Famous Trader

What I wrote about Palin

Yesterday, I wrote a post complaining about Palin's speech. Reviewing what I wrote, I'm not very proud of the tone I adopted.  Palin's speech did make me angry, and one of things which made me angry was her snarky, dismissive tone.  So what did I do? I wrote a blog post with a snarky dismisive tone.

Honestly, I don't think what I write matters to anyone.  I got about 150 hits to blog yesterday. That's not many, but it's about 10x more than my average.  Still, I feel like it's not good to add anymore beligerence to the atmosphere, even if my contribution is just a drop in the ocean.

During the primary campaign, I wrote sort of bitterly about Hilary Clinton as well.  I also regret my tone in those posts.  Let me be clear, I'm not telling anybody else how they should write about politics, or anything else for that matter.  Really, this is just a personal thing.  I went to bed last night feeling vaguely unseasy about what I had written.  I woke up this morning and understood why.  I don't want to write that way anymore.

I'm not retracting the central point of yesterday's post.  I think that Palin's speech was divisive. I think that given the tone and content of Palin's speech, in the context of this Republican campaign, it absolutely did convey a message that small town people are somehow superior, and more authentically American than city people.  It is offensive to me.

Do I think Palin hates cities?  No, not really.  I don't think she cares about cities one way or another.  I don't think we learned much about her views on anything in her speech.  I don't belive she wrote it.  I believe she read it, and did her best to deliver it in the manner her party intended.  That doesn't excuse her.  The Republican party, for decades, has had a strategy of trying to swing demographic blocks by telling them that they are the salt of the earth, and the other types are not real Americans.  Sarah Palin went along with that strategy enthusiastically.

Also, and here I may be showing my urban elitism, I believe Sarah Palin needs to demonstrate that her worldview is not too narrow.  Imagine if Rudy Giuliani were the on the ticket.  It would be incumbant on him to show that he gets the needs and desires of small town America.  Cities are, by definition, diverse and dynamic. But even poeple in Cities can have a narrow world view (go ahead, try to convince my mom there's a world north of 14th street, I dare you).  I believe it is a nessecary qualification of any candidate, from any party, to demonstrate that he or she understands the interests of the whole country, and not just a narrow subset.  Sarah Palin did the opposite. 

What was in her speech about small town people being the ones who fight America's was a really cheap shot. I don't know the statistics, but I suspect it may even be true a larger percentage of rural populations serve in the armed forces than the percentage of urban populations, and it may be trye that the armed forces on the whole may be composed more of rural than urban members (not the same statistic).  But, a lot of soldiers who serve and die come from my City, and other cities around the country.  I don't remember the precise wording of Palin's speech.  If she had said, people in small towns serve proudly, that would be fine.  But I believe she said something like, we are the ones who serve proudly.  The distinction is quite clear.  If I do something, you can do it to.  If I'm the one who does something, you are not.  Whoever wrote Sarah Palin's speech certainly understood the difference.

I believe Peggy Noonen wrote that we are a nation of Wasillas, not of Chicagos.  I wonder if this is really true.  New York City's population is growing everyday.  I understand that all across the country, Cities are booming.  If you look at a county level voting map of the last presidential election, you can immediately see that our divide isn't so much red state vs blue state, but rather red rural vs blue urban. 

I believe the electoral college short changes states with a larger urban populations.  Compare my home state of New York, to Montana.  New York has about 20x the polulation of Montana, but only about 10x the number of electoral college votes.  I don't believe we really are a nation of Wasillas.  I believe we may well be a nation of Chicagos which has been gerrymandered to look like a nation of Wasillas.

Palin to City: Drop Dead

In defense of Both Sarah Palin and Gerald ford, neither one explicitly said "drop dead".  But last night, Sarah Palin's sentiment, like Ford's 33 years ago, couldn't have been any clearer.  Sarah Palin is small town with a lower case 's' . If you're from a big City, she doesn't get you, she doesn't want to get you, she thinks you're less of an American than she is, and she doesn't have your interests at heart.

It's nice that Sarah Palin is a hockey mom. I like hockey moms.  I live in New York City, with a population of a little over 1000 Wasillas, and we have more hockey moms than Wasilla.  We also have baseball, football and basketball moms.  We also have doctor, lawyer, physicist, and college professor moms.  We also have construction worker, subway train conductor, and house painter moms.

