Kurt Andersen writes this today, explaining in part why he's pulling the lever for Barack Obama and why those on the fence should consider doing so: "...every white vote that Hillary Clinton gets will be counted as a race-based anti-black vote."
Oh really? Well then, Kurt - go ahead and rack it up.
Because on Tuesday morning I'm voting for Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, easily the most-qualified Democratic candidate for President of the United States and a woman entirely worthy of breaking - as she puts it - the highest glass ceiling in the land.
For the erudite and urbane Kurt Andersen, who I've worked with in the past, to suggest that voting for Senator Clinton is somehow akin to buying into some media-based narrative of racism is preposterous and offensive. But I understand feelings are running high. I think Jason makes a far more reasoned case for Senator Obama, who I personally think should be number two on a Clinton-topped ticket next fall.
Senator Clinton has the experience, the domestic policy chops, and frankly, the moxie to take on the Republicans in November. I laid my case out in this post late last year, and nothing has moved me off of it - even as the race has tightened to a toss-up with John Edwards' departure.
But Andersen suggests I need to consider changing my vote - as if the vicious sexism of the national media, and the silence of the Obama campaign on that blatant misogyny hadn't solidified it. Says Kurt: "Clinton voters need to understand that if their candidate wins, they will be part of a depressing morning-after metric rather than a hopeful one."
Hey Kurt, if Clinton wins, the morning-after metric won't be depressing, baby. Not for millisecond.
UPDATE: Al Giordano sounds like it's patently offensive to even consider "the ridiculous notion" that Barack Obama would ever serve as "guttersnipe" Hillary Clinton's running mate. Michelle Obama refuses to say she'd support Clinton if her husband was defeated, positing that he "is the only person" who can move the country in a different direction. Senator Obama himself says that while he'd hold onto Clinton voters, he doubts the New York Senator would hold on to his. Kevin Drum accuses mild-mannered Times economist Paul Krugman of running a "jihad" against Obama, just because the columnist believes the Senator's health care plan is weak. And even Nick Kristof, whose work I admire deeply, suggests it'd be somehow "Pakistani" to elect another Clinton, making the same dynastic argument that many find to be deeply sexist. What's in the water?