Since the media—in all its varied formats—is constantly starved for material, we should expect no letup in the nauseatingly persistent saturation coverage of this event. No doubt, there are those who follow every iteration with the greatest interest, but my feeling is that they are in the distinct minority.
To sum up the current situation, we have three decidedly mediocre candidates, and the biggest takeaway is the tragic conclusion that this is apparently the best we can do.
On the Dem side, we are observing the rather obvious consequences of a strategy that started around the time that Blacks forgot that Team D was the party of segregation, and started supporting them in virtually monolithic numbers. The break would come when a Black candidate finally emerged, and the irony is that the Dem establishment brought this on themselves, by featuring Obama at the 2004 convention.
Meanwhile, Hillary, apparently born with a sense of entitlement, and a nearly supernatural ability to convince people that she is far more capable than she actually is, assumed that this would be her year—notwithstanding her high negatives. As the primary process grinds on, the essential conclusion is that Obama can mostly win in states that will probably go Republican in November, and Clinton seems better in traditional Dem strongholds.
Team D has a serious problem, of course, in that they cannot throw off Obama, and thus turn off their most fanatic support base. And, even though the conventional wisdom is that Clinton is probably the better candidate, it is impossible to draw this conclusion based on the unknowable Black defection quotient that would occur if she were the nominee. My advice is for the Dems to nominate Obama, who will likely lose, and go on with the rest of their lives.
But there is a larger issue here. Does it really matter who the president is? After all, the office is given limited duties by the Constitution, confined these days to starting undeclared wars, nominating federal judges, and vetoing legislation. In truth, the president is really little more than a symbolic figure. Beyond the Constitution—and most of what goes on these days IS beyond the Constitution—are the many executive agencies, the source of so much regulation, and cause of so many taxes.
Since even Reagan—possessed of a giant mandate—who supposedly was going to eliminate the Department of Education, did nothing to shrink the executive bureaucracy, we can assume that not much will happen in this regard for the foreseeable future. As to federal judges, the process has become extremely politicized, and even when the judges are approved, they are often not as advertised. Historically, it has been hit or miss with Republicans, and generally Leftist with the Dems.
Bear in mind that in the entire history of this republic, there have been perhaps ten good presidents. More importantly, there have been at least a few terrible chief executives, and somehow we have survived and even thrived. Note that the only sensible way to evaluate a president is within the historical context of his tenure. For example, Truman had a low approval rating when he left office, and he richly deserved it. Attempts to raise him up decades later are as foolish as the efforts to denigrate those who preceded Lincoln, not to mention the Lincoln cult that sprung up in the 1920s.
And, even though Bill Clinton’s popularity was far more a reflection of the good economy he presided over (although he had nothing at all to do with it), than any actions on his part, it will be pointless for future historians to state this. They can’t remove the fact that he WAS popular, anymore than reflections on the disaster that was FDR will change the fact that he was popular, as well.
Simply put, unless government is made much smaller, and taxes are reduced, it does not matter who the president is. So why worry?