We have all kinds of people in my City, and in all the other great Cities of America.  We even have small town farmers, fishermen, and oil field workers, because they move here too. American Cities are where Americans come together to do great things.  With all due respect to the populations of Wasilla, and the state of Alaska as a whole (I understand they number 9K and 960K respectively), we number in the MILLIONS, and our achievements are amazing, and part of what makes America great.

I don't begrudge Sarah Palin's fondness for, and pride in small town Alaska.  But the implications of her speech are clear.  When she spoke about how hard working her small town folk are, she meant that we don't work hard.  When she spoke about how small town folk serve and fight for their country, she meant that we don't.

Sarah Palin embodies a small minded, anti-urban bias which is offensive.  According to her backwards reasoning, if your work doesn't involve a tractor or a pick up truck, it isn't hard work.  You might think you work hard if you get up every morning, push into a crowded subway, so you can put food on the table for your family.  But you weld the steel girders of skyscraper, or you spend 80 hours a week in an office, or spend 48 hours on call in a hospital, or risk your life pulling people from burning buildings, or do anything which isn't rural and/or small in scope. So your work doesn't really count. (Maybe it's only real work if you can drop the 'g' from the verb. Farmin', fishin', these are jobs that sound right. Investment Bankin'... not so much).

What offends me most is the notion that City people do not fight for their country.  It's a slap in the face to the parents of soldiers from the 5 boroughs of New York.  It's a slap in face to the parents of soldiers from all the great Cities of America. It's saying that their sacrifices don't count, because their children grew up in the projects, or the row houses, or the high rises, or the brownstones, or the tenements.  It only counts if they grew up in the corn fields, or the tundra.

Did she intend to dis all of Urban America? (yeah...I said "dis"....there are millions of us, and that's how we roll.)  I'll tell you one thing, she certainly didn't try to avoid it.  She's running to be vice president of the entire USA, but she didn't say one word that makes me feel like she even cares about my American experience.  She's from a small town, and if you're from a small town, she's like you.  But if you're not from a small town, she has nothing to say to you.  You are not her constituents.  If you live in New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Pittsburg, Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas, St. Louis, Las Vegas, Miami, Detroit, Newark, or any of this country's other thriving, vital, dynamic, creative, wealth producing, urban centers, Sarah Palin doesn't get you, and doesn't think of you, and isn't interested in what you care about.

Why Obama can't close the deal.

Over on Abc News today, there is an article titled Why Can't Barak Obama Close the Deal? .  They point to the following:

The Illinois senator's had persistent problems in winning working-class, less-educated whites and Pennsylvania accentuated his seeming inability to connect with those voters.

We Democrats venerate the working-class, less-educated white voters.  We think of them as the salt of the earth.  But back in the 80s, we had a more concise name for this constituency.  We called them Reagan Democrats.  In other words, nominal Democrats who vote Republican.  These are Democrats least committed to the ideals of the Democratic Party.  These are the Democrats who voted for George Bush because they thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq as payback for 9/11.  Obama can't close the deal because Hillary has a lock on the Republican wing of the Democratic party.

The reason for super delegates is not actually to ensure that the party nominates a winner.  It is to ensure that the party nominates a candidate who genuinely espouses the ideals of the Party.  It is of course, a fundamentally counter-democratic mechanism (small 'd' here, as in counter to democracy, not the Democratic Party).  It is a recognition that in a pure democratic process, precisely this wing of nominal democratic voters could conceivably vote to nominate a candidate who is only a nominal Democrat, but represents an ideology counter to the Democratic party.  In short, it's the super delegates job to keep the Reagan Democrats from nominating a Republican as the Democratic candidate.

Now, I'm not saying that HIllary is some sort of crypto Republican.  But why are we concerned that Barak Obama is less appealing to the least committed members of the Democratic party?  Why aren't we more concerned that Hillary Clinton's only case for viability is that she has a lock on the voters who share the least of the Democratic Party's core values?

Let's put it another way.  Do you think these working-class, less educated white voters, nominally Democrats, really like Hillary?  Do they see her as the stronger of two strong candidates, or as the lesser of two evils?  I suspect the latter.  Barak Obama represents our Party's ideals, while HIllary's claim to legitimacy is that she is the stronger candidate, because she consistently wins the votes of Democrats who don't share those ideals.

