The tragedy is that Hillary Clinton understands perfectly well that this is a stupid policy. (If you actually wanted to save people $40 over the course of the summer, you would just give them $40.) She is embracing it anyway. Her campaign is pushing it as a purely symbolic gesture, attempting to take the side of “real people” against elitist snobs with all of their “education” and “expertise” and Ivy-League degrees.

There are a number of reasons why the gas tax holiday proposal is a bad idea, but to cling to a turd like this and to try to sell it as a “real solution” for “real people” would make its supporters like Clinton and John McCain either woefully stupid (which they’re not) or calculating and insensitive to the poor (that’s where my money is).

Poise. Style. Polish. Class. Selflessness. Sacrifice. Grace. Tactfulness. Decency. Humility.

Hillary Clinton?

Got you, didn’t I. These aren’t the adjectives that immediately come to mind when I think of Hillary Clinton, and chances are they aren’t the first that pop into your head either. These are, however, some of the words that we’d all be using to describe Hillary if she were to read the writing on the wall, and bow out gracefully from her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Imagine the upheaval to the political landscape, the glassy-eyed stares of dumbfounded political wonks, the slack-jawed expression on the faces of her most ardent detractors that would result if Hillary were to postpone her quest for the White House, and unify the Democratic Party behind the clear favorite: Barak Obama.

Now, I’m obviously not the first to suggest that Hillary should bow out. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, among others beat me to the punch:

The choice before her is to go down ugly with a serious risk of humiliation at the polls, or to go down classy, with a real chance of redemption.

The redemption Alter speaks of is the redeeming quality of self-sacrifice. Everyone knows Hillary wants this nomination so bad she can taste it, but if she were to put her own desires aside for the good of her party, and the good of the country she obviously loves, then why not opt for a graceful exit and maximize the chances of seating a Democratic president in November? March 4th in Ohio and Texas may be the tipping point – where Hillary Clinton either scrambles back into the race with Obama, or where the odds against her become incalculable.

I know what the Republicans want, and I hope Hillary spikes that volleyball instead.

You got to know when to fold ‘em.

And her career there shows what a trail blazer she could have been for feminism. A skilled, cautious, pragmatic and constituent-focused legislator, she began to build a Senate career admired by many. But it became clear pretty soon that the Senate was indeed merely a stepping stone back to the White House. It also became clear that she had absolutely no qualms about using her husband’s former office, unrivaled party clout and acute political skills to advance her current, long-planned campaign. Bill was wielded as an attack-dog, in an unprecedented abuse of the prestige and honor of the Oval Office in the service of a campaign proudly dealing in blatant nepotism. It was an act of corruption by a corrupt dynasty fearful they couldn’t win re-election without pulling every lever they had.

Indeed, Sullivan has a point about Hillary Clinton – that she had an opportunity to chart her own political course through the dark waters that are Washington, but she opted instead to hitch her wagon to Bill’s rising star. Where Sullivan misses the mark is that he seems to believe that now – after Hillary’s tenure as first spouse during the Clinton presidency, after her move to New York, after her election to the senate and subsequent reelection – now is the time to question her feminism?

If Hillary had a Y chromosome instead of the second X, being “feminist enough” in the mold of Margaret Thatcher or any other feminist heroine would never be an issue. Clearly – nobody looks to any of the current Republican candidates – that small group of white males, two clones plus an android – and asks whether they’re feminist enough, or whether they took advantage of political opportunities when they presented themselves. Why is that? Because there’s no expectation of white male political candidates to be champions of women’s issues. Nope – Hillary Clinton is the only one that’s under that level of scrutiny; she’s the only candidate in history who we ever expected to run for president while making sure the shopping got done.

I agree with Sullivan’s take on political opportunism and corruption, but to single Hillary Clinton out for extra scrutiny because she’s not male enough to possess an acceptable level of ambivalence towards women’s issues is a bit cheap.

So let’s take a quick look at the remaining front running candidates, and I’ll tell you why you should or shouldn’t vote for them.

Mitt Romney will probably do well today, but I suspect John McCain will fare better. Slick Mitt’s just doesn’t white enough, nor mormon enough to be a serious, credible presidential contender. Jessee Walker at ReasonOnline.com, uses nice imagery as he describes how Mitt has downplayed his weird faith to such an extent that his Mormonism has become little more than one brand of sparkly toothpaste in the great CVS in the sky. Romney claims to be the only conservative left in the race, but in a slugfest to outlast McCain, I don’t think his android good looks and maniacally intense gaze are going to be enough to sway white Christians the way McCain’s past heroism and current establishment Republicanism will. Ultimately, I think it will be best for the Democratic party if Mitt Romney gets the Republican nomination. Democrats will have a much easier time dismantling Romney, aka the Mormon Masshole for being rich, out of touch, draft dodging, and generally creepy. As one commenter on Wonkette.com put it:

Lovable scrappy urchin Jack McCain cinches up his rope belt, scrunches down his newsboy cap, squints, and laces into prissy Mitty Romney in his fancy Fauntleroy suit with ribbons and suede pumps.

On the Democratic side we have Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Clinton is a self-described political junkie, and is clearly a big-government Democrat in the classic sense. Obama, for his part, is something rarely seen in politics, a pragmatist who appears to have sufficient strength of character to woo moderate Republicans, and sufficient liberalism to woo large blocks of Democrats who are looking forward to a presidency that isn’t defined by singleminded hawkishness. While Clinton and Obama seem fairly similar, there is one key difference between them: Republicans love to hate Hillary, while Obama doesn’t have such a polarizing effect on them. Ultimately, I think it will be best for the Republican party if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination. Her nomination will likely raise a rallying cry throughout the Republican ranks, and she will be easy pickings for the Republican slime machine, not only for the indiscretions of her famous spouse, but for her record of self-serving support for the Iraq disaster. Obama has no such baggage.