A depressed Democrat

Marin is about as liberal a community as one can possibly find.  That means that the analyst for the local political newspaper is a liberal too.  Right now, he’s a very depressed liberal, since he’s absolutely certain that the Democrats are imploding, leading to the inevitability of a McCain victory:

Arizona Sen. McCain will be victorious on Nov. 4. The heroic McCain is the only Republican with any hope of attracting independents and moderate Democrats. That’s something that Republicans, facing annihilation after the unpopular Bush-Cheney era, desperately need. While I acknowledge questioning my sagacity in late 2007 during McCain’s dark days, he ultimately vindicated my hunch.

McCain now faces a Democratic Party tearing itself apart. If the 1980 Jimmy Carter-Ted Kennedy primary contest taught us anything, it’s that a party divided upon entering a national convention will lose. I acknowledge the economy has tanked, there’s no way out of the Iraq fiasco and that public confidence is as low as the price of gas is high. Yet when it comes to losing presidential elections, the Democratic mantra is “Yes, I can.”

In fighting for the top spot, Clinton not only has taken the luster out of the once-sparkling Obama, she has managed to amplify her already negative image. That will be fatal in the fall election.

McCain will win IF he gets back on his Straight Talk Express and distances himself from the befuddled Bush. While this will displease the political right, hatred of all things Clinton will keep them in the Arizonan’s camp. McCain’s problem is that he’s off to a slow start by pandering to the shrinking GOP base. Perhaps wiser hands will steer him back to the middle after the Minneapolis convention.

As for me, I hope he’s right.  McCain, despite his myriad flaws, is infinitely preferable to either Hillary or Obama.

By the way, I can think of one other reason Hillary might not win, although it’s a silly one.  I just realized as I wrote this post that I always refer to McCain and Obama by their last names, because those names are unique in the political race.  I refer to Hillary, however, by her first name, not as a sign of disrespect, but to distinguish her from her husband.  The fact that a woman ends up with this casual appellation does not bode well for subliminal signals about her stature.  Others are probably going to pick up on this same subliminal “girl” quality, and are not going to give her quite the deference given the “men.”  She’ll lose for that reason too, I think.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • jj

    Oh, I don’t know. She self-identifies as “Hillary,” it’s her brand, and at rallies, etc. she hands out big signs that say simply “Hillary,” so it’s probably little to do with you. It’s one thing if other people refer to you thusly, but it’s something entirely different if you do it yourself.

    It can mean different things in different contexts, too; and not all of them are negative. Somewhat off the point, but instructive in terms of identification, and how we do it, and what it means: I spent time editing and doing some research for a friend who was writing on the ground war in Europe in WWII (which book did quite well, ultimately) and discovered an interesting anomaly in terms of identification.

    All kinds of lovely old men, and they generally identified in military terms, i.e.: “I was with 82nd Airborne;” or “I was in XIX Corps on D-Day, part of 29th Division; we went in with V Corps,” etc., etc. You generally got an outfit name when you asked where they were, and what they were up to for the eye-witness stuff.

    But not in one case, and I found it to be almost universal. Just about nobody who was with 3rd Army ever said: “I was with 3rd Army.”

    They ALL, almost universally, said (and let me tell you, they said it with some pride, too, these lovely old men): “I was with Patton.”

    Maybe that’s the kind of legendary status to which she aspires.

  • suek

    >>McCain’s problem is that he’s off to a slow start by pandering to the shrinking GOP base.>>

    Not so’s his GOP base could notice. Otherwise the base wouldn’t be shrinking.

  • Danny Lemieux

    “Depressed Democrat” – kind of redundant, no? Always losing, always a victim, always on the edge of disaster, always being shafted by “them”, always having elections “stolen”, always having their superior intellect ignored by rubes, always guilty of raping the environment….

  • oceanguy

    Maybe this election will be the one that kills the Democratic Party as it is and a third party of the middle will rise in it’s place, leaving the ‘Democrats” on par with the Green Party. But Mann is right, the Democrats are imploding and are about to lose ANOTHER presidential election that was being presented to them on a silver platter.

    First it was Kerry, the anti-war war hero losing to a very unpopular President, while the Congress swung to the Democrats… this time it will be BHO

  • Mike Devx

    jj beat me to it. I too thought immediately that all the signs and placards at Senator Clinton’s events say, “Hillary”. Have I ever even seen one “Clinton” sign? I can’t recall one.

    I still do not believe McCain can beat Clinton. The only one who can stop her is Obama.

    The entire vast Clinton Corruption Machine is already in place and ready to spring into action. Bill and Hillary constructed it, and it is entirely beholden to both of them, and run by them. *IT* will be ready to go on Day One. And that is what scares the holy hell out of me. *That* is why I am rooting like all get-out for Obama to beat her. That machine, already so corrupt, already so capable at all flavors of corruption, vote-buying, nepotism, bribery, threats, etc… it’s ready to go.

    Most Presidencies have to put the machine together. Even when a normal Vice President gains the presidency, there’s a lengthy period of transfer before a corrupt new Presidency inherits the power of the old corrupt Presidency. But with Hillary, it will already be at full strength on Day One.

    And she is entirely about power for power’s sake. For all my disgust at Obama’s far-left philosophy, and for his smelly involvement in Chicago politics, I still do not think he is, at his base, corrupt.

    And I think McCain has a decent chance of beating him.