I think that Hillary Clinton's recent wins in Ohio and in the Texas primary are good indicators to which the rest of us would be wise to listen.

Obama is a strong favorite among African Americans (no surprise there - did the Clinton's REALLY think that they were black, after all?).  He's also strong among people who have never before gotten involved in politics, aka African Americans and the 18-25 yr old group, mostly.  He's popular among the young people who are just entering into the adult world, with all its responsibilities and concerns.  

Clinton is strong among people over 40.  She's also strong among women.  No surprises there, either.  

But what does this mean?  

First of all, Obama may just be a shooting star.  That he's engaging alot of young, first-time voters, and African Americans and other people of color is not surprising.  I suspect that there's alot of people that are voting for Obama JUST because he's black.  In fact, I personally know of several people who are doing precisely that.  Make no mistake, the black community is pretty well united in this.  "It is considered "a diss" against the black race to vote white if you have a choice to vote black."

On the other hand, I also know a whole lot of women who are voting for Hillary Clinton JUST because she's a woman.  However, unlike Obama, who's attracting many, if not mostly, voters who have never before been engaged with the political process, Clinton attracts older, and perhaps more committed, as well as arguably wiser, constituents.

Sometimes, less IS more. 

What I mean by this is that while Clinton's votes are cast by relatively secure, committed voters, the same cannot necessarily be said of Obama's voting block.

Is there any guarantee that these young voters are as well-informed as older, been-there-done-that voters?  When I was 18 all I was concerned about was getting to vote before I was 21, being able to get into bars before I was 21, and getting out of Vietnam.  I WASN'T concerned about healthcare, job security, education, trade, labor unions, etc.  Those were things only "the older folks" cared about and were concerned with.

I don't think I'd be too far amiss to say that I doubt things are much different for today's youth.  And there's nothing wrong with that; how could one possibly expect an 18-25 yr old with virtually NO life experience to be interested and concerned with things like healthcare, mortgages, and job security?  Whatever it is that they ARE interested in, which I would guess is Iraq, like most of us - they simply do not have the life experience necessary to take things like Medicare and Social Security, into account.  

So, do we really want a generation of 18-25 yr olds making this momentous a decision for the rest of us?  I sincerely hope not!  Should their voices be heard?  Of course!  I'm simply pointing out that this younger generation has not had enough life experience to be able to consider the bigger picture in its enormity, regardless of how wise any of them might consider themselves to be.

Which brings me to the massive numbers of African Americans and other peoples of color.  I have to say that I think it's great, and I thank God that so many numbers of people of color are at long last getting involved in politics.  I do think it's sad that they felt they had to wait until a black man was running for president.  As a social scientist, I think that speaks volumes.

The BIG QUESTION:  How will that new-found participation translate in the general election?  Will newly voting African Americans vote in the general election, even if Obama is the nominee?  What if he ISN'T?  

My guess is that if Obama is on the ticket, they'll vote. If he's not, many, if not most of them, won't.  Ditto for the youngsters.

So that begs a second question:  Do we count on these new voters to vote?  Do we take a chance on their fidelity?  Or do we count on the tried and true voters, the ones who have been voting for years, the ones who have a clearer and expanded understanding of the issues that only life experience brings?

I have to say that I would rather put my money and hedge my bet on the latter, rather than the former.

I don't think we should be held hostage to threats that if Obama's not the nominee, they won't vote.  What kind of mature reasoning and behavior is that?  To me, it just proves my point. 

So, I think that Hillary Clinton is still very much in the game; I hope she wins.  I personally think a Clinton/Obama ticket is the way to go in this election - age and experience at the top, fueled by inspiration and motivation from the bottom up.  

Obama likes to claim that change comes from the bottom up.  I well understand that, having been a part of grassroots politics for many years.  But I also have to make this observation:  Change takes a lot less time if it comes from the top, down.  Nowhere is this more evident than the changes we've seen come about in the last 7 years, under the Bush/Cheney regime.  How very quickly those draconian changes came about - and 10 years ago, my guess is that none of us would have ever imagined these changes would come at all, let alone come so quickly.

In a parting comment, I am concerned about a couple of things.  First, the whole Rezko - Obama thing.  I'm less concerned with whether Obama did anything illegal than I am with his apparent lack of judgment, something which he says he possesses in abundance - good judgment, that is.  I think the whole Rezko fiasco just proves to me that he is relatively inexperienced and naive.  Neither are good traits in a president, a world leader, and particularly, at THIS point in our world and national history.

At THIS point in our national and world history, I think we need someone with more experience and less naivete.

Second, I have to say that the Clinton campaign is its own worst enemy.  I think Hillary needs to get rid of some of her excess baggage that is hurting, rather than helping, her.  One is Wolfson, and the other, believe it or not, is Bill.  Yes, I said Bill.  Save him for the general election, MAYBE.  

Bill has changed.  He's not as charasmatic as he used to be.  Or maybe he's just angrier than he used to be.  But he's doing things in this election that makes me question just how much he actually wants his wife to be president...things he would never have done in his own presidential campaign.

Perhaps he's just a little too passive-aggressive?

I think Hillary needs to give him a time-out and let Chelsea reach out to the young people on her behalf.  Hillary needs to bring some young people into her campaign, and she needs to simply point out the truth in her ads, not directly attack Obama, but his behavior.  His lack of voting on several important issues, and his vote to extend Bush's powers and funding of Iraq.

In short, Hillary needs to expose Obama's inexperience, poor judgment, and naivete in a POSITIVE way.  She needs to alternate her good guy/bad guy statements about Obama.

It will trip Obama up.

Bottom line, I'm rooting for Hillary.  I don't think Obama can win against McCain.  McCain and Clinton are much more evenly pitted.  Even Hillary's voting to go to war can be used as an advantage against McCain.  McCain will openly expose Obama as a liar, as inexperienced, as naive, and as clueless.

My God, think about who McCain's running mate might be - did you know he's actually thinking about...none other than JEB BUSH?  You don't make a deal with the devil (aka Bush's endorsement of McCain) without paying a price. 

It's a price the American people should NOT have to pay.  I just hope mature, experienced voters will have the final say.