Mathematics and Mrs. Clinton

3/22/08

In the 2000 election, America was treated to the embarrassing spectacle of a politician doing anything he could to get elected. Al Gore changed his suits, changed his speaking style, changed anything that could be changed in order to kiss the ass of the American voter. I suppose you could say that all of the focus group feedback and campaign adviser urged adjustments paid off, as he did wind up with 48.4% of the popular vote. But perhaps you noticed, he wasn’t elected President.

In 2004, John Kerry trod the usual Democrat path against the Rove Machine and garnered 48.7% of the vote. (Perhaps you noticed, he wasn’t elected President, either.) A few days after that election, Bill Maher joked, "The Democrats have been ignited. They’ve already started work on losing the next election." That joke made me laugh, but I’m not laughing anymore.

Hillary Clinton is showing her true colors in this extended Democratic nomination process, a win-at-all-costs personality. After every major primary event she reinvents herself anew, like a brand that keeps modifying the packaging as it estimates how to gain maximum market share. She spends more time talking about what’s wrong with Barack than what’s right with her, she is willing to slay him in the press and sully his chances if he gets into the final showdown with McCain---in short, I am convinced she is more interested in getting herself elected than in either the success of her party or the defeat of the opposition.

While much is made about gender and race in this election, I reiterate my previous opinion that "woman" is synonymous with "Hillary Clinton" as accurately as "athlete" is synonymous with "Barry Bonds"---a vote against Hillary is not a vote against women, it’s a vote against self-serving, egomaniacal politician. (Though I will grant that any vote in a presidential election is likely for a self-serving egomaniacal politician.) To me, the Dems have a choice between a chameleon versus an orator. I think America needs to be inspired, needs to be reminded that it is not mere might that makes us great, that justice should be demonstrated by example rather than imposed by force, and that we earned our greatness through concerted effort and concerted effort will be required to maintain that greatness. I’m supporting the orator.

Yet while her gender is irrelevant to me, I don’t think it’s irrelevant in a national election, and I’m concerned that Clinton is fighting for her political life in a warm-up match while ignoring a dark reality that will arise in the final match-up: A certain percentage of Americans, for whatever personal biases they possess, are not going to vote for a woman for President. (Any woman, let alone this woman.)

And that dark reality causes me to imagine this equation:

Recent history shows us that the nation is basically divided in half, Democrats and Republicans. In 2004, Bush was the first President since 1988 (4 Presidential elections) to exceed 50% of the vote (50.7%) So let’s presume that 50% of the voters are willing to support the Democrats. What percentage of those voters will not vote to promote a woman to the oval office? For this argument, let’s estimate 10% will not vote for a woman. Roughly half of those will be Democrats (5%), so her 50% is now down to 45%.

That’s it, the math lesson is over. Election lost. Bill Maher’s joke is definitely not funny anymore.

Would the same thing be true of an African-American president? Perhaps, though I agree with Gloria Steinem (and a huge cast of others) that sexism is a stronger political prejudice than racism in this nation. (A sad commentary on America’s progress as an enlightened nation.) Should Hillary bow out because there is a chance that sexism will influence the election? Absolutely not---but she should at least focus her campaign on her own merits rather than discrediting her competitor. I heard a speech where she talked about "experience", and how Bush was inexperienced, and how Obama is inexperienced---I was stunned that she would sink low enough to compare Obama to Bush, the arch nemesis of the Democratic party. Plain and simple, that’s dirty pool, and it demonstrates that her personal scruples take a backseat to her ambition.

There’s nothing inspiring about that.