Pragmatically Speaking, Democrats Should Nominate Obama

I do not wish to hide the fact that I view Obama more favorably than Clinton, but to me they are differentiated by the intangibles. For most democrats, Obama and Clinton show very few differences on specific issues, and the real difference between them is on the slightly less tangible such as ending the insiders’ hold on Washington politics, spreading hope of a better future among the less advantaged segments of society, and improving America’s image internationally in the long term and making some new friends.

However, when making their decision, democrats must consider which one of their candidate is more likely to send the neocons packing out of Washington. Kucinich is the best candidate to represent the party’s ideals, but in all honesty is unlikely to defeat republicans, because he has not been able to garner enough support, among democrats that is. But among the leading candidates, or the two left standing, there is a choice to make: Obama is more likely to win the general elections that the Clintons are.

I have always despised the term “electableility;” I saw it as an antithesis to the ideal of voting, since it meant ignoring your true view about a candidate and vote for one that you think others may prefer. Case in point, the democratic parties grassroots selling out on Howard Dean over night because the mass media made feel that he was crazy and unelectable. But in the Obama-Clinton case, either of the two is a better option than another Republican Whitehouse; McCain all but guaranteed a war with Iran.

Obama is an apparent favorite in states that are more socially conservative than the traditionally blue states. Blues states will vote democrat, weather the candidate is Obama or Clinton. But Clinton, with a reputation for being polarizing, earned or not, is far less likely to win in those states and secure a democratic presidential win.

Republicans, with their uniformity, predictability, and subservience to the establishment, have presented the democrats with the gift: The name of their next candidate when the democrats still had time to make their selection. It has been said of the democrats that they have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and it is true, but perhaps they won’t follow the self-destructive behavior again this year.

Obama won the primaries decisively in swing states such as Iowa and Minnesota; he has won decisively in traditionally red states where democrats are finally making a showing, like Colorado and Kansas. Those are the states that win the Whitehouse, California, New York, and Massachusetts were carried by Clinton, but they are guaranteed to vote for either of the two democrats against McCain.

In a head-to-head match up, it is clear that Obama will win over McCain, while the presumable republican nominee will sweep purple states from under Hillary’s feet. Obama will battle McCain for the independent vote, and get a small slice of the republicans; Hillary will lose the independents, and mobilize the republicans to turn out for McCain. The very conservative base does not like McCain, but you bet they will look at it pragmatically, and decide to send him to the Whitehouse to prevented Hilary from taking it. That’s a lesson democrats are over due to learn.

And one more thing to keep in mind, if you don't give Obama enough delegates to secure the nomination before the convention, it will have to be a brokered convention, and the super delegates, the good old boys club of the democratic party, will end up hand-picking the nominee. The smoke-filled backroom wheeling and dealing is the Clintons' thing, not Obama's.