Not an Endorsement of Hillary Clinton:
Some things are beyond our control. Whether we like it or not, there's shit that's gonna fall on us that will change who we are - the death of a child, an awful auto accident, the fire that burns down the factory. It is hopelessly, horribly frustrating because, of the thousand things you think you could have done differently to change your fate, not one of them can be done now. And not that it would have worked. You're playing a fool's game - yeah, if you'd turned down a different road on the way to the store, you might not have been side-swiped, but, hell, you also might have been hit head-on.

Then there's those things that change everyone's perception of you, shit you didn't do, circumstances you couldn't have foreseen, the virulence of others. Ask Richard Jewell, who did not plant a bomb in Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park. Ask Ralph Nader, who could not have anticipated how truly destructive a George W. Bush presidency would be. And ask Hillary Clinton, who, through little fault of her own, is as polarizing figure as one could ask for, if one is a Republican.

There's many, many reasons not to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Some are very personal: she just deeply creeps the fuck out of the Rude Pundit; he trusts her with power about as much as he trusts a coke addict who wants to borrow his iPod. Some less so, like the sense of entitlement that pervades her candidacy, as if we are voting for what she deserves, not what we do. Some are bogus: if having been the relatively politically inexperienced spouse of a President disqualifies you, then so should being the inexperienced son of one. Some are debatable: her health care plan, her war vote and her refusal to apologize for it, her husband's role in her administration. But one thing, above all others, makes the Rude Pundit give his touch-screen finger of love to Barack Obama, and it has little to do with what Hillary Clinton believes or does.

The Rude Pundit still believes the rotting corpse of a skunk could beat John McCain in the general election, but if anyone could lose it for the Democrats, it'd be Hillary Clinton. Because, despite what Ann Coulter says about conservatives running from McCain, somewhere in some cellar in some Little Rock or DC mansion, there's a machine that's been whirring its gears on low for the last seven years that's getting greased up and ready to kick into full speed once more, and it's aching to chew up Clinton, ready to get sticky with her blood and bones, for once it's really chugging, that fucker needs to be fed, ready to spew once again to willing, slavering media dogs who lap up that anti-Clinton vomit like it's kibble from Walter Cronkite's ass.

The thing is that, if it's Clinton vs. McCain, the press is gonna be fellating McCain with all the suction force of a Hoover on deep pile because of his come-from-behind victory, because he has been fondling their balls in the back of the Straight Talk Express since 2000. Because everyone is a product of their learned behavior, and if the Clintons react to the Obama speed train like it's run by Richard Mellon Scaife because that's what they know, the media will turn on Hillary Clinton even more so, because that's what they know.

Yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos's Hair, Clinton tried to turn her PTSD over her treatment by the right and the media into a plus for her, a minus for Obama: "You know, general elections are much more contested. The other side has no compunction about raising any issue against whomever they're running against. And we haven't seen that tested and vetted experience in this primary. And frankly, you know, in his prior election in Illinois, Senator Obama didn't face anyone who ran attack ads against him. He ran against a very weak opponent without resources or credibility. So I believe that this will be a very tough fought general election."

Clinton's right, of course, that it's gonna be savage in the general election, but it's easier to attack Clinton because there's a precedent for attacking a Clinton, Bill and Hillary. We are inured to it. There is no precedent for attacking someone like Obama without it being, well, perceived as racist. And surely there will be blatantly racist attacks, as Clinton surrogates have done already, and surely the attacks on Clinton would be sexist, but, at the end of the day, we, the electorate, are products of our learned behavior.

We've learned to laugh at the Clintons, we've learned to hear the attacks and have them re-affirm our positions, good or ill. Plus, let's not forget the Don't-Break-the-Ice factor: if there is something in Bill or Hillary's recent or distant past that hasn't been vetted and dissected, and it does come out during a general election, it'll just cause all the old, discredited scandals and failures to rear their ugly, pus-filled heads.

Goddamn, Barack Obama is an inspiring motherfucker. Sure, he's basically just slightly outside the DLC establishment policy-wise, but what a unifying figure he could be, in the same way Clinton would divide the nation, perhaps to eke out that 51% victory. The way Obama appeals to an energized youth movement, the wounds he heals, the very nature of his ability to speak eloquently and authoritatively about those things that have harmed us and those that can unite us, it's all just so...fucking presidential - really, honestly, not-a-CEO, but a President.

Imagine that against crazy, angry, old John McCain instead of Hillary Clinton and her baggage. No, it ain't Clinton's fault. She didn't pack those bags. But they're hers to carry.