Copyright © by Dan Schneider, 11/5/08

  Given Senator Barack Obama's victory over Senator John McCain, last night, now is the time to dispel a few myths about what it all means. But first, let me toot my own horn a bit, for way back in early June I predicted here that the man would win with between 300 and 320 electoral votes; months before others came to a similar feeling. Most pundits foresaw another squeaker, ala 2000 or 2004. I did not; and it seems I was even too cautious. As of this morning, Obama holds a 349-163 electoral vote lead, with only North Carolina's 15 and Missouri's 11 outstanding. It looks like North Carolina will fall into Obama's camp later today, with Missouri too close to call. McCain has a slight lead, but thousands of provisional ballots from urban areas could swing it to Obama, in a week or so. The final tally will likely be 364-174 or 375-163 Obama.

  Now, to mythbusting. First, the biggest myth going around is that Obama's victory tolled the end for the 'Reagan Revolution, nearly three decades ago. Truth be told, the Reagan Revolution was never real, and the much touted 'Age Of Reagan' also never was. Instead, last night's victory signaled the end of several things. The first was the end of the Nixon Era. Yes, that Nixon. For without Richard Nixon and his Southern Strategy, Ronald Reagan's Presidency would never have come to pass. People forget that throughout his twelve year quest for the presidency, prior to 1980, Governor Ronald Reagan was pretty much considered a joke candidate- and not just across America, but within the Republican Party. That's because he was an intellectual lightweight, and seen as a pale imitation of Senator Barry Goldwater, the true father of the modern, and now discredited, Conservative movement.

  The fact is that Reagan innovated nothing- not ideas nor strategy, and were it not for the mediocre performance of President Jimmy Carter and the Iran Hostage crisis, Reagan would likely never have come within sniffing distance of the White House. That's because it was Nixon's own brand of personal viciousness that put flesh and life on the skeletal ideas and vision of Goldwater that Reagan merely refried. The last four decades of Right Wing ascendancy have not been noted for any great innovations in political governance, but the  rising tide of personal invective, wedge issues, and the nurturing of celebrity over quality. All of these things are quintessentially Nixonian, not Reaganesque. Yes, there is some truth to the old adage that Johnson started the Great Society, but Nixon funded it. Yet, that was less ideology than placating rabble rousers as Nixon vainly tried to end the Vietnam War. From Watergate to the Enemies List to illegal bombings in Cambodia to attacking opponents on personal levels; all of this has only flowered, especially on the Right. Reagan simply needed a Nixon to flourish, and, so, the last forty years of politics, that came to an end last night, get the imprimatur of the larger historical figure, for good or ill, and that figure is indisputably Nixon.

  But, there is likely (and hopefully) an even greater historical page turning that took place; and that was the official end of Twentieth Century politics, almost eight years (or nine, depending on your wont) after history turned that page. That end came not because racism itself died, but because the assumptions of it (such as the main one- a black man could never be President) died. Granted, one election won't change totally the dynamic, but it can be a tipping point. That said, a good four years (and it cannot be worse than last 8) from Obama will do the trick, for the racist white male vote- and is there any better emblem for that than the wannabe Skinhead poster boy (do you think the McCain campaign even realized the symbolism?), Joe the Plumber (aka Sam the Scammer, aka Sam Worzelbacher; not Wurzelbacher)- will fade to demographic irrelevance.

  This is because, despite the dronings on of assorted talking heads, the USA has never been a Center Right country, but a Center Left one. Republicans have never so much won elections than the Democrats have lost them. Don't believe that Liberalism has always been ascendant, and is indeed inexorable? Just look back at this nation's own history, and go back in quarter century chunks. One will see that every quarter century that passes sees the opening up of society into a freer way of living. 2008 is freer and better than 1983, which surpassed 1958, which was better than 1933, etc. Going back in times sees shackles being added, not removed- from Jim Crow to Suffragism to child labor to slavery, etc. And this bit of reality also has the benefit of taking into account the cyclical nature of things real and political. Yes, at a given moment, the culture may be a bit less liberal than a few years before, but it's still significantly more open and progressive than the most conservative nadir of the prior cycle. The same is true that the liberal upswing of society always goes higher with each acme of the cycle. Go ahead, try to argue against reality.

  So, with two myths shot, let's look at the claims that Obama is a radical, or a Socialist, or the 'Most Liberal' (shiver) Senator in the U.S. Senate. If so, why did he have a sizable following amongst Republicans (Obamacans); as well as endorsements from many prominent Republicans? Because, while Republicans preach the bottom up approach to problem solving, neither the Bush Administration, nor John Mccain, have shown that they approach problems that way. Instead, both hired high priced advisers to design solutions. In fact, this was probably the reason Obama defeated the similarly-minded Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. They all approached problem solving from the top down. But, Obama, the old grassroots organizer, does the opposite. He lives the creed Republicans preach, even if with different ideas. Thus, his opinions on matters have a ring of sincerity that his opponents lacked. Think of how much John McCain's lack of economic innovation was likely due to his hiring of high priced experts and advisers, rather than genuine study and cogitation.

