She's been the target of Republican attacks for 25 years now.  They have mercilessly criticized her character, publicly questioned her patriotism, and spent a hundred million dollars of public funds to try to find something - anything, they could use to stop her progressive march towards equality and justice.  And today, she still stands strong, leading the national polls, and poised to become the first female president of the United States.

The primary season is about to begin, and Democrats will choose the candidate to square off against the Republicans and their ferocious Right-Wing Attack Machine.  As voters go to the polls, they should keep the end goal in mind:  A November victory resulting in a Democratic Whitehouse in January 2009.  The chosen candidate must not only be able to withstand the inevitable attacks (which only Hillary has proven capable of doing), he/she must also be someone with the proven political leadership and experience to lead a national campaign to elect Democrats.  The goal should be set high: let the new commander in chief be well supported by a Democratic House and Senate.

The results of a Hillary Clinton administration would be sweeping and bold:  Hillary declared in September that the realization of universal health care would be her "highest domestic priority".  Her plan to finally implement a health care system that would cover EVERY American might be one of the toughest goals any presidential candidate has set for himself.  The opposition from the drug and insurance companies will surely be enormously well funded and organized.  And they are already cowering.  Among those in these industries who consider profit to be the one and only priority, Hillary is their worst nightmare.  Her first attempt to implement universal health care failed.  Her next one, armed with the executive powers of the presidency, and the solid, united will of a Democratic Congress, will succeed.  The United States will finally, at long last, join every other industrialized country in the world in providing healthcare to its citizens.

With regards to the economy, considering the growing chorus of warnings about the trouble ahead, it is a fine time to return to the proven effectiveness of "Clinton Economics".  Last Monday Paul Krugman, the award winning economist and New York Times Columnist, warned of a coming financial crisis of epic proportions.  

"How bad is it? Well, I've never seen financial insiders this spooked -- not even during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, when economic dominoes seemed to be falling all around the world.

This time, market players seem truly horrified -- because they've suddenly realized that they don't understand the complex financial system they created."

The nature and effectiveness of "Clinton Economics" was proven in the 90s, when Hillary's husband inherited a financial mess from George H W Bush, but with sound, economic policy, founded in progressive ideals and an unshakable commitment to the American middle class, led the country back to prosperity and fiscal responsibility.   23 million American jobs were created under that administration, 6 million during the first two years alone.  And when President Clinton left office, he passed on a budget with the largest surplus in American history.  

This has all been squandered by the newest Bush administration.   The unnecessary war in Iraq has crippled the economy.   The national debt has ballooned to $9 trillion dollars.  Every man, woman and child owes $30 000 in taxes to pay for this debt.  And social security is again in danger.  With such challenges ahead, this is no time for an amateur in the Whitehouse.  Among all the Democratic candidates, Hillary is the only one with the proven record of accomplishment and leadership to lead the country back to prosperity for the middle class.  

Hillary has received endorsements from a long list of well known, trustworthy patriots including Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and Charles Rangel.  For almost the entire campaign, she has lead the polls in potential matchups against hypothetical Republican opponents.  And she is a strong and reliable candidate, fiercely committed to the progressive ideals that the Democratic Party believes in.

She will be an excellent commander in chief, and she deserves the support of Democrats this primary season.

Now that Senator Obama is surging in the polls it may be time to openly discuss some of the issues that have previously, at least in my observations, not been discussed here.  These are issues which are critical in terms of the Democratic Party's need to win the Whitehouse in November.    I am referring to the delicate matter of Obama's electability.

I would like to preface my comments with the very true and sincere declaration that I think Senator Obama is treasure to the Democratic Party.  I loved him since I first saw his speech at the 04 Dem Convention in Boston, long before he was talked by Oprah into running for the presidency.   I will always love and appreciate the man, but my affection for the senator does not outweigh my desire to see a Democratic president in the Whitehouse in January 2009.  Not by a long shot.

It appears as though the Democratic electorate has narrowed the choice of who will be the nominee between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Edwards seems to have faded fast except in Iowa, and nobody else seems to be able to mount a serious threat).  Therefore, Democrats need to ask themselves who has the best chance of winning the general election next November.

