And What.

Hoo-boy. Last week I blog about coming out as a Hillary Clinton supporter, and the very next day she comes out with that thing about RFK. So to answer one of the questions posed in the comments, no of course I don't defend Clinton's statement.

But actually, the media reaction was a perfect example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. If those words had come from anyone else, they would have been a gaffe, a clumsy and unfortunate example of the valid historical point that primary contests can change unexpectedly well into the summer. But because it came from Hillary Clinton, Ruthless Homicidal Maniac, everyone acts like it was a call to arms for Ku Klux Klan sharpshooters.

Last week's post set a record for number of responses received. A few came in the comments, many more by email. So I thought I'd follow up by responding to the most frequent categories of feedback:

1. But she voted for the war!

Okay, let's turn back the clock to 2002. The executive branch of government is engaged in wholesale distortion of intelligence, sending no less a luminary than Colin Powell to the floor of the United Nations to demonstrate how Saddam Hussein is supposedly stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, and briefing Senators on Iraq's capability of delivering such weapons to the Eastern United States in drone aircraft. The United States has for ten years been strong-arming the UN into a sanctions regime against Iraq that is making us a pariah among erstwhile allies because of the effect it's having on Iraqi civilians, so something clearly has to give. The Bush administration asks Congress to pass H.J.Res. 114, authorizing the use of force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Note that Bush does not ask for permission to invade Iraq, overthrow its government, and install an American Viceroy; nor does he ask for permission to do so without an exit strategy, nor does he ask for permission to hang around for five years as referees and target practice in a civil war.

Hillary Clinton, the elected representative of the people of New York--which 13 months earlier had experienced first hand what destruction delivered by air to the Eastern United States looks like--is one of 535 people who have to make a decision that, based on the situation as they understand it, will have grave consequences whichever way they vote. And yes, Clinton knows her vote will have personal political consequences -- something you'd hope an elected representative would consider. And so, along with a 58% majority of Democratic Senators (including former Presidential candidates Dodd and Biden), she votes in favor of the Resolution.

Meanwhile, an Illinois state legislator named Barack Obama makes a speech against the same resolution. Obama represents Chicago's overwhelmingly Democratic 13th Legislative District, so the speech has almost zero political consequences. The speech has exactly zero practical consequences, since last time I checked, the war powers of the United States are not vested in the Illinois General Assembly.

Do I wish Clinton (and 373 other lawmakers) had voted against the resolution? Of course. I bet she does, too. Would it have stopped the Bush Administration from invading Iraq? Probably not. How would Barack Obama have voted, if he'd been U.S. Senator from Illinois in 2002? No idea.

2. But her claims to be winning the primary popular vote are laughable.

I agree. It's disingenuous and I wish she'd stop. To me her best argument is the one I've outlined -- that if she can beat John McCain in electoral votes and Obama can't, the superdelegates ought to make her the nominee.

3. But she ran those horrible "3 AM phone call" commercials.

Is it somehow off limits for a Presidential candidate to promote herself as the more capable leader in times of national crisis? Isn't that part of the job description for President?

Comparisons of this ad to Lyndon Johnson's execrable 1964 "Daisy" ad, and the 2006 Republican "These Are the Stakes" Al Qaeda spots are inapposite. Johnson's ad implied that Barry Goldwater was actually going to start a nuclear war. The 2006 ads implied that Democrats' softness on terrorism would lead to calamity. Clinton's message was just that if the phone rings at 3 AM, she would be the better person to answer it--not that its ringing would be somehowObama's fault.

4. But I disagree with the methodology of electoral-vote.com; take a look at www._________.com, which comes out the other way.

Entirely possible. And also possible that different polls will have different results in August. As I say, if it turns out in August that Clinton demonstrates a significant electoral vote lead over McCain and Obama doesn't, superdelegates who prefer a Clinton presidency to a McCain presidency may vote for Clinton. If there are enough of them, Clinton could wind up as the nominee. That's why she shouldn't drop out.

5. I voted for Hillary, too!

And you're not alone. As predicted, a good number of you came out of the woodwork in response to my post.

6. But we can't have Billary in the White House again -- Bill will try to run everything!

This one drives me to distraction whenever I hear it. Does no one remember the origin of "Billary" in the 1992 election? The implications were that a) Bill Clinton was insufficiently masculine to be President because he was married to an attorney, rather than to Mamie Eisenhower; and b) a power-mad career woman like Hillary Clinton would dominate her husband and wind up as an unelected co-President.

Now we are told that Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly be strong enough to stand up to her husband, who will dominate her and wind up as an unelected co-President. So which is it?

7. But you can't really think that Clinton is losing just because people won't vote for a woman?

I don't think it's that simple. To be sure, there is an anti-woman voting bloc, but it's probably balanced out by the anti-Black bloc and by "it's time" Clinton voters who would have supported Obama against any male candidate (the latter bloc being in turn balanced by "it's time" Obama voters who would have supported Clinton against any White candidate). My point was rather that our public discourse has tolerated a level of sexism in anti-Clinton invective that (thankfully) never would be permitted in terms of overt anti-Obama racism. These gendered personal attacks on Clinton have made it acceptable to hold irrationally negative views of Clinton as a human being, centered around supposed personality traits that would be seen as neutral or even positive in male candidates. So while Obama is treated as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Hillary Clinton is Lady MacBeth. And it's these notions of character that may make the difference in a contest where the candidates agree on 95% of the issues.

