Hillary

An op-ed writer in today’s The New York Times addresses a little-discussed issue in the Obama vs. Hillary "electability" debate: strongly-held anti-Clinton sentiments of right-leaning (and by extension, of right-leaning, independent) voters. Right or wrong, Stanley Fish writes, Hillary is vilified by so-called "Hillary Haters" for being "a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a ‘warmongering hawk,’ for being godless and for being ‘frighteningly fundamentalist'.” Clinton is an "empty vessel", Fish argues, for all that Conservatives detest. Given the voracity of Clinton opposition, one might ask, "Who, among the Democracts, then, is most electable?" "Who can win over the greatest number of independent voters?" There is little doubt, as Fish points out, that Hillary is a lightning rod for Republican ire--the GOP's unifying counterweight to a much (and deservingly) maligned Republican George W. Bush. But is that enough to convince Democrats to place their bets on America's willingness to vote for a black presidential candidate? (Race seems to be the "electability" issue that seems to give most Democratic voters pause.) On the Republican side, frontrunner McCain—who appeals to many voters who might cross party lines-- suffers an inverse risk: His lackluster support among Party loyalists may result in a diminished turnout of the Republican base on Election Day. With the country so evenly divided in recent elections, winning the support of independent voters and mobilizing new voters will undoubtedly play a significant role in determining who ultimately takes the White House.