Why do the Democrats do this to themselves? They always stubbornly ignore the warning signs and pick the candidate least likely to win a general election, whether it's a monotonous vice-president (Gore) or an ultra-liberal blowhard from Massachusetts with zero crossover appeal (Kerry, Dukakis.) In all those races (well, except maybe in '88 after Gary Hart blew it by getting blown by someone other than his wife), there was a candidate who appealed to core Democratic values and could actually win a general election.
This primary battle is not so simple. On the surface, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on more than enough issues to make them equally fitting candidates. But it's the electability issue that is being ignored, particularly in Ohio and Texas, that should have been the #1 deciding factor in yesterday's primaries, plus the key #2 deciding factor, should have given us different results.
The #2 deciding factor? Whether voting for a certain candidate prolongs that candidate's inevitable defeat. As the New York Times pointed out:
Even before the polls closed, Mr. Obama’s aides said that given their lead in delegates over Mrs. Clinton, it was not possible for her to catch up with in the few remaining fights left.
This has nothing do with Hillary Clinton. We love Hillary, but she cannot win this contest and should not even have been in the race on Tuesday. Newsweek, regarding McCain having secured the nomination last night, said this morning:
[McCain] knows that the fierce rivalry between Obama and Clinton—which is likely to continue through the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 and could potentially last until the final primary in Puerto Rico in June—opens the way for him to define the terms of the fall campaign. That's what happened to John Kerry in 2004. In that election Kerry actually secured the Democratic nomination in March, but stayed silent while the Republican machine branded him a flip-flopper—waiting for what one of his aides called the "regular campaign season." By the time of that summer's Democratic convention, Kerry had been painted into a corner from which he never emerged.
Do we really want that again? Handing the Republican nominee a free ride till the last minute? Both candidates being equal, how about just ending this thing today and putting all our resources into trouncing that flip-flopping, liberal, smug, wrinkly, droning, war veteran of a Senator. (No, not John Kerry, you silly. McCain! McCain!)
And if you want to argue that this was a clear victory for Clinton, let's have a look-see at those exit polls first, shall we? Let's make sure this wasn't just a victory for the Republicans, as Politics1 mulls:
[As] both Texas and Ohio are open primaries, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh urged GOP conservatives on Monday to cast primary ballots for Clinton in order to prolong the Dem nomination fight.
As if you need anymore evidence that this is helping the GOP. Bottom line: this isn't about Obama or Clinton. They're both great Senators and good Democrats (although far from solid progressives.) The point here is to win-- we have to come together as a party, as a country, and unite behind a candidate we can believe in who can also win the whole shebang. That candidate is not-- you can ask Republicans, independents, and centrists, the key three groups that will decide the November vote-- going to be the Senator from New York.
UPDATE: Slate has a great story this morning on Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck. Guess who is who?