For the Love of the Party - Drop Out Hillary!

Someone has to start putting pressure on Hillary Clinton to bow out gracefully. I would be happy to vote for her in 2016, IF she stops dividing the Democratic Party. At this point she seems to be making a case for McCain if she loses the nomination to Obama. She argues she can defeat McCain but Obama cannot. She is implicitly saying McCain would make a better president than Obama. Of course this seems to be her strategy this week, based on scaring people into voting for her. The direction of Clinton's campaign, as of late, has tactics similar to those of the Republican Party. If Clinton's supporters like that, which presumably they do or they would not continue to support her, they are much more likely to endorse McCain over Obama if Clinton loses the nomination.

Another IMPORTANT consideration: Obama's supporters will not roll over and die. As I've told a number of people, Obama has not built a campaign as much as a social movement. Social movements are much stronger and have a far greater life expectancy than a campaign. The anti-war movement that arose during the Vietnam War is a prime example. The social movement and unrest did not stop until the war did. Likewise, the social movement spurred by Obama will continue even if Obama does not get the nomination.

Obama will never be able to endorse Clinton if she defeats him. To leave with any integrity or respect from his supporters, obviously something needed for any future run at the White House, Obama cannot fade into the background as a "sell-out." By endorsing Clinton he endorses the very thing he and his supporters oppose the most, the status quo of the nation and the politics of yesteryear.

The supporters of the social movement will persevere with or without Obama. He has started something not even he can stop. The movement wants change. Clinton can't offer it. The only other candidate that can, albeit to a lesser degree, is NADER. Yes, I said it. The disenfranchised supporters of the social movement led by Obama will defect to Nader. He won't be viable but the message of the social movement will still be sent, loud and clear. Of course this means the next president will be McCain. Don't blame Obama or his supporters though, blame Hillary Clinton. She and her political machine have seen this coming and choose to look the other way - sacrificing the party for her own selfish desires. The only positive point if this scenario plays out, McCain's old and can't last forever.

A New Messiah?

Some are saying that Obama supporters, and perhaps Obama himself, are making the candidate "Messiah-Like." Here's my thoughts:

It’s not about Obama being messiah-like. It’s about a politician actually understanding and inspiring us. He is willing to stand up against the big and bureaucratic government, which is something we all wish we had the power to do. With Obama we have that chance. He spent the last three years in the federal senate fighting the bureaucrats. Before that he did the same in the state senate. Before the state senate he was doing the same thing on the south side of Chicago.

Clinton has a sense of entitlement and is backed by a bureaucratic powerhouse. Obama is not part of that bureaucracy or the Clinton Powerhouse. Clinton has, by her own account, 35 years of experience. During those 35 years she has shown her ability to lead politicians and lobbyists. What about leading the people? Obama seems much better in uniting and leading the people. Clinton talks about what she will do to make the country better. Obama talks about what we can do to make the country better. This certainly gives us the feeling that we have a chance to fight the bureaucratic government – again something we all wish we had the power to do. Isn’t the government supposed to be about “we the people” and not “you the politicians?”

Obama talks about what the nation can do and needs to do; what each and every one of us can do and needs to do. Obama has given young people hope about politics and our country – something most of us gave up on a long time ago. Something that I doubt anyone has even thought about since the days of Bobby and Jack Kennedy. Is that wrong? Does that make Obama “messiah-like?”

The way I see it, Obama is simply able to inspire something within us, within me at least. He gives us power when we have grown accustomed to a system that leaves us powerless. He gives us hope when we have grown accustomed to a system that leaves us hopeless. Does that make Obama “messiah-like?” Would anyone suggest that Bobby or Jack Kennedy was messiah-like? How about Martin Luther King, Jr. or Medgar Evers? I guess if messiah and savior are one in the same perhaps they are. Perhaps Obama is. Our country, our planet, our way of life, all need to be saved. I believe that at this time in history Obama is the one candidate that gives us hope to make those changes.

I have no doubt that Clinton could lead this country. But now does not seem the time. We need more than changed policies. We need changed inspirations and hope. As long as my wife has been alive there has been either a Bush or Clinton in the white house. How can Clinton even suggest she is the one to bring about the needed change - she is the status quo.