  And, if one really looks at Obama's ideas on school choice, taxation, gun control, Supreme Court philosophy, abortion, the economy, and on and on, one finds a rather pragmatic, not dogmatic, approach. The reason so many claim him so far left is that the last quarter century has been so far right, with the brief Clinton interregnum of center right rule. And, yes, Clinton was hardly a leftist. Check out Clinton's record on NAFTA, the environment, public pieties, and a whole assortment of other issues. After all, it was Clinton who prematurely declared the era of big government to be over. Obama, by contrast, is firmly in the center of American thought, with his few deviations heading leftward. But, he's hardly a radical New Dealer- not that that was truly radical, either. But, even if he were, there's no way that he will be able to institute a fraction of the policies he'd like, because, unlike President Franklin Roosevelt, Obama is dealing from an enormous disadvantage in budget deficits and trade debt; all that's left from nearly three decades of failed supply side economics. And, if one doubts the failure, consider the astounding admissions by former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan that the economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression because the 'free' market is really not a self-correcting process.

  The old trickle down supply side folly of Republican economic schemes to funnel wealth upward from the poor to the rich have finally played out. Consider the vaunted ideology related to tax cuts, that, even this year, both candidates gave lip service to. The fact is that there is simply no correlation between rates of taxation and rates of revenue- revenue growth is directly related to the health of an economy and factors other than taxation. After all, tax rates were at their highest under Eisenhower, and the economy boomed. The Laffer Curve, in all realistic taxation scenarios, is as mythic as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. Don't think so? Here are the facts: Under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 2, taxes were cut and revenue grew. Aha, say you, see- the Supply Siders were right! Not so fast. Consider that under Presidents Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton the rates of tax revenues reached successive records- and all that was after they raised taxes! And all three of those times saw the economy recovering from financial downturns. Even further; the national deficit and debt grew under Reagan and Bush 2, while it shrank under Clinton. Why? Because of factors other than taxation rates. In short, the whole argument is simply a sideshow designed by the far right to pay off their 'investors,' not because it has anything to do with national fiscal health. So, yes; although mocked, Senator Joe Biden was correct in calling the payment of taxes, for the good of the public, a patriotic thing. Taxes are not 'stealing,' but a de facto dues a citizen pays to share in the benefits the country's system brings- from defense to roads to Social Security- all what is known as 'the public commons.' No company or corporation (that fictive monster)- not Microsoft, Google, nor Walmart, has the fiscal capacity to pay for all of the infrastructure needed to bring goods and services to the public. They all should pay taxes because they all benefit from its bounty.

  And because Obama recognizes this, while McCain (at least publicly) does not, he got my vote, after three straight elections of voting for Ralph Nader. I do believe that, as the right claimed, Obama is a Manchirian Candidate- but for the middle and working classes, not for terrorists, Moslems, socialists, Communists, nor the like. He had to pay lip service to alot of bullshit (like being against gay marriage) just to get elected; so that he could stand against the Republican values of wholesale deregulation of industries and the concomitant redistribution of wealth, upward, is over. But, this makes him not a raging radical leftist, but a smart, principled, pragmatic centrist. Only those out in the right see him as a leftist. And this brings me to yet another shattered myth: that this race was Obama's to lose. Nonsense. It was never Obama's race to lose for one reason- he's black, and any assessments by talking heads and columnists that lack this component of the race is not worth a cent; as proven by McCain's racist campaign tactics. The reason McCain sank so low was because- unlike Kerry, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, and Goldwater, he will not be a footnote to history. He will always, now and forever, be the first white male to lose the American Presidency to a non-white and/or non-male person. He will likely be the most remembered loser in American Presidential history. And that stings to a guy like McCain. And don't give me any of that garbage about the media being in the tank for Obama- their lowest common denominator minions pounced all over l'affaires Wright, Rezko, and Ayers. But, the fact was that Obama's explanations were truthful, and nothing stuck because they were just bogus smears.

  In 2004, I said that stuff in this nation would have to get worse before the dumb and lazy American electorate would get off their asses and do the right thing. And they did, and do you think that we are now better prepared for the future under President Obama than President Kerry? I do. Recall that Ralph Nader, in 2000, correctly noted that there was little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. The Democrats were (and, sans Obama, Howard Dean, and a few others) basically Republicans Lite. They were a party of ciphers- seemingly determined to prove Nader correct, on issues like tax cuts, the Supreme Court appointees, the Iraq war, and many others, even if one grants the Republicans as the party of evil. The fact was that for a decade or more, after Newt Gingrich's rise and fall, the Republicans, at least, had ideas. Mostly bad, granted, but given a choice between a bad thing and nothing at all, the vast majority of people will always choose the bad something over the cipher. It's a hallmark of the lazy, indifferent, and plain old stupid way most people approach their votes. After all, one cannot argue for the general intelligence of the American public when the vast majority cannot balance their bank accounts every month, much less be wary enough in regards to more complex creatures like variable rate mortgages.