Obama's remarks didn't go far enough

Barack Obama’s “bitter” remarks were stupid and brave. They were both of these things because he was trying to say something true that should never be said in a presidential campaign. He was criticizing voters for voting stupidly, against their own interests, and against the interests of the country as a whole. The part of me that just wants him to win wishes he hadn’t said it at all. But the part of me that is inspired by Obama’s candor wishes he had leveled his criticism more directly.

 

That I wish he hadn’t said it all requires little explanation. If you’re trying to win an election, you don’t criticize the voters you’re hoping to attract. 

 

That I wish he had been more direct bares some elaboration. I wish he had been more direct in 2 ways. First, I wish he had said this not in

San Francisco

, but it rural

Pennsylvania

. There is no getting around the fact that he was speaking critically of small town voters to an audience of urban liberals. It is by definition, speaking ill of people behind their back. Further, I don’t think it is rural voters alone who deserve to be criticized.

 

Second, I wish he had actually been more forceful and direct in his criticism. By saying they “cling” to guns, religion, racist or anti-immigrant views, he implies that he is criticizing cultural values. I think he was trying to temper his words to be non-confrontational, but in doing so, he utterly said something that (in my opinion) was not at all what he meant. I believe that what he was trying to say, and what he should have said, was that these voters have been making bad decisions at the voting booth, voting for candidates who are not representing their interests, but appealing to cultural biases and values that have an emotional resonance.

 

Even I am finding myself softening the tone of this absolutely necessary criticism. We Democrats must recognize that this criticism is justified. We blame the Republicans, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and George Bush for the ills of this country. But the blame belongs just as much to the American electorate. Roughly half of American voters elected George Bush. We say that the Republicans deceived them, that they cheated. But they didn’t deceive us. I believe the real elitism is in the condescension of not holding voters accountable for bad decisions.

 

What Obama should have said was: It is wrong to vote for bad candidates because they pay lip service to your religion. It is wrong to vote for bad candidates because they say they support gun rights. It is wrong to vote for bad candidates because they console your worst fears about people of different ethnicities or even illegal immigrants. He should say that religion is good, and so is separation of Church and state. That hunting is just fine, but that all illegal guns were once sold legally, and that there is no reason to make it easier to have a gun license than a driver’s license. That racism is wrong. That when facing recession and war, illegal immigration shouldn’t be a top priority, and that Republicans have demonstrated a clear interest in maintaining a steady flow of illegal workers, wanting to neither kick them out, nor allow them to work legally for wages that US citizens would demand.

 

The way Obama phrased his remarks was stupid, particularly so for someone who is regarded as a talented speaker. He tried to hedge is criticism in conciliatory language and in doing so was both condescending and timid. I hope the next time he tries to explain himself, he shows voters the respect to say, you have been wrong in your voting, and it would be better for you and everybody else if you would stop it. Or maybe I hope he just lets it all blow over.

 

 

The Difference between Obama and Clinton

The latest Gallop poll puts Hillary slightly ahead of Barack in popularity among Democrats nationwide.  At this point in the campaign, I have to ask, are these Hillary supporters nuts?  Hasn't it gotten into their heads what the defining difference between Obama and Clinton is?  Apparently not.

Some of Clinton's supporters seem to feel that the difference is in the sound bites.  The sound bites are engineered and spun to establish the broad persona of the candidates.  Hillary as the technocrat leader, Barack as the inspirational leader.  But these are largely meaningless distinctions, because they are essentially advertising campaigns which aren't firmly grounded in facts.  T

Hillary claims she is the wonky technocrat, and in support of her argument, there is widespread agreement that she comes into all policy discussions well prepared.  This is certainly a good thing, but it is after all, sort of the minimum requirement of her job as Senator. She is supposed to read all the policy papers before voting .  She is supposed to be well prepared. But does this make her exceptional?  And more importantly, does this make her somehow better than Barack Obama?  I would argue no by both measures. 

An exceptional technocrat doesn't just have a strong understanding of the policies she is voting on.  She actually comes up with innovative and effective policies.  Has Hillary done this?  No, not really.  She has done a decent job as Senator (I voted for her as Senator, and look forward to doing so again), but when it comes to being a technocrat policy wonk, she's a solid journeyman, not a super start. 

Is there any evidence that she is somehow more prepared on matters of policy than Barack Obama? No, not really.  There is every reason to believe that Obama comes into each vote in the Senate just as prepared as Hillary. They both are well prepared, as they ought to be, because that is the requirement of their job.

