I am watching tonight's "VOTR (VT, OH, TX, RI) Tuesday" primary election coverage and I am getting an awful feeling in the pit of my stomach--a stomach is meant to hold many foods and beverages, but not a heart. That's where my heart is currently, and I fear it will sink further. Why am I so dejected? Hillary Clinton has just won the Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island primaries (which went her way in terms of Democratic votes, but not delegates), and delivered a victory speech so full of self-congratulatory hubris that it took several pundits--and probably Howard Dean--aback. In fact, she recited a litany of states yet to be decided and in language nearly lifted from Dean's infamous "scream" speech vowed to press on until those primaries are behind her. She did not congratulate Obama on his victory in Vermont, only thanked him at the end for a spirited debate to which she looked forward continuing. Obama, OTOH, in his concession speech, specifically congratulated Clinton on her Ohio and Rhode Island victories (Texas had yet to be called at the time). He was a gentleman and a conciliatory Democrat. She came off as a smug egotist. (More on that below).

Now, don't get me wrong. I would be quite satisfied to have her as President (though not as satisfied as I'd be with Obama). Has she paid her dues in Democratic politics and in government longer than Obama? Sure. Has she "earned" the honor of the nomination? Certainly. Did she win her party's Ohio primary, a victory without which nobody in modern times has ascended to the Oval Office? Sure. Despite being behind in total delegates, has she won primaries in every key large state a nominee must carry in November to win all the marbles? Yes. Does she "deserve" this plum? Arguably, yes. But should she BE the nominee? I answer with a resounding NO!

Why this dichotomy? Because one's party's nomination for President is not a prize, not a plaque, not a trophy, not a productivity bonus. A nomination should not be awarded if it will be wasted come November--a party has no business nominating a candidate who cannot convert a nomination into a November victory.

Why am I so pessimistic? Well, I remember 1968. I was 17, too young to vote but old enough to volunteer. I wept when my first choice, RFK, was cut down by Sirhan Sirhan's bullet. I felt hopeful and excited and canvassed and leafleted for Gene McCarthy--and had the wind knocked out of me when the convention delegates and party bosses ignored the voice of the future of the party and instead went with the "heir apparent," Hubert Humphrey. I was one of the rare teens and collegians who bit the bullet and worked my butt off for Humphrey in the general election because even a Democratic hack would have been infinitely preferable to Nixon (and had we all known how awful Nixon would really be, things might have been different). But the vast majority of my contemporaries and of independents sat on their hands or continued to work for McCarthy (who selfishly and egotistically, I contend, continued to run, thus ultimately handing the extremely close election to Nixon). The rest is painful history. And as a stake right through my heart, Clinton's adopted one of my favorite songs (and a staple of my repertoire), Bruce Springsteen's "Land of Hope and Dreams," as her campaign theme--much more inspirational than Obama's theme, Stevie Wonder's "Signed, Sealed, Delivered," which in the light of tonight's results seems insular and prematurely presumptuous.

I am reliving 1968 tonight. Whereas polls say a large majority of Clinton's supporters would gamely and loyally work for Obama should he win the nomination in order to win the White House back from GOP control, the converse is not necessarily true--a little more than half of Obama's voters would grit their teeth and work to ensure Clinton and not McCain is our next President. I find this frightening--the very real possibility exists that most of those independent and/or young voters so excited by Obama would deny Clinton their support. (I am on several forums on which most some centrist Republican and independent and younger and more liberal members are enthusiastic about the prospect of an Obama presidency--yet mention Hillary Clinton's name and you might as well have shouted "Niagara Falls!" in that old "slowly I turned. step by step..." vaudeville routine rant at best and "Satan!" at worst). She inspires visceral vitriol in many, many men in a way similar to the name of Dubya does among my fellow Democrats. Obama-inspired new voters would sit out the general election (or worse, gravitate to some fringe candidate like Nader) and independents would run screaming back to McCain. Yes, Clinton has demonstrated she can carry the big bellwether states.....in a primary...against a more liberal candidate who is nonetheless part of her party. But let's consider the flip side of that---those in Ohio, California, NY, et al who voted for Obama demonstrated their unwillingness to vote for Clinton. And in November, these (and all other) states are winner-take-all....the candidate must win a majority of ALL, not just Democratic, voters in a given state to win any of its electoral votes. Paradoxically, though delegates and not raw vote totals award nominations, it takes electoral votes--not delegates, party officials, nor nationwide vote totals--to win the White House come November.

