My ideal Democratic Party presidential candidate would be Dennis Kucinich, though it was never likely he would garner the votes and attention to make a serious run. So early on I supported John Edwards for president. Unfortunately both of these men were eliminated long ago, even before the Minnesota caucus took place last February. So I happily, if not whole-heartedly, threw my support behind Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters may be right: it is possible that white working-class voters will never vote for a black candidate, and that she has a better chance to defeat McCain in November. But that does not make her the best choice. The not-so-subtle implication of her continued candidacy is, "you might like Obama better, but the only democrat who can beat McCain is me." It's the "lesser of two evils" argument. What makes it absurd is that it is being espoused by a candidate who is behind in delegates, behind in the popular vote, and behind in fund-raising. Isn't this sort of posture reserved for the actual nominee, in shoring up support for the general election?
The trouble with this logic is that Barack Obama already represents a compromise for me: he's more centrist and conventional than suits me, and he is far less experienced than a presidential candidate should be. But the Clinton campaign is asking me to compromise further, and support an aggressively and calculatedly centrist candidate, who is saddled with baggage from her long-term designs to ascend to the White House, and who supported a then ill-advised, now colossally disastrous, 'preemptive strike' on Iraq. And she is about to lose, by the ordinary process of vote counting, her chance of securing her own party's nomination. So why should I support her? It just doesn't make any goddamn sense.
I am very fatigued by the already over-long campaign. If the democrats don't get it sorted out now, McCain might be able to capitalize on the their party's inability to settle this matter. Hillary, do the right thing. Please.