In fairness, the sound bite spin machine of the Obama camp is equally guilty of trying to manufacture a virtue.  Obama claims he is the inspirational leader.  In support of this claim, and in support of his argument is the widespread agreement that he is an inspirational speaker.  Now I am an Obama supporter, and I agree that words matter...somewhat...but the truth is, stirring speeches alone don't a priori imply effective leadership.

What irks me most is that the whole wonky vs. inspirational  argument is just so condescending.  It is an argument which asks voters to decide based on visceral response to these manufactured personas, as though selecting our nominee for president was like deciding which character on soap opera we liked better.  In essence, it is treating us (voters) as if we were children.  Sadly, it's not an ineffective technique, or it wouldn't be so universal.

To my mind, it is THE DEFINITION OF POLITICS AS USUAL.  In both parties, we've grown use to policians who try to appeal to our emotions, but not our intellect.  They can "feel our pain", but can't be bothered to actually explain their thinking.  Either they don't think we're smart enough to understand, or they don't think they're smart enough to explain, or both.  Instead, they talk to us like we're fickle emotional children.

Very few politicians ever speak to voters as though they were adults, capable of thinking about issues of any complexity.  Interestingly,  Bill Clinton was one of the exceptions.  However Hillary is not.  Listen to what she says.  She's all about feeling the pain of the Democratic base, but does she ever try to explain how her policies, crafted by her supposed master technocrat mind, will actually work better?  No, she doesn't.  Admittedly, most politicians don't.  This is why I have always contended that Hillary is very good at the business as usual brand of politics.

But Barack, even more so than Bill Clinton, actually speaks to voters as though they are adults.  Contrast what he has said about the Iraq war with Hillary Clinton.  Barack's position, from 2003 on, was and is that it was wrong to even start the war.  We were attacked by Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, and we decided to invade a different country.  True, the country was ruled by an evil tyrant, but so are a lot of countries we have no intention of going to war with.  It is a country which was entirely contained militarily, and strategically, served as a counter balance to two other strategic antagonists (Al Qaeda and Iran).

Barack opposed the invasion as a strategic error, and explained his opposition in strategic terms. We know that Hillary, like most of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate voted to authorize the war, but as I've said, it was out of fear that she'd be voted out of office if she didn't (though once again,this is, by definition, the move of a political journeyman, not a leader).  Now she says she's had a change of heart. But why?  She has never explained, beyond the saying she agrees with the American people who are tired of George Bush's failed war.  But the was and is not wrong because the American people are tired of it!  Even if the American people were still as convinced as they were in 2003, it would still be wrong.  It's wrong because it prevented us from pursuing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  Is is wrong because it cost half a trillion dollars that could have gone to health care, and education and jobs programs.  It is wrong because it has cost the lives of thousands of Americans, and over a hundred thousand Iraqis.  Sadaam Husein was an evil man, but we imposed a cure on Iraq which hasn't proven to be better for than the disease. 

Barack Obama will actually say this to voters.  He actually has enough respect for the voters to treat them as adults.  That is what inspires me.  Imagine an America where our leaders actually treat us as thinking adults, and not emotional children!

Consider Barack's speech about race in America, and his relationship Rev. Wright.  Instead of appealing to our quick emotional responses, he actually took the time to talk about the issue as though we are all adults! This is what is truly inspiring. Hillary and her supporters speak disparagingly of the Obama camp as though we've been bewitched by Barack's rhetorical flourish, yet all of her efforts have been to try to capture that same emotional response for herself.  She sees emotional appeal as the holy grail of her campaign.  What she seems to be missing is that Barack's appeal isn't fundamentally emotional.  It is that he is truly substantive, in a way which HRC, and most other politicians are not.  The irony is that this kind of substantive speaking, that is, speaking to, and treating voters as thoughtful, reasoning adults, is so startling and refreshing, that it fills one with hope. 

That is how Barack inspires.  That is how an Obama presidency represents real change from politics as usual.  That is the difference between Obama and Clinton.

Ready (to lose, pander, and roll over) on Day One

I'm so tired of the spurious style vs. solutions argument that HRC has been spouting.  The notion that Barack makes speeches, but Hillary is in the solutions business is preposterous.  So far, the evidence of Hillary's solution providing ability comes from....HER SPEECHES.  I'm not suggesting that she doesn't have a voting record, or hasn't sponsored any legislation.  But her voting record, her supposed edge in experience, really looks like  what one would expect from a garden variety Democratic Senator in her second term.  Admittedly, Obama's looks pretty standard for a Democratic Senator in his first term.  So I'm willing to concede that she has exactly one term more experience than Obama, but I don't see this as evidence her being a more effective legislator, or by extension, of her being a more effective president.