8. But she's for the gas tax holiday, and "all the economists" say it won't work.

You're right.

9. But Clinton was the Democratic power brokers' Annointed One -- I can't vote for her on principle.

What, you think Obama, out of roughly 3500 Democratic state legislators nationwide, was chosen at random to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? If it's grass-roots you're after, I can get you a deal on Ron Paul buttons.

10. But she's just pandering to blue collar voters.

a. She and Obama both, with their anti-NAFTA populism. "All the economists" also say so.

b. If you're talking about the campaign appearances that have won her resounding victories in Kentucky and West Virginia -- if it were any other politician, he or she would be "seeking out an underrepresented demographic and speaking to its concerns." But because it's Hillary the Cynical, Power Hungry Bitch, she's "pandering."

That's all folks--next post, I promise, it's back to creationist baristas and Internet-controlled sex toys.

Yes, I Voted for Hillary Clinton. And What?

Sunday brunch found the Holy Prepuce on a Brooklyn street where the gentrification ratio of square to triangular awnings is still about 50:50. My companion, a surgeon, and I, a lawyer, met in a decidedly square-awninged establishment -- two members of the Barack Obama demographic in an outpost of creeping Obama country. Yet I found myself engaged, not for the first time, in an awkward dance: the coming-out of secret Hillary Clinton supporters. It starts with equivocal, tentative inquiries, and ends with the delight and relief of weary countrymen discovering each other while lost in a faraway land.

In hushed tones, we spoke of bewilderment at our peer group's wholesale ingestion of the Obama Kool-Aid, of our of bafflement at what "change" we were supposed to "believe in," and of our distaste for the calculation of an obviously brilliant man to run an anti-intellectual campaign of revival meetings. We grumbled over the media's penchant to spin any Clinton statement, however self-evident or innocuous, into coded race-baiting -- while laughing off (or participating in) the myriad, explicitly gendered attacks on Clinton's persona. Mostly, we lamented that the woman we think would make the more electable candidate and better President will not likely get to be either. All the while, I suspected eavesdropping diners of incredulity that a respectable establishment would serve such class traitors as ourselves.

Why have I been afraid to admit publicly that I want Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States? Have I been worried that my friends would desert me as an irretrievably racist war-monger? Anyone who knows me can't believe those things. Maybe it's just been easier not to correct the innumerable friends who have assumed in their emails ("we won Iowa!"), online status messages ("10,000 Grave Diggers for Hillary Clinton"), and general conversation that my ticket for the bandwagon was stamped long ago.

But Sunday's brunch has brought me to a critical mass of comings-out, and given me courage to think that there are other Clintonophiles lurking among the denizens of our over-educated demographic. So now I'm outing myself to the world. The Holy Prepuce is an Ivy League educated, East Coast urban professional, and he voted for Hillary Clinton. So there.

Now, as the only Clinton supporter you know, Dear Reader, I'm going to answer your question: should Clinton drop out of the race? Here's what I have to say about that:

Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win, so the nomination is up to the superdelegates. The incessant suggestions that the superdelegates must "honor the popular vote" are nonsensical -- if superdelegates are supposed to rubber stamp the popular vote, what is the point of having superdelegates?

Despite media reports of x superdelegates for Clinton and y superdelegates for Obama, interviews and press releases are not the same as actual votes at the convention. When it comes time to cast their votes, superdelegates will have to ask themselves four questions: (1) Who would make the better President; (2)Who is more likely to beat John McCain; (3) Who is it publicly expedient -- e.g. to honor the primary popular vote -- to support; and (4) Who is it personally expedient to support? (While we may question the legitimacy of #4, this is politics, and politicians are a necessary evil thereof.)

Statements of support right now are probably based on a combination of #1 and #4, with increasing bits of #3 thrown in. But as the convention draws nearer, responsible superdelegates will need to take a hard look at #2. To do this, they will need to examine the polling data on electoral vote outcomes. As we learned in 2000 (and 1824, 1876, and 1888), it's electoral, not popular votes that matter. If either Democrat can beat McCain handily, then #2 is of little importance. But if the margins are small, or if one or both candidates actually trail McCain in the data, it's pretty hard to deny that #2 trumps the other factors. A losing ticket honoring the primary popular vote will not do the Democrats much good.

Indeed, elevating factor #2 above the primary popular vote is arguably the key purpose of superdelegates. They are intended as a countermajoritarian check on primary voters' penchant for selecting George McGoverns -- candidates pleasing to Democrats but unelectable in November. Is Obama the next McGovern? And could the superdelegates deliver a winning ticket by handing the nomination to Clinton? Take a look at the current (May 22) Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain match-ups on Electoral-Vote.com. Obama trails McCain by 43 electoral votes; Clinton leads McCain by 99.

Will these numbers be the same in August? Will the superdelegates have the courage to overturn the popular vote? It's too early to say at this point. Which is exactly why Hillary Clinton should stay in the race.