It's the math. And the vintage.

I try to like beer. I really do. But except for the occasional lager or raspberry wheat, I am just not interested. I think that’s how many people feel about wine. That is simply a pity for many reasons, not the least of which is the analogies lost to them.

For example: If the admirable Barack Obama were a wine, he’d be one of those unheralded gems that didn’t cost much and was purchased on a whim or a friend’s recommendation – and that turns out to be an incredible value: nuanced yet muscular, with a great attack and long finish. An Italian Rosso, perhaps, comprised of a number of unfamiliar grapes that combine in winning fashion. Or something surprisingly good from a small Sonoma vineyard, a young red that drinks great now and will only get better with time.

Hillary Clinton? Aaaiiiii, as my friend Kirsten says. Hillary is an expensive Napa Cabernet Sauvignon, from a reliably good producer with a solid reputation; unfortunately, she’s a wine one has cellared and later opened with anticipation, only to discover it’s gone bad. I could torture this analogy for days, but let’s just summarize by saying the chief reaction to such an uncorking is disappointment. Hill, we hardly knew ye.

In her obsession with winning no matter the cost, Clinton has crossed a line. She’s knowingly stepped into the shoes the right-wing Clinton-haters crafted for her so long ago – you know, those manipulative, power-hungry, unethical shoes? I don’t like her shoes. I don’t like their style. I hate that they seem to fit her. I hate that I’ve abandoned my wine metaphors for Imelda Marcos analogies.

Hillary is like a sister to me. Not in the sense that she grew up with me or has ever MET me, but in the sense that I don’t like it when she screws up, and I don’t like it when others criticize her. And I am SO disappointed!

‘Tis a pity, but I am no longer interested in drinking her Koolaid; er, wine. Leaving aside the pitiful, victim-y racism of Geraldine Ferraro and the “he’s like Jesse Jackson” line trotted out by Bill, Hillary is blighting the reputation she cultivated so carefully for so many years in her well-established vineyard. She has said, loud and clear, that either she or John McCain would be suitable as Commander-in-Chief, but that her Democratic opponent would not be.

Think about this: She has handed the opposition party a cudgel with which to attack the Democratic nominee. She has done this purposely – both Clintons are too bright to “accidentally” say such things. And so I have come to this painful realization over the past six weeks: that it’s true what I keep reading and concluding. That she would rather McCain won the presidency if she is not the Democratic nominee.

And she CAN’T be the nominee. Not in any honest or fair way. She is too far behind in both pledged delegates and popular vote. To use the more common sports analogy, she’s 10 points down with a minute on the clock and the ball at midfield. The math isn’t on her side. It ain’t gonna happen.

Instead of conceding gracefully, she’s refusing to leave the field. She’s attempting to bribe and intimidate the referees. Failing that, she is instructing her team to break the legs of the opposing quarterback. Translation: Instead of bowing out and getting behind the Democratic nominee, Hillary has turned to attempted cheating, lies about her record, and smears of her opponent. She’s endorsed Rovian fear-mongering, that brand of win-at-any-cost politics that has cost our country so dearly.

For those who attempt to excuse such behavior as merely the stuff of politics, I point to the tragic legacy of George W. Bush – the illegal war in the wrong country, the lies, endorsement of torture and warrantless spying on Americans, the massive red ink and the cratering economy, the corruption and politicization of the Justice Department and the EPA, the continued frightening idealogy of the Supreme Court. Given the damage done to our country under this stubbornly wrong president, there can be no excuse for someone who would have the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if she cannot wear the laurel wreath herself. Because Hillary’s race-baiting and attempts to game the race have had an impact: McCain has pulled even with both Democrats in the latest “Who would you pick as President?” poll.

There truly is not much difference in Obama’s and Clinton’s stands on the issues. Except for the little matter of the worst foreign policy blunder of my lifetime, the $2-trillion debacle known as “the war in Iraq.” Obama has been on the record as against the war on Iraq from BEFORE Day One. And Hillary? Not only has she refused to apologize for her vote authorizing that murderous disaster; knowing Bush as we all do now, she voted to give him the same authority to wage war on Iran – did you know that, reader? That was the deal-breaker for me. War on Iran: very bad idea. Giving Bush the power to wage war on Iran: very very very very very very very bad idea.

If health care, the economy or the war in Iraq is a major issue for you, your choice in November is an easy one. Senator McCain, with no mastery of economics and no clue as to how to resolve America’s health care crisis, is the most vocal proponent of the Iraq debacle. Love what we’ve done in Iraq? Vote for McCain. (Vote for McCain and you get a few bonuses: He supports funding for the discredited Bush "abstinence-only" programs; he's opposed to access to birth control and family-planning services; and best of all: He loves him some Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. The ick factor is rising exponentially, eh?)

It amazes me that some folks don’t seem to grasp the magnitude of Obama’s primary season feat: He has out-campaigned and out-organized the vaunted Clinton machine. If that doesn’t serve as a wake-up call for those who’ve slept through other proofs of his obvious intellectual prowess and leadership skills. . . consider what his well-thought-out 50-state strategy could mean for our country: Someone who could, possibly, just maybe, re-unite the United States across the red-blue divide! A President who would. . . LEAD!

Yes, I know, I'm dreaming, just as I dream of being handed free, limitless gift cards at KC wine shops. Scorn me for having the audacity to hope. But even Republicans have a hard time disliking this guy, he's so temperate, bright and honest. He's the anti-polarization candidate. These days, he's my house wine.

I can’t think of a wine analogy for Senator McCain. He’s a beer, a decent enough beer, or at least the best beer the Republicans have to offer. But like Hillary these days, he leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Postscript: I just read Obama's speech on black -- and white -- community. You can watch the video, if you prefer: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords If you do, however, you'll vote for the man. If I were a winemaker, I'd name a wine for him.