s “rainbow people” and the inwardly frantic disciples of the Clinton Dynasty. Each camp is desperate for some unflattering sound bite about the other, but not one so biting that voters might remember it in November.
The Billary fan club seems increasingly stiff and confused these days, as does Billary him/herself. One minute they’re offering to make Barack Obama their VP; the next they’re accusing him of Ken Starr-esque chicanery. The ever-fluctuating tone in their public rhetoric about Obama is puzzlingly incoherent, yet understandable. Should their opponent prevail, the Clintons surely will back him in the general election, as will their followers–loyal adherents to the “The Soccer Mom Doctrine.”
It’s unlikely that Obama supporters share the kind of party loyalty–almost a sub-patriotism–that grips their Democratic opponenents. A large number of them are registered Independents; they were apolitical before Obama’s charisma wowed them out of civic hybernation, and will go right back to sleep as soon as he stops talking. That brand of voter seems more likely to vote Republican–or not at all–than mainstream Clintonian liberals, who pledged decades ago never to check any ballot box that contradicted their shiny blue “Proud To Be A Democrat” buttons.
In other words, many more Clinton voters will “settle for” Obama than the other way around. By nominating her, the Democrats sacrifice a larger number of votes. As I stated months ago in “Swing Voters are Meatheads”: Hillary won’t win a general election. It now looks like the only way she’ll even pick up the Democratic nomination is by exploiting a dirty political loophole that whiffs of Bush v. Gore, 2000.
Who would want that kind of victory? (Hint: 1.5 candidates come to mind, give or take.)