So where are we now? Clinton has won more Electoral College powerhouse mega-states, but Obama has won more voters, more pledged delegates, and is leading among declared superdelegates. Even if Clinton carries the rest of the states up for grabs, she will still be behind among elected pledged delegates. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the ultimate decision may be up to the superdelegates. Until recent weeks, these mostly loyal longtime party officials and workers were presumed to be inclined to crown the heir apparent (a strategy that tanked spectacularly when it came to Stevenson--twice--Humphrey, and Mondale). In recent weeks the tide began to turn when it looked like Obama's pledged delegate lead was insurmountable, and even some of the party hacks among the superdelegates gave in to reality, pragmatism and the good of the party and the nation in declaring their allegiance (some switching their allegiance) for Obama. But now that Clinton has taken two more mega-states and has vowed to stay in the fray for the foreseeable future, the media has begun to pay more attention to her (she's booked solid for all the major morning-after news and talk shows, which previously had nearly ignored her in favor of Obama) and the still-undecided superdelegates may have yet another change of heart and gravitate back to her.

However, not so fast--Clinton narrowly won the Texas primary, but Obama got the lion's share of delegates--he carried every delegate-heavy large city, in every part of the state. And results show him leading in the Texas caucuses as well. Not surprisingly, Clinton's camp is arguing her symbolic popularity-contest victories in Michigan and Florida ought to count. In those states, candidates were emphatically instructed by the DNC that no delegates would be awarded and any votes cast there would not count, and Obama (and Edwards) rightfully and dutifully relied on those instructions in declining to campaign there. Clinton and her supporters would not be amenable to a credentials-committee-engineered 50/50 delegate split in these two states. Clearly, one cannot change the rules of the game just because a rule change would benefit them. Either Florida and Michigan must remain devoid of pledged delegates, or caucuses or primaries must be scheduled there ASAP, with plenty of time for both candidates to prepare and campaign there. As it currently stands, Clinton cannot win the pledged-delegate math but neither of them can yet sew up the 2,025 total delegates it takes to be nominated. I'd hate to be Howard Dean tonight.

And meanwhile, while Clinton and Obama keep battling each other, the media is salivating over the prospect of speculating, discussing and Telestrator-scribbling all the way till the Puerto Rico primary in June, and possibly the convention itself. But John McCain, finally rid of Mike Huckabee teasing and nipping at his heels, is already consolidating his supporters and planning campaign appearances in those mega-states. Uh-oh.

Don't get me wrong--whomever the Democrats nominate, be it Obama, Clinton, a deus ex machina come convention time (paging Al Gore), or anyone but Lieberman, I will work for in order to deny McCain and the GOP the White House. What must be done? Well, I may be biased here, but any prospective Democratic nominee must realize their duty to their party, the electorate and the nation supersedes any selfish personal notions of entitlement or reward. Even if Clinton pulls closer in the delegate math and thus has a good chance of winning the nomination, both she and the superdelegates must realize that the nomination is only half--perhaps less than half--the battle; and that it would be both a colossal waste and monumental exercise in futility to nominate a candidate unable to assemble enough of a coalition to deny McCain his margin of victory in November. Obama, if he gets nominated, already has that coalition, but he must steel himself to keep it by fighting back against the inevitable GOP swift-boating that will dwarf anything Clinton has thrown at him, and begin to prove to remaining primary voters he can do so by being tougher and more direct in refuting her potshots, both prospectively and retrospectively. The paradox is that if he wins the nomination, he need not court her supporters as assiduously as she must woo his should she be the nominee. If Clinton gets the nomination, the smartest thing she can do is pick Obama as her running mate (just as JFK gritted his teeth and chose LBJ even after the latter rhetorically eviscerated him leading up to the 1960 convention). and the smartest and most selfless thing Obama can do is suck it up and graciously accept--recognizing he is still young enough for his day to come. More Clinton voters like Obama than Obama voters approve of Clinton. Thus he need not--and should not--offer her the VP slot should he be nominated, lest he alienate some of his core supporters. But ominously, there is a recent Pew poll that shows 25% of those (be they Democrats or not) who voted for Clinton in the primaries intend to jump ship to McCain in November (and may have voted for her in the primaries in order to give McCain a weaker opponent--the disadvantage of an open or "blanket" primary). So much for her boast of having carried those Electoral College blockbuster states.

One more thing: many of my contemporaries (older women) would wonder why on earth I would not jump at the chance to put a woman in the Oval Office desk chair in my lifetime. To which I reply, I would--but I'd vastly prefer a woman who is less polarizing and likelier to beat the GOP--and that woman has not yet emerged on the national political scene. I'd rather have the best candidate, with the best chances, regardless of race or gender.