Hillary makes speeches where she claims she's in the solutions business, but where are the solutions?  She says it's time to get real.  I agree.  Let's get real.  Hillary claims she's ready to fight the tough fights against the Republicans because she's faced the onslaught of the Republican attack machine.  But being a punching bag doesn't make her a fighter.  She has a proud record of standing up the Republicans and LOSING or worse, just ROLLING OVER.

Hillary points to her efforts at Health Care Reform during Bill's 1st term as an example of how she stood up the Republicans and fought.  As I recall, she fought and LOST.  How much did she stand up to the Republicans on the Bankruptcy act of 2001? (She voted for it.) That bill disproportionately hurt low income women, the group she claims she's fighting to protect.  How much did she fight to protect the 1st amendment against a law to criminalize flag burning?  (She SPONSORED that anti-american bill). Even right wing Justice Antonin Scalia agrees that flag burning is exactly the kind of political speech that the framers of the constitution had in mind when they created the first amendment.  This isn't some kind of legal stretch to apply freedom of speech to a symbolic political act.  The British used to imprison dissenters for burning the Union Jack or effigies of King George.  The framers specifically wanted to protect this kind of act. Or how about how she stood up to the Republicans on the vote to authorize the war in Iraq?  (She voted for it). Quite a fighter there, wasn't she? 

It's Hillary's speeches that don't pass scrutiny.  The fact that Obama's speeches are moving and inspirational, while Clinton's are not, does not make Clinton a more substantive candidate.  It just makes her the candidate who's less able to convince others to support her agenda.  Her argument is that she lack's charisma, therefore she's more substantive. 

The fact is, Hillary Clinton's voting record is both longer and WORSE than Obama's.  I'm willing to concede that given his short tenure in the Senate, Obama hasn't had time to amass the collection of troubling votes that Hillary  has.  But Hillary isn't arguing on the basis of her record, she is arguing on the basis of her persona. We're to believe she's the candidate of substance, not because her record actually supports this, but because she seems like one of those super-achieving smart girls, all grown up.  I'll make a further concession. Hillary Clinton IS a super-achiever.  The woman is a US Senator and a viable candidate for President.

I don't mean to demean Hillary Clinton by calling her a "girl". She is an adult woman, and far more accomplished and successful than most men or women can ever hope to be.  But I think her psychological appeal is based on a persona that tends to emerge in high achieving girls in their school years. On visceral level, we see her as one of those who studied harder, did the extra credit assignments and the extra curricular activities, and earned the 4.0. But her record doesn't entirely bare this out.  Or should I say, it evinces the darker side the achiever as well.  The kind who is willing to not take the class that might hurt her GPA.  The kind who might cheat a little to make sure she'd get the A+.

Cheating...tough criticism, but I'll be explicit about how the analogy applies.  The 3 legislative acts I mentioned earlier, the Iraq War authorization, the Bankruptcy act, and the anti Flag Burning act...I believe that Hillary thought they were wrong when she voted for them.  I don't believe that she is a crypto conservative.  I believe she felt it was acceptable  to compromise her principals if it might help her appeal to Republicans in some future presidential race, or limit their scrutiny of her current Senate term.  This willingness to compromise principals to get ahead is the analog to cheating in my argument.

I hope this doesn't come off as sexist.  I really didn't intend it that way.  I just hoped to show that when Hillary says she's about solutions, not speeches, it's a point that she makes in her speeches.  And that when she says Obama is about inspiration, but she is about hard work and achievement, she's really saying that she has substance, while he is just a persona.  But there isn't evidence for her being any more substantive.  It's just her persona.

Ralph Nader is an ass, but this made me laugh

Ralph Nader has launched an exploratory committee for yet another presidential campaign.  I hate Ralph Nader.  If he had dropped out of race in  2000, Bush would never have been elected.  So I childishly submitted the following 'web site problem' report on the committee's web site.  The funny thing is, they responded to me, thanking me for bringing the problem to their attention.  I know it was probably an auto-generated response, but it's still made me giggle.  Below is my problem report and the web master's response. (I've removed my name and home email address, but everything else is copy and paste).

from Phillip Smith <contact@naderexplore08.org> to (home email removed), date Feb 7, 2008 12:46 AM subject Re: Problem with your website

hide details 12:46 AM (8 hours ago)

Reply

Hi (name removed),

Thank you for reporting this Web site problem. We're looking into it.

