Complexicated Voting Strategery

I found this article interesting:

What's A Perverse Voter To Do?
Vote McCain to advance top liberal initiatives and the Democratic Party; vote Obama for the health of the GOP and the vindication of Bush.
by Jonathan Rauch — Saturday, Oct. 25, 2008
(http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20081022_3411.php)

I gather Mr. Rauch is a liberal. Maybe, then, he's betting his commentary could "trick" more people into voting for Sen. Obama than it pushes toward Sen. McCain. Nevertheless, his piece poses some fascinating hypothetical projections based upon some interesting reminders from history. At the very least, it's entertaining.

(Incidentally, where I really have to disagree with Mr. Rauch is his conclusion that we have two very good candidates from which to choose. Both have "potential for greatness"? I suppose it's possible; but not likely. "[T]the two most singular political talents of their generations"? [So Pres. Clinton and Rep. Gingrich aren't comparable because their from an in-between generation? We're only considering really old and really young politicians?] Maybe. But has "political talent" alone ever made a great president? Sure FDR, Kennedy and Reagan arguably had political talent; but is that what made many consider them "great"? I think this election process has gradually boiled down to the least substantial candidates. It's sad when some of us begin to pine (all too late) for Gov. Romney, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Dodd, Rep. Hunter, and Sen. Biden (at least he's on a ticket); I guess those people just weren't interesting enough. All they had was a lot of relevant public policy experience and knowledge.)

Why Hillary in 2008?

There is a lot to say about Senator Hillary Clinton. This editorial writer seems to have said one of the most important things that needs to be said: Please don't run for President.

What I keep wondering is why so many Democrats or liberals think she would be such a good candidate. It's to the point where I have wondered whether this was just a wildly popular myth, or a bad dream. Some numbers, however, would indicate, sadly, that it is not.

Maybe liberals and Democrats are just so flustered by the success of folks like President G. W. Bush that they can't think straight; they are grasping at straws. This hypothesis would explain
the puzzle of why democrats seemingly went with Kerry as the "pragmatic" choice in 2004 and would be doing the opposite by picking Senator Clinton.

But why? Some ideas:

A) Maybe (as I alluded to above), they think Kerry lost because he was a practical, moderate choice, so they want to go with a real liberal this time.

B) The Hillary-backers all have a crush on her, because she's moderately attractive, a politically-correct liberal, but still willing to put up with a libertine mate. (Some may even, like Michael Moore, have an extreme pathological version of said crush. Moore: Senator Clinton is "one hot [&*#%]-kicking feminist babe")

C) Democrats are rabid to produce the first female President of the United States and are terrified that someone like Elizabeth Dole or Condoleeza Rice will take that dream away from them.

D) They believe moderates have forgotten that she is married to Former President Bill "Fellatio" Clinton, that she is a liberal and the object of widespread ridicule and aversion even as she tries to build an alternate reputation as a carpet-bagging moderate Senator. They think people don't view her as a power-hungry opportunist using President Clinton' not-so-very-good name to facilitate her ambitions. They instead believe that most people see her as an experienced, principled, middle-of-the-road public servant who only seeks to use her humbly-gained status to help ordinary Americans.

E) Maybe they are fully aware of all her flaws and think that because her negatives are out in the open — rather than in need of being dug up (a little), as with Kerry — that she'll do better. (Oh yeah. I like this idea.)

F) They think she'll be running against President George W. Bush current low ratings instead of these guys.

G) They secretly know that she is a specially-designed super-automaton who will who use her telepathic-laser-ray eyes to hypnotize the voters into not only being able to use voting machines and ballots, but also to vote for her.

Honestly, I just don't get it.