Super Tuesday (or, How To Give Away the Presidency Without Really Trying)

Note: The author would like to go on record as saying this post is not meant to endorse any specific candidate. That column, "132 Reasons to Vote for Obama," will come later.

The Democrats are in one of the most enviable positions a political party can be in. Their dominating victory in the 2006 midterms showed that the American public was sick of the direction the Republicans were steering the country, and the current president enjoys some of the worst approval ratings since Truman (who, unlike this president, was a highly principled and intelligent man caught in Dean Acheson's sphere of Communist propaganda, but that's another story). For years, people have assumed that the Democratic candidate would win the 2008 election. In fact, it's been a given.

Now, there's a possibility they might very well screw it up.

Think about that for a second. How often do you see someone in a situation where they can't possibly lose choke the opportunity away due to sheer stupidity? Granted, sheer stupidity has been on the rise in the last decade, but with an opportunity this golden, even morons have enough common sense to make one right choice.

Yet it could very well happen tomorrow. Democratic primary voters could very well botch the easiest victory in American political history with their selection. It all starts and ends with Hillary Clinton.

I'd like to take a second to mention that this post is not meant (at least, not entirely) to bash Hillary. Granted, she was the worst part of the Clinton administration, and her health care plan accomplished basically nothing, and she's just a generally sour person, and she's been one of the most Republican Democrats in the Senate since elected (the title of "most Republican" goes to Joe Lieberman, and before anyone writes in, I know he ran as an independent last time; he couldn't win his own party's primary, shouldn't that have clued people in?), and basically every other Democrat disagrees with most of her proposals (even Gravel, and he's a nutcase); that doesn't mean that I'm denigrating her for those things here or railing against her on those grounds. No, my reasons are entirely statistical and logical, two things sorely lacking in the political system these days.

According to the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, if the election were held today, both Clinton and Obama would beat Romney handily in the general election (Clinton by 8%, Obama by a whopping 21%). However, if John McCain were the Republican nominee (and it's beginning to appear he will be), Clinton would lose by 5%, while Obama would run in a virtual dead heat. Other polls (CNN, NBC News, Wall Street Journal, Reuters) show nearly identical results. Admittedly, polls are unreliable, and a lot can change between now and November. However, it should be noted that Hillary started this campaign as the prohibitive favorite, with no one else in either party even close to her. Within two months she's fallen into a deadlock with her primary rival, and a Republican has moved past her in national opinion. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something? Obama started the campaign with relatively little support beyond Oprah and grassroots fundraising, and in every state where he's been given time to campaign, he's surpassed Hillary or at the very least erased her lead. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something? Both Obama and McCain draw a large number of independents to their side, and both candidates have won contests largely on the strength of those independent voters; Hillary can't even beat Edwards among independents. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something? Both Obama and McCain (Obama far more so than McCain) have actively sought young voters and have succeeded in making the college-age block an important aspect of their support, a task that neither party has done successfully before. Hillary's primary supporters? Age 65 or older. Rather than energizing new voters to become Democrats for the foreseeable future (as Obama has, in a way that no candidate has since Kennedy), Hillary has staked her claim on voters who may very well be dead before November. Shouldn't that tell Democrats something?

Perhaps the most damning evidence of all, though, comes from that "bastion of the truth," Fox News (quotes = sarcasm, for those not familiar with my work). In an interview conducted over the weekend, Ann Coulter (along with Rush Limbaugh, one half of the Scylla and Charybdis of the conservative punditry) actually said she'd actively campaign for Hillary if McCain received the Republican nomination. Think about that. The Democratic candidate for President of the United States may very well be promoted by the shrillest woman on Earth, who has asked that women be denied the right to vote "because women are voting so stupidly," who has stated that Jews are "imperfect Christians," who has accused John Edwards and his wife of using their son's death to their advantage (a similar theme to her claim that the widows of September 11th victims were "enjoying their husbands' deaths"). This is actually acceptable to you, Howard Dean? Do you relish the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with a woman you asked your party's candidates not one year ago to denounce in order to promote a woman whose philosophies contradict those of the party's platform in numerous ways?

The simple fact of the matter is that none of the signs point to Hillary's campaign being a success. Nothing, not even trotting out Bill (who has lost some of my respect, I'm sorry to say), has worked for her thus far. She's had 2 years to prepare, to solidify her status as the front-runner and guarantee her status as the next President. She has uniformly failed.

What makes anyone think she'll figure it out now?