  And that fact- the human tendency to choose something over nothing, is the principle reason Obama is President-Elect today; because he stands for things, not just against Republicans. He and his posse are brimming with ideas; most of them sound; a few specious- such as tax cuts for most, when the nation is in an economic spiral. But, if I'm proven wrong, as I was in 1992, when I gave a chance to an untested governor named Bill Clinton, I'll have no compunction over turning my back on Obama, as I did Clinton, four years later; because, in fact, it will have ultimately been Obama who turned his back on me, and the electorate. But, I'm hoping that will not happen, for, there have only been a few pivotal Presidential elections in American history. The first was Democrat Andrew Jackson's 1824 loss to proto-Whig John Quincy Adams, after he won both the Popular and Electoral College votes, but was robbed of the Presidency in the House Of Representatives. This thwarting of the will of the people (far more blatant than even the now, inconsequential Supreme Court selection of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000- for that changed nothing four years later) by oligarchs (Adams was the son of a Founding Father and former President, John Adams) eventually led to Jackson's victory over Adams in 1828, and instituted the first reform of democracy to include poorer white males, and a thirty year dominance by Democrats. It also led, eventually, to the disaster of States' Rights, but so be it. 1860 was the next turning point, and Republican Abraham Lincoln's win over Democrats John C. Breckinridge and Stephen A. Douglas (for reasons so manifest as not to need mentioning) led to seven decades of Republican rule, until Herbert Hoover's and the Republican 's disastrous handling of the 1929 Stock Market Crash led to the Great Depression, and the ascendancy of Democrats. This third great electoral turning point lasted almost forty years, until the Age of Nixon, caused by the well documented self-immolation of the 1968 Democratic National Convention, precipitated by President Johnson's disastrous Vietnam War policies. Nixon's win was not so much about his bona fides as the Democrats' lack of them, but he was so skilled a politician that he paved the way for Reagan and the Bushes to push the country, yet again, to another brink of disaster.

  So, now, for the fifth time in our nation's 232 year history, a new era is potentially upon us. The first was born out of the bitterness of dishonest defeat, and the disenfranchisement of millions; the second out of the victory over hatred surrounding the noxious legacy and future of slavery; the third out of the victory due to the depths of the worst economic crisis in world history; the fourth due to the electoral defeat of liberalism by its then-chief proponent; and now this one, due to the victory of hope and positivity in the face of a Presidency that plunged the nation into two wars (one falsely inaugurated), the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents and soldiers, an economic disaster second only to the Great Depression, and a host of smaller social ills.

  Obama won not because he is black, but because he was the best candidate. Period. He ran a clean and positive campaign in an era of sleaze, xenophobia, and racism. Here's hoping that President Obama lives up to the rhetoric he preached on the stump. If he does, then he may crash the canonical triumvirate of inarguably great American Presidents: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. If not, and despite all the historic implications of his election, his Presidency will be recalled only for that- his election. All Americans should pull for the former. I will.

Copyright © by Dan Schneider, 6/4/08

  I am a political Independent who has voted in the last three Presidential General Elections for Ralph Nader. I did so, despite my Democratic roots, because I am a pragmatist and the last three Republican candidates for President were unappealing- not a budding Abe Lincoln nor Teddy Roosevelt in the lot. In 1992 I voted for Bill Clinton because of the disastrous 12 years of Reagan-Bush policies that destroyed the middle class, decimated the poor, and threatened civil liberties with their radical agenda for the Supreme Court. The choice was clear. The only other choices were the elder George Bush, who reaped the evil Ronald Reagan sowed, or a psychotic billionaire dwarf named Ross Perot, whose only vindication, all these years later, is that he was correct about the large flushing sound created by NAFTA. In 1996, after turning his back on the working class people who elected him, I turned my back on the President. Bob Dole was old and out of touch, as well as unwilling to shin the vile Right Wing Christians in his party, so I decided to never again do the lesser of two evils schtick. I voted for the most intelligent and honest person running, Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, and one of the greatest Americans of the Twentieth Century. I thereby took responsibility as a citizen in saying no to the corrupt duopoly of American politics, and washed my hands of the nonsense and wasted time that the next four years wrought.