Anyone who has been paying any attention to politics in the last couple of decades has seen the rising ferocity and viciousness of the "Republican Attack Machine", whose nasty, character-assassinating commercials appear in the weeks before critical elections.  These people have no shame.  From the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth who questioned John Kerry's patriotism to the blond, white woman claiming she met Harold Ford Jr. at the Playboy mansion (which ,incidentally, proved that one's character can be assassinated in a racist fashion without making an explicitly racist statement), these people have shown themselves beyond any reasonable bounds of decency in their quest for electoral victory.  At this critical juncture in American history, Democrats must be prepared for the dirtiest political fight imaginable.

It is therefore appropriate to ask not only who is the more refreshing candidate, or the more likable, but also to assess that candidate's vulnerabilities to the Rebublican Attack Machine.  If Democrats are blind to the fact that racism exists and will play a relevant role in the coming election, they will again be doomed to defeat, and America will again suffer another term or two under a right-wing, tax-cutting Republican who is completely incompatible with progressive ideals.   In my opinion, this must not be allowed to happen, and therefore every Democrat should make, for each candidate, the necessary assessment of electability, even if these deliberations are cold and calculative.  All is fair in love, war and politics.

So, at the risk of being called a bigot (I was on the receiving end of this accusation the last time I made these observations publicly) here are Obama's vulnerabilities in terms of electability:

His name, Barrack Hussein Obama, will be mercilessly ridiculed.  As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, his middle name is shared by one enemy of America, and his last name has a strange resemblance to another.  One can imagine now the Republican ads:  "Think Obama can find Osama?!"  Anyone who doesn't think such tactics could result in reduced support for the senator from Illinois need only look at what happened to Kerry and Ford.  Both were attacked unfairly, and both lost their respective elections.

Obama's Muslim heritage (his father, and the time he spent  at a Muslim religious school as a boy in a Muslim country) will also be thrust, in a very unflattering way, into the face of the average American before the election.   Almost no political observers today are unaware of the tremendous voting power of the religious right, as well as its deep influence over much of the American populace.  The leaders of this community believe that Islam is conspiring to destory America.  One can only imagine the hysterical rhetoric they would produce in comparing the white decent former pastor Mike Huckabee with the "Muslim" Senator Barrack "Hussein" Obama.   Folks, this WILL happen if Obama is the nominee.  Don't doubt it for a second.  And these attacks will surely be effective.  

Finally, Obama's admitted history of drug use will be hailed as "proof" of his unworthiness to be an American leader.  There has never been an American president who admitted to taking cocaine.  In today's climate such information could be politically lethal.  Sure, this information has been out for a while now, but should Obama be the nominee, it will come back to haunt him in a very detrimental way.

Put all these attacks together and you have yourself one hell of a fight on your hands.  A fight that must not be lost, and making such a vulnerable candidate the nominee would put Democrats in a very disadvantaged position right of the bat.   Some Obama supporters might be quick to argue that his election to the senate proves he can withstand the heat.   But Obama's victorious senate campaign benefited greatly by a number of fortunate events which should not be counted on to happen again:  One of his opponents, Blair Hull, was accused of domestic abuse.  Another, Jack Ryan, withdrew after embarrassing allegations about his sexual past.  Finally, Obama faced off against Alan Keys - not exactly a tough opponent - to win the election.

Obama himself seems to be somewhat concerned by the prospect of the vicious attacks that are lurking around the corner, as well as the "dirt from the past" that might be revealed at any moment.  Just a few days ago, when Robert Novak suggested, without any apparent shred of evidence, that the Clinton campaign had dug up dirt on Obama and was prepared to use it for political gain, Obama appeared severely rattled.  He not only believed the charge without any question, he issued a knee-jerk, retaliatory statement accusing the Clinton campaign of "slime politics".  The Clinton campaign's response was, I think, right on the money:

"A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games," said Mo Elleithee, Clinton's campaign spokesman. "Voters should be concerned about the readiness of any Democrat inexperienced enough to fall for this."

As the campaigns wind down, these ugly realities must be considered.  And Democrats must ask themselves if it is more important to show the world that this refreshing young senator is good enough to be considered seriously for president (which has already been accomplished), or for the Democrats to come out victorious come next November?  It very likely can't be both.  

Wesley Clark has again affirmed his commitment to leading America towards universal health care.

(Click on Youtube links below to see Clark explain his position on healthcare)