The "five mistakes" are kind of telling, in that these are not the kind of mistakes that I would have wanted a potential president to make. And when I say "deserve," I mean it -- look at the frickin' delegate count lead Obama has, which has remained constant for far longer than Hillary should have been in the race. Time Magazine's list:
1. She misjudged the mood.
2. She didn't master the rules.
3. She underestimated the caucus states.
4. She relied on old money.
5. She never counted on a long haul.
What does this add up to? "Out of touch" and "arrogant" spring to mind. Oh, and "elitist," a term she has (inexplicably!) trying to pin on Obama.
As I've said before, when I called it right, and I'll say again -- it's time for Hillary to step aside.
I've come a long way since I first decided to tentatively decide my conscience and realize that Obama was going to be a great candidate, or stop believing the line that "no one would really vote for a Black president" and that once in the voting booths, white people just couldn't punch it for a black man (and they call ME the cynic, right?), or the accusation that the real hope and excitement Obama supporters see was "cultish" and MLK's greatness was diminished as "just words", or when the Clintons started pulling out the "kitchen sink" and engaging in a politics of "hopelessness", And even after Obama actually WON Texas, and didn't win Ohio (which didn't even affect his delegate lead, but the media kept reporting it as a "loss"), or the Wright non-fiasco that was absolutely racist in the way the media chose to put Obama's feet to the fire but let the far more crazy of the religious crazies with far closer actual ties to other candidates (both past and present) completely off the hook, even as he handled it by dropping the science and one of the most important pieces of political rhetoric in a century...
Obama's come a long way, too, and more than earned the right to shake of the "all talk" jabs by holding his own against anything that Clinton threw at him, by taking the high ground, by actually not engaging in the dirty pool that he claims to not want to play. His money came from average people and not old money, he planned ahead, he had a pulse on the sentiments of the people.
How is he not completely and obviously better qualified than Hillary to be nominated? What remaining reservations are there? Ah, he's not a realist, we need a connected political animal to get things done? She has "more experience?" Pshaw. Is that all that's left?
In a way, it doesn't matter. Obama's done the do-diligence. He's run the political gauntlet, even as people (including myself) were half covering their faces and hoping that he wouldn't fall flat on his face, and as he not only didn't, but continued to display his appropriateness for the job, and many on the side of the fence who might actually vote for him have continued to be emboldened enough to be more vocal about their support for him.
Many African-Americans were initially quite skeptical about his prospects at the beginning -- and did not offer the kind of blind support that many seem to assume was given only because he was black (umm, Jesse Jackson was also black, but let's not nitpick...) Now, Obama's completed the tough task of convincing these final cynics -- us.
What people fail to realize in this myopic, horse-race way of dealing with political races in the US, is that Obama has already changed a lot of the rules of the game, has raised the level of political discourse, has already raised the bar again for what can be hoped for in politics. Is the job done? No.
But the man ain't even President yet. And prognosticating naysaying aside (since he's made it through a whole heaping helping of that and come out rosy), what if...just what if...his candidacy actually reflects what he does as president?
Imagine that!
My vote's right where it's been since December, 2007.
And yeah, I told you so.