  In 2000, two candidates who thought they were owed the Presidency by divine right ran. There was Vice President Al Gore, who thought so because of his political lineage and ties to President Clinton’s shallow economic successes which still left working class people in a worse position than they were eight years earlier. But, I saw Gore as a hack- a Right of Center Democrat with no real defining persona, and the Clinton-Gore years as a disaster for the ecology. Many nature groups claimed that the Democratic pair’s policies were worse than the preceding twelve years under Reagan Bush. Yet, Gore felt that he was owed the Presidency. Even more bizarrely, the Republican nominee, George W. Bush, felt he was owed the nomination because his dad had been President. After all, his ties to daddy had gotten him the Texas governorship where he actually did a good impersonation of Bill Clinton’s Presidency, not doing much of consequence. Yet, he was clearly even worse than Gore. Everyone, in all parties, saw that Bush was, in a phrase, dumb as shit, but he was more likable than the stiff and arrogant Gore. Both parties had chances to nominate better candidates for their parties. Democrats had the intelligent and principled former Senator Bill Bradley to pick, and Republicans had the straight-talking (pre-Iraq War Look-Aid drinking) Senator John McCain. Democrats ignored Bradley and McCain was slimed by Bush’s Christian Coalition.

  Naturally, the American electorate showed its utter stupidity and gave the rest of us the two most miserable candidates to choose from. As I did four years earlier, I chose Ralph Nader. Then, what should have been a blowout win for Gore turned into a nailbiter, and when thousands of black citizens were denied their right to vote in Florida, by Bush’s brother Jeb- the state’s governor, Bush won the state by a few hundred votes, and recounts were demanded, for, even despite the racist nature of denying the vote, Gore still actually won Florida, if one counted ‘hanging chads’ and dimpled ballots that clearly showed a preference for Gore. Then, in a move that vindicated all the worst fears of the arrogant Gore, Democrats blamed not Bush, and not Gore’s errors, for his loss, but the tiny portion of Nader voters for ‘robbing them,’ as if Nader voters were, by fiat, supposed to vote for Gore, who even lost his home state of Tennessee to Bush. The Supreme Court, stacked with Right Wingers from the Reagan-Bush years, then handed Bush the election by voting to not overturn things 5-4. Despite a popular vote win of more than half a million people, one Supreme Court justice selected the next President.

  Less than a year later, with the economy failing, and Bush having undercut the Clinton gains with a tax giveaway to the rich, who’ve never paid a fair share of their way in this nation’s history, 9/11 happened. We were attacked despite many warnings of it coming, that Bush ignored. Prior to 9/11, Bush had spent fewer days on the job than any President with a similar length of service as President. Vacationing was his mode, and, yet 9/11 made him instantly popular. He did nothing any other President would not do, yet his approval ratings soared to 90%, even as the economy tanked, and he spent the next year and a half lying the country into war with Iraq over WMDs that were nonexistent. The war has been a total failure and likely a disaster that will haunt American foreign policy for decades. The reality was a handful of psychotic criminals gulled the only global superpower into a war when a few well placed assassins and a trial or two would have ended things nicely. But, Bush wanted to go to war to a) avenge the attempt on his father’s life by agents of Saddam Hussein after the First Gulf War and b) assuage the oil barons that helped him to power.

  By 2004, with the war already having gone over a year past expected, with casualties mounting, and the economy failing, and with the lies that started the war being exposed, and the fact that 9/11 was preventable on the table, the Democrats had a very vulnerable President. They offered up an ex-general, Wesley Clark, who handled the Bosnian War with much more grace than his successors did in Iraq. They offered up a Clintonesque Southern lawyer turned Senator named John Edwards, but they chose the worst possible candidate going- John Kerry- a Vietnam War hero, but one who was divisive, had a very liberal track record, was a patrician, and worst of all, like Al; Gore, was stiff as Lurch from The Addams Family, and a terrible campaigner. What should have been another one term Bush Presidency was denied, as Kerry allowed lies about his past to go unanswered, while Bush won another close contest- this time legitimately. I again voted for Nader, given the ridiculous choices the two big parties offered, and shook my head as millions of my dimwitted countrymen refused to take responsibility for their actions. This time, Nader was not blamed, but Democrats were in disarray.

  Then came Bush’s Social Security scheme, Hurricane Katrina, a flurry of Republican sex scandals, a tanking economy, the mortgage crisis, soaring inflation due to rising gas costs, and a whole host of lesser problems. The Democrats took back the House of Representatives in 2006 after a generation in Republican hands. Then, by late 2006, the endless campaign for 2008 began. The Republicans offered up ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who like Bush, became a hero of 9/11 by doing nothing any other mayor would not do, despite low approval ratings of his own; the oleaginous governor of Massachusetts- Mitt Romney; and an affable ex-pator turned governor of Arkansas named Mike Huckabee. They all lost to a resurgent John McCain who, after being humiliated by Bush in 2000, became the President’s biggest Iraq War supporter. He stumbled early in the campaign, but rallied to beat the robotic Romney, the surprisingly tough Huckabee, and Giuliani- who ran the worst national campaign in modern political history.

