Electability, again

My previous post got linked to and discussed on other blogs. It may be worth clarifying what I meant.

First, about my preferences:

If you've followed my blog, you'll realize that while I lean for Obama, neither is my ideal candidate. Frankly, I am more left than either of them. Edwards would have been my choice and even he wasn't left enough.

I have some policy differences with Hillary Clinton, most notably about her AUMF vote and unwillingness to repudiate it. (As to my other differences with her, I could make nearly the same complaints about Obama.) But that aside, I think she is smart enough and competent enough to be good president. No doubt about that.

I don't have a gender or race bias per se. If either of these two becomes president, I'd be mighty proud that it happened.

The problem:

My biggest issue with Hillary Clinton is that she is disadvantaged, electability-wise. We can ill-afford to take the chance.

Let's posit that the Democrats have, say, a 20-point advantage in this election - if the nominee is a white male. I think Hillary Clinton's disadvantage eats up that 20 points and puts us in another situation like in 2000, where Republican shenanigans could throw the election.

Strike one: I think that gender bias is far deeper and broader than racial bias, though both exist in spades, pardon the expression. What's more, it is easier for the Republicans to play to that bias because we (the electorate) don't recognize sexism and gender "cards", or when we see it, we more readily dismiss it. I'm not justifying or liking that fact, I'm just saying it.

Strike two: The Clintons are hated by many people. Some polls measure the hatred at up to 45%. What's more, the Republicans can use that hatred to motivate their base to vote against Clinton, even if they're not terribly motivated to vote for their own candidate.

Strike three: Although it may be starting to wear off, the electorate has been under the spell of the alpha male and living in fear of unseen enemies. I think that's still a problem, and that Hillary is not the electorate's idea of the answer. Think about it: If there is a terrorist incident or if a new war front opens just before the election, who would look better to the electorate? Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

Maybe you want to count that third strike as just another way to say gender bias. Fine, but I think it's significant enough to be recognized on its own.

I don't know how to actually measure these disadvantages, but I strongly feel they could add up to enough points to negate that (arbitrary) 20-point advantage, putting us at the mercy of Diebold.

So I'm saying that, in this election, we cannot afford to take the risk. We must get the Republicans out of the White House. Even if Hillary Clinton is otherwise worthy of the presidency, and even if it is inherently unfair to her, we can't afford to make this election the one where we first put a woman in the White House.