A reader writes:
You asked: "Remind me why any Democrat would back Clinton?" Let's see if I, as a level-headed Midwestern, former-Reagan Republican, current Democrat can jog your memory:
1976 - Carter
1980 - Carter
These are the people this party nominates. Much like the current Republicans who so alienate the majority of their conservative supporters by pandering to the base of the party, the Democrats don’t view the big picture realistically. Rather than court the independent voter who is sick of the partisan pandering, they focus on the enemy before them and attack, pretending that independents don't exist.
As you've noted recently, many of your Republican/conservative brothers and sisters are tired of the "party above all else, save Jesus" crowd. They're thirsty for a viable alternative, and will go so far as to actually listen to HRC rather than dismiss her as a matter of course. Despite this incredible opportunity to court independents so disgusted by Bush/Cheney/Rove, as well as to poach a large number of Republicans who are likewise disenfranchised, the Democrats will make the same mistake they always do.
They will go with the party loyalist, and that candidate who most pushes the far left agenda. Regardless of this nascent appeal of Hillary, her negative numbers across the broader spectrum are still through the roof, especially when compared with the negatives of anyone else in the race on either side.
The Democratic Convention will ignore the moderates in their own party, and the independents anxiously awaiting Bush’s ride off into the sunset. The Democrats will nominate Hilary, when Obama has shown in poll after poll that he is electable due to his broad appeal among moderates and independents. Unless this party recognizes the need to be the party of change as it did in 1992, or gets a viable third party candidate to run and pull votes from voters who would otherwise vote Republican (in the vein of Ross Perot in 1992) HRC will be join the list above.