http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-handler/imagine_b_102502.htmlImagine
Evan Handler
Posted May 19, 2008 | 04:40 PM (EST)
A lot has been written and said since the West Virginia primary about what recent results indicate in regard to Barack Obama's chances in a general election. Some of it's been said by pundits, in print and on television, and some of it's been said by mere citizens. A lot of it's been said by Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff. "He can't win," the argument seems to go. There are a lot of "hard working" people who'll never vote for a black man, and that's why we're staying in the race.
But I've got questions for Senator Clinton, her campaign staff, and her supporters. Do you think he can't win on his own, once his flaws have been picked apart by both Republicans and members of his own party? Or, do you think he couldn't win, even with your quick endorsement and unambivalent support?
For instance, what if the results of the most recent primaries had been followed by a statement from Hillary Clinton saying that she'd seen the exit polls, and that anyone who said they'd never vote for an African American candidate ought to be ashamed of themselves? It wouldn't be a revolutionary statement for Hilary Clinton to make. After all, doesn't she condemn the thinking that would lead a voter to make such a statement? And, if she does, then why would she choose, as she did, to try to expose and exploit the stated bigotry for her own gain, as opposed to condemning it? It's puzzled me. Down by an insurmountable margin, the opportunity was there to state that the reason given by many voters for opposing Obama were reprehensible. Yet she didn't do that. Talk about a missed opportunity to exit on high ground.
I assume there are those who'll say it's not her job to support another candidate while a primary race is still being run. But there is no mathematical way for her to win the primary race. There is only the hope -- and the possibility -- of exposing and exploiting Barack Obama's shortcomings, and the concurrent bigotry of much of the voting public, to the point where he is transformed from a viable, though flawed, candidate, into an unviable one. Which leads me back to another version of my original question: If sincere efforts by Senator Clinton and her supporters could lead to either Senator Obama's victory, or his defeat, why wouldn't they exercise their substantial influence for the former?
snip//
I've spent some time imagining how transformative it would have been if a statement from Senator Clinton had emerged immediately following the West Virginia primary, or any time since. "I'm pleased to have the support of so many Americans who believe I would better represent them as President of the United States. However, the reasons given by many of those supporters troubles me. We are, and should be, long past the time when a man's skin color, or a woman's gender, should have any impact on whether or not he or she receives your vote. I'd like to be the first woman to serve as president of the United States. Senator Obama would like to be the first American of African decent to hold the office. Each one of us is qualified to serve. If I'm chosen as the candidate of my party, I'll hope for, and expect, Senator Obama's unwavering support. And if he is the party's eventually nominee, he'll certainly have mine -- just as he should have the unwavering support of anyone who has supported me."
Imagine that.