1. let's face it, we were supporting hillary because we thought she was the one that COULD win. now we know that she can also LOSE.
better to chew this on time than to end up swallowing yet another kerry surprise.
2. we liked obama but we thought he couldn't make it... until we started to like him for his electability.
3. clinton is more a last name than a woman.
does resorting to dynastic titles empower women more than it harms social mobility?
admitedly, women who belong to privileged families may be empowered in that way, but that "privilege" of being effectibly eligible wouldn't necessarily trickle-down so as to become a "right" for all women: there is a "bhutto" effect upon the ELECTABILITY of those that hold that last name, but--was there ever a "benazir bhutto" effect upon the effective ELIGIBILITY of non-dynastic-titled women?
the empowerment of women belonging to just a few dynastic families may even CROWD OUT the merit of self-made women and newcoming, very capable men belonging to minority groups. read the most recent column on the washington post about this topic; it really is of much aid.
4. obama is more of an African-American newcomer than he's just another male heterosexual candidate.
who honestly believes that big bad retrosexuals of the male sex are playing the "diversity" card so as to ascertain their patriarchal order?
what women, homosexuals and society are doing for themselves (empowering themselves, empowering themselves and becoming more equitable, respectively) can't be hampered by the accidental gender or sexual orientation of a GOOD candidate.
the fact that obama is a new face, the face of this decade, may not only give us a hand in taking a break from the otherwise routinary bush-clinton-bush-clinton two-card game; it might even jumpstart a tradition of non-family-based meritocracy in the white house by opening the doors to female bill clintons (not just clintons of the female sex) and minority lincolns.
5. the hillary machine is very effective. yet hillary gets her $ and support from big donors (remember bill clinton's pardons controversy?), corporations and unions; obama gets a significant part of his $ from us--who's going to pay more attention to us? who's going to feel more indebted to us? who's going to host more uncomfortable friends at the party?
6. their iraq war, environmental and healthcare policies are pretty much the same--but obama is more charismatic, while hillary is more polarizing.
who's going to get more support, when obama is attracting more independents than hillary is?
who's going to be in a better position to make negotiations in the international arena, when hillary voted for the war in iraq and obama voted against it?
7. let´s keep "cool" on our side this time.
no matter how you see it, the truth is al gore, "the stiff one," lost to w bush because w was perceived as "the cool one" (well, the truth is bush cheated, but the point is he got away with it handily partly because gore´s "stiffness" didn´t inspire much support before, during and after the vote, while bush´s "attitude" inspired more key people to vote for him and to support him unconditionally). do we want to see "starchy" hillary lose against "easygoing" huckabee?
if you´re thinking being a female candidate, no matter how uninspiring, makes up for "cool" and "must"--then think about thatcher. female voters are betting on obama´s "vibe," not on hillary´s sex--caroline giuliani is an obama girl; "young hillary would be an obama girl."
8. you want to hear something irresistible? an obama for prez, hillary for vp candidacy.
this formula keeps up with the "cool" cop-"cold" cop tradition that has proved to be undefeatable ever since the clinton-al gore couple ran for what w bush (clown cop) and cheney (bad cop) are still holding.