The most interesting thing about the race for the Democratic nomination this election is the way in which the candidates, by and large, have become the centers of religions. (The Republicans seem, for the most part, to have avoided this, with the exceptions of Ron Paul — whose supporters tend to be as willfully ignorant of his less-sane positions as any religious fundamentalist is of contradictions within their holy book — and Rudy Giuliani’s attempt to turn “9/11” into a mantra. The other Republican candidates may collectively desire a theocratic police state, but they are not personally the centers of belief.)

Hillary Clinton, in particular, is unique in that she is the center of two religions, one in which she is an angel, and one in which she is a devil.

Clinton, it must be remembered, started her political life as a pro-Nixon Republican. Her career — particularly during the last seven years — has been marked by a tendency to give the “money” half of the right wing what they want, and the “religion” half some of what they want. The sole issue on which she meaningfully digs in her heels is that of equal rights, and then only in an ill-considered and inconsistent way. (What is Clinton’s stance on abortion? It was anti, until it was pro, until it was anti again.) She has repeatedly voted to support the war in Iraq, and has also voted for the Lieberman-Kyl “Let’s Start World War III Now And Avoid The Rush” resolution which was an obvious step toward expanding the war to include Iran. She also refused to vote against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. (Admittedly, she didn’t vote for it either. She didn’t vote, thus sending an unambiguous message that she stands for… well, nothing, apparently. Or else for something she doesn’t want us to be able to know. Hardly reassuring.) She repeatedly failed to filibuster right-wing bills, fearing that the Republicans would revise the rules to remove filibusters, thus making Republican opposition actually unnecessary. And she managed to vote for both the USA-PATRIOT Act and its extension.

Her qualifications largely seem to consist of having been first lady when her husband was president. But her husband was not, all things considered, very good at his job. He failed to accomplish the major task to which he laid claim — health care reform — and his presidency was filled with minor victories for right-wing interests. (The DMCA and NAFTA come to mind, for example.) And during a period when scrutiny of his presidency was highest and investigations were already afoot, he got embroiled in a tawdry sex scandal. I don’t care about the sex, but the timing of it is an insult — even a libidinous president should have been intelligent enough to avoid it.

Consider, then, the two religions centered on Hillary Clinton:

The Republicans can’t stand her. If she wins the nomination (which is still possible, though unlikely) she will cause the highest possible voter turnout for the other side, so strong is the hatred of her name. And yet of all the Democratic hopefuls, she is the one who consistently has been closest to being a Bush supporter. Obama may claim to want to work with the Republicans, but Clinton actually is one.

Hillary’s supporters, on the other hand, see her has a potential savior of the Democratic Party. This view persists despite her repeated lack of achievement, and her extremely dubious allegiance. Her experience is often cited, particularly when referring to Obama. The fact that her experience has largely been experience of giving up, selling out, and failing is never mentioned. Hey, George W. Bush has as much experience as Bill Clinton. Does that mean you’d trust him for another four years?

Obama, on the other hand, has not yet been the focus of a negative religious focus. (Should he be nominated, to say nothing of elected, he certainly will experience this — Fox News alone is too adroit at its Two Minutes Hate segments for this to be avoided, to say nothing of more explicitly right-wing media like Rush Limbaugh.) But he definitely has support far in excess of his actions.

Barack Obama has a history of failing to show a backbone which is only marginally better than Clinton’s. Remember when he attempted to organize a filibuster but said in advance that he thought it would fail? (This still puts him one up on Clinton, who could seldom, if ever, be bothered to try.) He has not particularly voted against the war in Iraq, he voted to extend the USA-PATRIOT Act, and he took the same “not voting” cowardly way out on the Lieberman-Kyl saber-rattling amendment that Clinton took on the Bankruptcy bill. His platform also seems to be fairly light on actual policy. Not to the degree that Clinton supporters suggest, but enough to be notable. (Quick: what does Obama actually propose to do about global warming? How about the war in Iraq?) Obama is less of a DINO than Hillary Clinton, and there is no longstanding hatred of his name, so he makes a superior candidate, but like Clinton he is not the savior his supporters often suggest.

Then there’s Edwards. Edwards is difficult for me to take seriously, I admit. His career at the national level began as a result of the idea, particularly prevalent four years ago, that Americans would be unwilling to vote for Democrats on the basis of issues and positions, but would be likely to vote based on geographic origin. After all, a gooey southern accent and pandering to southern racists has worked in the past, why not try it again? (The fact that the sort of person who specifically wants a southerner in office wants a southerner in office because southerners tend to be right-wingers has escaped notice.)

Edwards’ record is not all that one could hope it would be, either. He missed out on the bankruptcy bill, the PATRIOT Act extension, and Lieberman-Kyl, but he did manage to vote for the USA-PATRIOT Act itself and the war in Iraq. He seems in general to have been somewhat more sane than most of his fellow-travelers on other subjects — his Wikipedia entry says he sponsored the Fragile X Research Breakthrough Act, which is a good sign (and seems to be bearing fruit — fragile X syndrome, which causes all sorts of mental illness, has been cured in mice, and may be cured in humans relatively soon).

Still, one must remember that, despite what many politicians want us to believe, it was actually quite easy to see that Iraq did not need to be invaded. Even before the invasion, the various justifications put forward by the Bush administration were debunked, and at the time of the invasion, most (thought not all) polls showed a majority of America against invading. Anyone who voted for the invasion is asking us to believe that they were too stupid to see through the lies, too cowardly to do anything about their knowledge, or too grossly incompetent to do the right thing. This is not something in favor of any of the three candidates, who have all supported the war repeatedly, but Edwards lacks recent involvement because his term ends in 2006, so it is particularly damning in his case.

It is sad that the three front-runners for the nomination fall so short of the ideal. It is sadder still that supporters of all three believe so strongly in what is not there. This seems to be a common failure among the Democratic rank and file. Remember how the Democrats won all those seats in Congress in 2006, yet nothing changed? Remember how lots of Connecticut Democrats voted for Joseph Lieberman, who then turned into George Bush’s lap dog?

Any realistic consideration of Democratic performance over the last decade or so must conclude (barring accusations of sheer gross incompetence or unbelievable stupidity) that the Democrats have given up on what has, in the more recent half-century, been their base. They no longer seek to do what the center/left wants. Possibly this is because turnout on the left has been disappointing. Possibly they take the left for granted, knowing that the Republicans don’t want it and have no chance of getting it.

This conclusion is nothing new — it has been a part of Green Party rhetoric for quite some time. But in this election the effect has become so pronounced that it is hard to ignore. Even Dennis Kuchinich, who has been campaigning under the banner of “Leftier Than Thou”, has thrown the right wing some bones. Kuchinich has had to pander on the subject of faith, and his wife even talked about having Ron Paul as a running mate, apparently to suggest that this would somehow sanitize his candidacy.

Where does this lead? Certainly it would be helpful if Democrats would stop using faith as a guide to their candidates; if nothing else it might encourage some of their elected officials to act with more intelligence and bravery. If the Democratic nominee were seriously afraid that liberals would stay home, or vote for someone else, they might actually uphold their principles in the face of the usual right-wing barrage. They might even have the guts to go about dismantling it if elected. This, however, is an outcome which requires an unbelievable amount of optimism. Religions are not so easily displaced by reality.

Edit: WordPress saved all my paragraph breaks in the preview, then deleted them when I submitted the post. I have restored them, or at least most of them.