Cheers,

E-mail Response Team
Nader 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee
P.O. Box 34103
Washington, D.C. 20043
www.naderexplore08.org

Paid for by the Nader 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee




On Jan 31, 2008, (name removed) wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
>
>
> I couldn't help but notice a glaring problem in your website.  The text in your site appears to indicate that Ralph Nader is contemplating another run for the Presidency. This can't be correct.  I'm sure by now that Ralph Nader knows any vote for him is a vote that could have gone to a Democrat, and a de facto vote for the Republican candidate.  I'm sure he recognizes that he risks being remembered as little more than the spoiler for the Democrats, who helped George Bush win the Presidency. It must be a mistake that Ralph Nader wants to run for the President again!  Perhaps it is just a typo.  I'm sure Nader simply wanted to "explore" ways that he can support Barack Obama and actually help right the wrongs of corporate America, rather than perpetuating them by helping the Republicans win.  Please correct this error.
>
> Thanks.
>
> PS - If, for some unimaginable reason, this wasn't just a horrible mistake, shame on Ralph Nader, and shame on any of you who are supporting him.  It actually matters who holds the presidency.  I know some of you like to say that there isn't any difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.  Tell it to the Americans and the Iraqis who died in Bush's war in Iraq.  A war which would never have been waged, if every Nader voter had instead voted for Gore.  There really is a difference between the parties, and that difference really matters.
>

If you'd like also like to report a 'web site problem' to the committee, go to http://www.naderexplore08.org/contact/ , and select 'Web Site Problem' from the drop down list below 'What kind of request is this?'.

THE REASON that Clinton supporters should vote for Obama

    Hello. I'm back.  If you are among the handful of readers who actually followed my IBD Index posts, you know that I started a new job in September, and it has distracted me from my index research.  Regarding my own trading, the job has distracted me from that as well.  I'm about %50 long equities, %50 in cash.  I let some trades turn into investments (I know, a generally bad idea), so I'm sitting on some losses, but I still think those stocks will rebound.

I plan to return to my finance blogging, though I'm not sure if I'll continue to pursue the IBD index.  However, I really wanted to post some of my thoughts about the 2008 presidential campaign.  I'm a Democrat, a strong opponent of President Bush (at this point, the two are virtually synonymous), and a strong supporter of Barack Obama.

John Edwards has dropped out of the race.  Now the defacto 2 person race for the democratic nomination has become an actual 2 person race. So for better or worse, a vote for Barack is a vote against Hillary, as a vote for Hillary is a vote against Barack.  Nobody likes to frame the race in this way.  We Obama supporters want to convince you Clinton supporters to vote FOR our Barack just as you want to convince us to vote FOR Hillary.

But I'm not going to do that.  I'm not going to try to convince you to like Obama better than Clinton.  While I genuinely believe that Barack is better, I think I understand your preference for Hillary and reservations about Barack.  I don't agree with them, but I respect the merits of your view.  None the less, I hope to convince you to vote AGAINST Clinton anyway.  That's right, despite the validity of your concerns and preferences, you should override your evaluation and vote for Barack Obama, and AGAINST Hillary Clinton.

I think there are 2 predominant reasons why many Democrats favor Hillary.  The first can be described in largely positive terms.  There is a belief that Hillary is more experienced, more mature, and this experience will make her a more adept politician and a better leader.  This is not an unreasonable point. I don't agree with it.  I'm in the camp that says Hillary's experience represents entrenchment in an outmoded brand of politics.  And her experience with the business end of the republican attack machine, which tied Bill Clinton's political hands through much of his presidency would be repeated if she were to be elected.  But as I said, it's not imprudent to value experience in a job as important as the presidency.

The second reason is far more negative.  It has to do with Hillary's support skewing to lower incomes, lower education levels, and Latino voters. It is to some degree, a kind of racism, or perhaps I should say, it is a by product of racism.  What I'm describing is the remnants of racism as a malignant institution in this country.