  By contrast, the Democratic side seemed easy. Former First Lady and New York Senator Hillary Clinton was declared the ‘inevitable nominee, and for a year did little real campaigning. Running against her was a field of mostly unknowns, and now ex-Senator John Edwards, considered by many to be her only possible rival. But, emerging from the field was Senator Barack Obama, from Illinois. He developed a large grassroots campaign that reached out to millions of Americans who were disaffected or had never voted, and got them to donate small amounts of money. His campaign out-organized Clinton’s, and shocked the world with a victory in the Iowa caucuses. Caucuses were not like primaries, in that they were smaller, but with more passionate and informed participants. Clinton backers were stunned, for Clinton’s aura of inevitability was breached. She rallied to win the first New Hampshire primary, after crying in public, a stunt that- had a man done it (recall Ed Muskie in 1972) his campaign would have been done, and reclaimed the mantle of inevitability. But, Obama persisted, and they split wins in states up until February’s Super Tuesday. Getting past that date, which Clinton saw as her crowning date, meant that Obama had already gone farther than expected. Clinton had no plans for a campaign beyond that, and her coffers were running dry while Obama’s grew. He then won eleven consecutive state contests, the thing which gave him an insurmountable delegate and popular vote lead, even though Clinton rallied to split the remaining contests with Obama, and even though she won larger states. Her arrogance and ignorance of smaller states cost her dearly.

  Yet, Clinton refused to admit her defeat, and started a campaign of ‘personal destruction’ like that Republicans used against her husband. Whispered rumors of Obama’s being a Muslim were used, the ex-President, himself, alienated black voters with multiple comments of a racial vein, and the Clinton campaign tried to magnify small distractions outside of Obama’s purview (such as an ex-pastor’s televised rants, or Obama’s hazy ties to a real estate developer and an ex-Weatherman) against him, even though incidents like Vince Foster’s suicide, Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky, and Clinton’s own last minute pardons of 1960s radicals were all used against them. Then came the trump card- the faux cries of sexism. As proof were a few yahoos in Clinton crowds yelling misogynistic remarks. But, Obama never played the race card even though he was asked pointed questions of race, and had hecklers of his own. From her New Hampshire crying stunt onwards, Hillary Clinton wanted to be able to cry sexism despite blatant appeals to women touting her ‘softer side.’ By contrast, not once did Obama strike the pose as a ‘gangsta’ to appeal to young blacks. Then there was the now infamous Pennsylvania ‘debate.’ aired by ABC, in which hosts Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos clearly favored Clinton, giving her a pass on such things like her easily disproved lie of being First Lady and flying into a war zone with her daughter in Bosnia. Instead, they focused on the above mentioned nonsense, in an attempt to taint Obama to already racist-leaning whites in Appalachia, with such important queries as to Obama’s not wearing a U.S. flag lapel pin.

  But, most insidious of all was the mainstream media’s utter gullibility in swallowing all of Clinton’s claims with no further examination. The first and most obviously disprovable one was her claim of being ‘more experienced’ than Barack Obama. As of the star of this year, Clinton had seven years of public service as a U.S. Senator to Obama’s three. But, Obama had served eight years in the Illinois State Senate, giving him four more years of ‘experience than Clinton. Both had years of service in the private sector, as lawyers, professors, community activists, etc., but Clinton’s claim was, on its face, a disprovable lie the media never mentioned. In effect, Clinton claimed as experience, her husband’s years of service as President and governor of Arkansas, as if the ribbon-cuttings of First Ladyship were qualifications. Imagine never having gone to medical school, but your husband is a brain surgeon, and claiming that qualified you you to be a surgeon. It’s simply absurd.

  There were many other instances of Clinton’s control of the media narrative, even as she claimed that the press was pro-Obama. The most ridiculous being that she has won the popular vote in the Democratic primaries. This is factually wrong. In the five major metrics, Obama beat Clintom in all of them. He won more delegates, more superdelegates, more primaries, more caucuses, and more popular votes. With the last of the primaries, in South Dakota and Montana, done, let us look at the stats. Even Clinton cannot dispute Obama’s delegate and superdelegate wins. Nor can she claim that she won more primaries or caucuses. Her only claim is that she won the popular vote. There are many different claims, but they are all fairly consonant, so I will use the stats of the Political news aggregator site Real Clear Politics: Despite not counting caucus totals, Obama has an over 40,000 vote lead- a much greater than the ‘lead’ Bush had over Gore in Florida in 2000. Yet, that does not count the votes cast in caucus states, and since Caucus states have lower turnouts, it also underrepresents real support. Nonetheless, Obama’s popular vote margin is over 150k with the caucus tallies. Still a close race in a contest where nearly 40 million people participated, and not even counting the organized efforts by Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton to screw Obama. These figures do not include the Michigan primary, where Obama played by the rules and did not campaign. As in Florida, Obama and Edwards played by the rules, and after pledging to also do so, Clinton broke her promise when she ‘won’ the two contests. But, in Florida, many stayed home because they knew the Democrats were not going to certify the vote, and the same is true in Michigan, where, even without Obama on the ballot, he still got 40% of the vote with uncommitted. While Clinton would likely have squeaked by in Florida, Obama, most polls showed, would have won Michigan. Does anyone think gaining 11% of the vote would have been difficult had he campaigned there, and gotten the 40% uncommitted, as well?

