In Obama, the Democratic party has a chance for a landslide in the 2008 election, something they will immediately forfeit with the divisive, cynical, hollow candidacy of Hillary Clinton. In Obama, disaffected Republicans also have a chance to punish their own party for its abandonment of conservatism, embrace of dumb authoritarianism abroad and spendthrift liberalism at home. The logic is overwhelming to me... If the Democrats throw this opportunity away in favor of a corrupt dynasty, it will be the biggest self-inflicted blow since ... well, John Kerry and Harry Reid.-Master blogger Andrew Sullivan, telling it like it is in the Clinton vs Obama showdown.
One of his readers concurs:
Obama is an historic opportunity for the Dems of FDR proportions, a chance to remake the political landscape for a generation or more. And people like Krugman and his proxy Hillary, who want only political war, narrow short term score settling, are the alternative. If the Dems don't nominate Obama, and go for Hillary...they will have shown themselves to be as corrupt, opportunistic, hypocritical, and small minded as the Republicans.I agree, to a certain extent. First off, the idea of a "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" dynasty bugs me to no end. Secondly, the last thing this great country needs is a deeper blue-red state divide; and that would surely happen with a Hillary Clinton presidency. Republicans can't stand the woman and will do everything in their power to derail her, just as they did her husband. Finally, while I think she would be a competent president, the way I see it, she would win with only 48% to 50% of the country behind her, and that will keep her hands tied. Instead, we need a president who be able to rally a large majority of Americans behind him from Day 1; someone who will be able to rally even those who don't vote for him on Election Day. And that, my friends, is not Hillary.