Hillary Goes Winehouse

Note to Hillary Clinton: Do NOT mention past assassinations EVER. Doing so makes a candidate appear desperate, and fundamentally unelectable.

Welcome to the ash heap of history.

It is not enough to apologize or repent the statement. The fact that it was made is indicative of contemplation, a musing of the unthinkable. The idea of an assassination has been the elephant in the room during this campaign cycle. Every candidate has a situation which could make him or her vulnerable to the perversity of political murder.

Is the voter supposed to accept that Senator Clinton's expulsion of the Robert Kennedy reference was a gaffe, or a reaction to the news about Edward Kennedy's brain tumor? If one wishes to reference naivete, by all which is holy, even my Fruit of the Looms, accepting that premise is the acme and the zenith of naivete.

The voter is aware of the unlikelihood of Clinton's nomination, and one must take as given that Senator Clinton is aware that her chances are past waning, and sitting on gone. Her body language and phrasing indicate the desperation of a human being so invested in a goal that the possibility of non-attainment has only recently become present in her awareness. Senator Clinton is at the point of an individual who has fallen from a high point, and states that so far she's okay...but she hasn't hit the bottom just yet.

It is the denial and self-delusion of the teenager who has applied to universities beyond the scope of his abilities as defined by College Board scores and grade point average. Aiming for the stratos is not enough if one is using a paper airplane to achieve orbit.

Until Friday, one felt regret for the Clinton campaign on some levels. She had the organization and the talent to overcome all but the greatest candidate of a generation. She found a voice that connected with a portion of the electorate which was historically underrepresented. And then Senator Clinton found herself in the position of being the Rolling Stones to Obama's Beatles.

The problem was that Hillary Clinton had been under the illusion that she was the Beatles, and Obama was the Rolling Stones. Senator Clinton is now on the path of becoming the Dave Clark Five. They were the first band to score a number one hit after the Beatles' first wave of success on American shores, now lost to most people under fifty.

Kids may be able to find the Dave Clark Five on vinyl at the flea market, although a turntable may prove troublesome to locate.

And now this abomination of referring to the Robert Kennedy assassination. It remains in your Wandering Gentile's memory, despite being a day short of 18 months when it happened, so vivid was the reaction in a modest home in suburban Tampa. In a decade marred by violence, the stilling of Robert Kennedy's voice was the irreconcilable break between progressive politics and optimism for two generations.

When the racial undertone of comments such as "...white working people," and appeals to Appalachian America are considered, one is forgiven for inferring a reference to the assassination of the last political figure to successfully marry optimism and liberalism as meaning "...take this (epithet of the reader's choice) out, and keep the White in the White House!"

One sincerely hopes that the Senator from New York was not making a case to base bigotries in a society where people of color are challenged by the reactionary tendencies of those who define their existence and self-worth by a measure beyond their control. Regrettably, Mrs. Clinton is not in a position of making a case for her innocence now. She did not choose to disavow the explicit urgings of Limbaugh and Coulter. Her tacit acceptance of such taint her credibility beyond suitability for the electorate.

Is Senator Clinton's pursuit of high office so single minded, so fundamentally needy, that her life cannot proceed if denied the position she desperately wants? The voter hopes for someone who serves in office, as opposed to wielding the position as leverage against real and perceived disputes past and present. The last twenty years are characterized by the perception that the holder of the presidency is wielding the office for personal gain, from one party or the other.

There are 300 million people in this country who function pretty well without holding a position of prestige and authority. They may have obstacles along the way, but the Clinton campaign has taken a big step away from that connection with the many not empowered by a famous name and powerful connections. If Hillary Clinton is an example of what happens with such leverage at the individual's disposal, one suspects that he is better off doing without.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, has achieved his fortunes without the patronage of a well-connected spouse, or a reputation etched in granite by eight years in the public forum in a position of no actual authority. He has persuaded thousands of American voters by virtue of his oratory and idealism, and is capable of more still.

That is, Senator Obama will achieve more success, and will not have to rely upon the misfortune of others to afford him opportunities that he can make on his own.

At some point in the future, a confident, assured, and very able woman will become President.

Unfortunately, Senator Clinton does not fulfill all of the preceding criteria.