  Some argue that the compromise reached at the DNC Rules Committee this past weekend means the votes were legitimized. Not so- it only means they were used as a guidestick to apportion the delegates, and the Obama camp generously allowed the Clintons, despite their cheating, to have the majority of delegates for those two states. The penalty was only half a vote for those two states. So, let us start with a 152k lead for Obam,a in all the primaries, and also remove the Florida tally, which, unlike Michigan, the RCP numbers counts. Thus, in all sanctioned contests in states and territories, Obama gains the 294,000 margin he lost the Florida primary to Clinton. That means he actually won the real popular vote by 446,000 votes, or almost thje margin Gore beat Bush by the popular vote in 2000. But, even applying Clintonian logic, if we use the DNC judgment that each vote should be half a vote, Clinton’s 294,000 edge in Florida becomes 147,000 and her edge over Obama’s uncommitted- 88,000, in Michigan, becomes 44,000. That changes Obama’s 446,000 vote win to 255,000. A quarter of a million votes is not chump change. Clinton can only claim a popular vote win if she discounts all the Michigan uncommitted, adds the two invalid primaries, and discounts all of Obama’s caucus wins. Now, imagine a professional sports league, at the end of their season, declaring that a team that made the playoffs, due to regular season wins, was being favored for a team that did not, but finished three games behind the in the regular season, but had four more preseason victories- games that all the participants acknowledge do not count. It’s absurd, and would be laughable. Yet, even illegitimately doing that, popular vote is not the issue. Clinton’s own campaign only raised that issue when it became clear she would lose the popular vote legitimately, and after they had, for all of 2007, said the race was based on the delegate count.

  Now, let’s turn to a final issue, re: Senator Clinton. We have seen that two major claims she makes are phony. 1) she is less experienced than Obama in politics, and 2) she has lost in all five major metrics for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Why was she running for President? Given her inexperience, her support of Bush’s wars, and her lackluster Senate record, her candidacy would be a joke, save for her last name. Imagine she were Hillary Jones, Senator from Idaho. Would she have ever been considered ‘inevitable’? Would she have won a single primary or caucus? Would she have even outdone Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 run fro the Presidency? Given her temperament, her horrible skills on the stump (just watch Bill campaign for her and the chasm between their people skills is gaping), her lackluster debating skills, and her air of arrogance and personal baggage, it’s a joke. And, had it not been for Rudy Giuliani’s disastrous run for President, her campaign would be proclaimed the worst run primary campaign in recent history. If she could not even run a good campaign, with all of her built in advantages and pedigree, her claims of being ready from ‘Day One’ to be President seem utterly silly. Who else but someone with her last name (and recall how quickly the ‘Rodham’ disappeared when it was convenient to siphon off her husband’s name) could have lost eleven consecutive races by blowouts, wasted millions of dollars, and survived politically? And, if she could not discern Bush’s lies about the Iraq War, nor handle her husband while he was n office, much less on the stump, how can she be expected to clean up the Bush mess? Add to that Clinton fatigue, her delusions and narcissism (witness her supposed concession speech after Obama clinched the nomination)- especially opposed to Obama’s ‘new politics. Her whole campaign was based upon the fallacy that Democrats wanted a third term for Bill Clinton. They did not. Nor do they want a third term for George W. Bush.

  Thus, I turn from where we’ve been to where we are going, and the McCain-Obama race. I voted for Obama in the Texas primary, and will do so in the fall, because he embodies many of the traits that Ralph Nader does. He has risen above the politics of division- just read the text of his ‘race speech.’ He has also seen circumstances favor him- a black man, like rarely happens. Five years ago he was unknown. Now he has a better than 50-50 shot against McCain, and I will sketch out his path to electoral victory, which I feel will split the difference between the two electoral victories Bush and Clinton claimed.

  But, let me just state that there will be a female President. But, she will follow the Obama path to victory, not the Clinton one. She will be relatively unknown, but savvy, not fat and sassy. She will work hard and catch a historical break like Obama did- the wake of the Bush disaster, thus be created by her times; most likely unforeseen even in the prior election cycle. She will represent the best of her sex, not the worst, as Obama does of his race; and she will exude humility and vision- two things Hillary Clinton cannot even define, much less embody. Recall how, in the early 1990s, Hillary Clinton- like many arrogant Feminists, mocked stay at home moms with her ‘cookie-baking’ remark? She will also work to win the nomination, not just expect it giftwrapped because of who she is. Recall, the last time we had a President with such a sense of entitlement we got the current President. She will also show more aplomb and class in defeats- witness Clinton’s demagoguery about Florida and Michigan- after she broke her word, comparing them to Zimbabwe’s human rights violations or the civil rights movement, despite the fact that the two states knowingly flouted party rules, thus disenfranchising voters, no matter the outcome. Yet, still Obama compromised, only to be scorned as a fool by the Clinton supporters for his fairly playing by the rules. Even Donna Brazile- a well known Democratic flack, was stunned at how the Clinton people treated the magnanimity of Obama, when he was wholly in the right.

