Endorsement

You've all been waiting for it.  I've been plagued with telephone calls from the New York Times and the Washington Post asking for it.  National editorials continue to question my -- to date -- refusal to speak out.  So here it is.

 I support Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, and as the next President of the United States.

I have nothing against Bernie Sanders.  He's a courageous guy.  You'd have to be, to ask for the Democratic nomination, when you've never been a Democrat until now.  I would have no difficulty in supporting him, if he were the nominee.  But I hope he's not.

Bernie Sanders wants us to "send a message."  Sending a message is important, but not as important as holding the presidency.  Regardless of which party wins the presidency, the Republicans almost certainly will hold at least one, and probably both, houses of Congress.  The difference between what Clinton and Sanders would be able to push through a Republican Congress is miniscule. 

What a Democratic presidency can accomplish in the next four or eight years isn't really the important issue in this election.  The critical concern is what a Democratic president can prevent from happening.  The likely choices for Republican nominee have promised to dismantle Affordable Health Care immediately, and to cancel the agreements with Iran (and possibly Cuba) on "day one." 

Essentially, the Republicans plan -- should they win the presidency -- to return the country to 2008 within weeks of occupying the White House.  As just a first step on their march backwards to the McKinley Administration. 

And don't forget the appointments they would make to the Supreme Court.  No more wishy-washy liberals like Chief Justice Roberts.  Nine little Justice Scalias scowling from the bench.

Bernie would stop the Republicans dead, just as readily as would Hillary.  But I don't think Bernie Sanders can win -- not with a "Socialist" -- or even "Democratic Socialist" -- label hanging from his neck.  Granted, maybe he can, but the stakes are too high, and the advantages in his winning are too small for me to be willing to risk it.

The Democrats lost elections they should have won in 1968 and 1972 because they nominated an unelectable candidate (McGovern in 1972) or split the party badly before electing a potentially electable candidate (Humphrey in 1968).  We can't afford to do it today -- not with a Trump or a Cruz, or even a Rubio, salivating at the thought of occupying the White House.

Therefore, I'll support whichever Democratic candidate I feel has the best chance of capturing the independent vote as well as unifying his or her own party, regardless of difference in nuance between the candidates' political messages.

To me, it appears obvious that Hillary plays that role.