I believe racism as an institution pits minorities and the working classes against each other.  One can understand how a group that feels it is struggling can see politics as a zero sum game.  I believe the Latino and lower income democratic skew towards Hillary Clinton is a reflection of fear that a vote for Obama is a vote for more attention to African American issues at the expense of attention to Latino issues, and at the expense of attention to issues of lower income whites. 

Obama's support skews toward younger democrats, wealthier democrats, and better educated democrats.  These are the demographics who are least inclined to view and fear politics as a zero sum competition between us and them. (Disclosure: I'm a White Male, 43 years old, from an unusual background.  I was raised in an Inter-racial, Brady bunch kind of step family.  I have a college degree in Computer Science, and would be classified as upper middle class. Except for my age, I'm Obama's classic demo).

It's an unfortunate situation, and I believe electing Obama can help us break this cycle of self-perpetuating fear.  But I recognize that it's easier to say "let's give everybody a turn" when you're at the head of the line, and confident that letting somebody ahead won't prevent you from getting in. 

I understand your concerns and preferences, but I believe there is ONE overriding reason why you should look past them and vote for Obama, and I believe most Democrats already understand it.  It is the same reason that John Edwards was never really a competitor. John Edwards was the conscience of the Democratic party in this nomination race.  His consistent focus on eradicating poverty reminded us and the other candidates that we are the party of compassion, not just centrists who would momentarily lean left if we were startled.

I believe most Democrats admired John Edwards, but few of us were willing to vote for him for one simple reason.  He was unelectable.  We all know that his passionate rhetoric, steeped in the language of class warfare, would not appeal to the broad electorate. We didn't vote for him because we knew he would LOSE in November.

It is perhaps less obvious, but I believe that you should not vote for Hillary Clinton for the same reason.  In a national election Hillary Clinton will LOSE!  Is her loss a sure thing?  Of course, there are no sure things in politics. Her loss is certainly not as certain as Edwards would have been.  But I believe it is much more likely than her supporters think.

The Republican party is in disarray.  The G.W. Bush administration and policies have been discredited. All of the Republican strategists believe there is only one thing likely to unify and motivate the party: a campaign against Hillary Clinton.  I don't think it's fair how much they hate her, but hate her they do.  Republicans who couldn't be bothered to get out and vote for McCain or Romney, will line up early to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton.  This is pretty much beyond dispute.  Hillary is the candidate who Republicans believe they have the best chance of beating.  They all have at least a begrudging admiration for Obama.  They certainly won't be thinking about turning out just to vote AGAINST him.
(Have you heard Bill Bennet gush about Obama on CNN?  Quite the inter-party crush going on there.)

I think everybody agrees that Obama has the better chance of beating McCain in a national election. But Hillary supporters think that her chances are good enough.  They're thinking that an Obama victory is a great bet, but a Hillary victory is still a decent bet.  I think they are wrong.  They think Hillary will be running against George Bush.  They're wrong (presumptive Republican nominee) John McCain is NOT George Bush. 

Once it sinks in with Republicans that they can elect one of their own AND end the embarrassing debacle of the Bush presidency, they will coalesce. All Democrats need to recognize that the general election will be tougher than we think, because McCain isn't Bush.

Clinton supporters also need to recognize something about Obama supporters.  We are passionate in our support for him.  We really believe he won't just be a good president, but a GREAT one.  It's been a common line of thought in our party that all of our candidates from the nomination were and are pretty good, and that we would support any of them in a national election.  But I'm not so sure that will play out in November.

We'd support any of them against George Bush.  But what about against McCain?  We all view Hillary as being better than Bush, but so is McCaine.  All things being equal, we'd prefer Hillary, but things aren't equal.  If Clinton wins the nomination, Obama supporters will be doing some simple math in November.  If Hillary wins, it will be 8 years before we'll get another chance to vote for Obama.  If she loses, it will be only 4.

Given the Republican antipathy towards Hillary, the ambivalence of enthusiasm for her from Obama supporters, and the recognition that McCain will be harder to beat than the Bush legacy, I'd say that Hillary's chances are actually negative.  But let's say I'm being too pessimistic.  I think it's pretty conservative to say that a Clinton victory is a 50-50 proposition.  What has happened over last decade in races where the Democrats and Republicans split the vote around 50-50?  Do we really want to hope that this time, we'll be able to eek out a victory in another hanging chads moment?

That's why I ask you Clinton supporters to reconsider.  She may be your preference, but I believe that she will LOSE in the general election.  Vote for Barack Obama as our party's nominee, and he will WIN the presidency.