  Now, on to the general election. I said that Obama will win with a count between the Bush and Clinton Margins- thus in the low 300s of the 538 total electoral votes. There are many electoral maps, but let me use this one. And let’s start with the 2004 electoral map, which had a 286-251 win for Bush over Kerry, which was really 286-252 because of a Kerry Voter switching to Edwards. Working on the presumption that McCain and Obama would win the same states, that’s a 286-252 win for McCain. I will now be generous in my estimations for McCain. Of the Democratic states McCain could pick up we have really only Michigan and New Jersey, with 17 and 15 electoral votes respectively. Those lost 32 means Obama’s got a solid 220 electoral votes. On the other hand, there are far more many states in play on McCain’s side, because, unlike Clinton (who would follow the Gore-Kerry losing strategy), Obama would be waging an offensive not defensive campaign. Let’s see the Bush states that are no cinch for McCain: The Democrats have made big gains out west, so Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico are in play. That’s 3, 3, 9, and 5 votes. Toss in Nevada’s 5, and Bush's 286 goes to 261. Iowa went Bush, but went crazy for Obama- so I see that in play. Minus 7 = 254 for McCain. A bad economy and the war means that the Mississippi Valley is in play. Missouri has 11, Arkansas 6, Louisiana 9 (adding in Hurricane Katrina resentment), and Mississippi 6 (more Katrina) are in play, especially with likely record black turnouts. 254 minus 32 = 222. Now, McCain’s secure lead is only 2 electoral votes ahead of Obama. Florida is in play- so that’s 27 votes Mac has to work for- or down to 195. The Carolinas are likely still Republican, but one might go for Obama. Let’s be conservative and say it’s South Carolina’s 8 votes. McCain is now down to 179. The two Virginias are in play. West Virginia is 5, and Virginia 13 votes. Mac now at 161 solid electoral votes. That leaves Indiana and Ohio as Bush states in play. Ohio because of the economy and Indiana because it’s close to Illinois. That’s 20 and 11, 31 more Red State votes in play means 130 solid votes for McCain and 228 for Obama.

  That means McCain needs to rack up 140 electoral votes to Obama’s 42. Let’s go with likely results and polling. First up is out West: McCain gets 11 votes from Wyoming, Nevada and Montana- in two squeakers, while Obama turns New Mexico and Colorado blue, for 14 votes = an Obama 242-141 lead, as the Democrats pick up growing Hispanic bases in both the states, as well as immigrants from back east. Now, let’s give Mac Michigan and Florida, due to resentment over the Democratic primaries, and Obama leads 242-185, although I think Michigan will likely stay Democratic, and Florida could also flip. But, the best case for McCain, here. Onto the Mississippi valley: Missouri and Iowa border Illinois, so Obama gets them- he’s up to 260. Of Arkansas, Mississipi, and Louisiana, I think Obama gets 1 of the 3- likely Mississippi, with the biggest black population. That’s 15 for McCain, and 6 for Obama. Tally = 266-200 Obama.

  Now, Obama will retain New Jersey and win over Ohio- the economy is just too bad, and even a half-hearted help from Clinton and local politicians will put him over the top. But, McCain picks off Indiana’s Republican majority. So, now Obama has a 301-211 lead, and he’s the first black President, with 3 Dixie states to go. Georgia stays Red- 15 votes = 226, and the Virginias split- Virginia goes Blue with 13, and West Virginia stays Red, with 5. Obama wins 314-2224. But, let’s say Dixie stays red, and Virginia, South Carolina and Mississippi go McCain: McCain- now it’s 287-251 Obama- or an electoral vote better than Bush in 2004. But, if being realistic, ravaged Michigan stays blue, due to record turnout- so now it’s 304-234, Obama. Now, let’s say the West (Colorado & New Mexico) stays Red and Iowa and Missouri stay Red. Obama still squeaks by 272-266. But, that ignores demographics, the Obama phenomenon, the war, and the economy. Whether slim or solid, Obama will have McCain on the defensive throughout the year. Giving Obama Michigan, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia, and ceding South Carolina, and Mississippi gives Obama a reasonable 317-221 win.

  Plus, there are a variety of events that could lead to even better Obama numbers- the reverted loyalty of Clinton supporters, the enthusiasm of Obama supporters drowning out unrepentant racists, a good VP choice like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana to turn Indiana and Ohio Blue, and McCain’s gaffe-ability. Can you imagine the shit-eating grin and sneer McCain used against Mitt Romney working in a debate with a younger, more informed, and more confident Obama? The stench of a flustered old man could easily give Obama South Carolina ns Mississippi back, plus Nevada and Montana. and we are at 339-199, Obama. And, if we are going best case scenario, if one of the Carolinas flips, it could be North not South, and in that case were are 346-192, or if both go, 354-184. In 1992, Clinton beat Bush 370-168 and in 1996 he bumped it up to 379-159. So, when I state Obama can and will likely win between Bush’s totals of 271 and 286 and Clinton’s margins, I think it’s a reasonable outcome, barring Obama’s campaign derailing after defeating a much tougher Clinton candidacy.

  As to other pundit’s predictions. I don’t think there’s a chance McCain can win Pennsylvania- it’s gone more Democratic in the last eight years, and has reams of black voters who will cast their first votes for Obama. Michigan and Ohio could both go blue, but, even in my above scenarios, I give McCain Ohio and Obama Michigan. If Obama gets Ohio and its wretched economy augurs he might (forget the primaries) then he could reach Clinton’s electoral numbers. Republicans feel Minnesota and Wisconsin are in play. I lived there a dozen years, and they might go Red with a Republican who was against the war and not a Bush acolyte. McCain keeps them Blue by 5-10% points. This is not 2000 nor 2004, and Obama is not Gore and Kerry- he is now tougher due to the Clintonian mud machine, and people respond to it. But, like it or not. McCain is neither himself from eight years ago, nor has he the affability that Bush used to get over the top. Add to that a wrecked economy, Obama touting McCain’s support for a war 75% of Americans oppose and acknowledge a mistake, the most unpopular Republican President in office since Nixon or Hoover (depending on which polls you believe), and a desire for change, and you have the makings of history.

  But, let me now outline Obama’s strengths, since the bulk of this essay has detailed how he differs from Hillary Clinton and John McCain. First, while there is a broad consonance with the overall views Senator Clinton has, there is a great deal of difference, and it only starts with Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq. As a grassroots organizer, Obama’s solutions are bottom up, not top down, as Clinton’s are, with Beltway insiders and ‘experts’ crafting policy. Obama wants to throw open the political process and have commissions and hearings broadcast on C-SPAN. This is precisely why many Republicans, and more Independents, lean toward him. While they may not agree with an end, they find his approach more suited to theirs, Clinton’s, or Bush’s. His healthcare plan is the best offered this year- far better than McCain’s health accounts nonsense, and without the No Child Left Behind-like mandates of the Clinton plan. The fact is that there will be no truly universal medical coverage unless Medicare is expanded, and that’s more likely to come under a freethinking oBama than Clinton or McCain. His foreign policy of being open stands in stark contrast to the hundred years war of McCain and the ‘Nuke Iran’ posturing of Clinton. Unlike McCain and Clinton, Obama made waste of the silly and gimmicky gas tax holiday those two touted.

  And, even with all the bruising of the Democratic nomination battle, McCain is still a few percentage points behind nationally, and Obama can win states Clinton would never have a chance in. McCain has squandered the opportunity that most early clinching candidates get, while Obama conserved cash over the last several months, forcing the Clinton campaign into virtual bankruptcy, while flying in on cruise control the last two months, splitting the last 16 contests, and actually winning Texas- his slim 100,000 vote loss (due to Republican tactics) was more than offset by a huge caucus win that netted him more delegates from the state. As for Obama the man? He has just one real negative to work on- he has to man up, and be a little harder on McCain. He went easy on Clinton, partly because she’s a woman and partly because he did not want to appear the Angry Negro. He wanted to be Sidney Poitier not Wesley Snipes. But, while spurning the Good Negro, he need not become Angry, merely Passionate. He will kill McCain in the debates, especially on the Iraq war. What could Clinton really say to differentiate herself from McCain?

  As for Clinton as Vice President? Forget it. She would cost far more votes than she adds. 50% of people won’t vote for her to start with, and her recent petulance and deceit has only turned off more people. Obama might reap 1 or 2% in the female vote, but lose 3-4 times as many voters to the Independent-appealing McCain. Plus, Bill Clinton and his post-Presidency financial ties, could cost even more, while Hillary could never sublimate her ego for the good of the ticket. She has not done so for the party even though, as shown, were she not a Clinton her candidacy would have been long over. Instead, Obama should just blithely ignore her like the crazy old aunt of the Democratic Party she’s fast becoming. He is the best candidate for President left (I originally backed Edwards, but his game-playing in the endorsement folly lost him points in my book- speaking of manning up)- easily better than Hillary Clinton and John McCain and, yes, even better than the man I voted for the last three times out. There won’t be a fourth one. Sorry, Ralph, but you’re still a hero in my book. Be ready to serve when President Obama calls on you next year.