The nomination process is being decided, and whether we like results, we should notice that for any possible nominee, only about 6% of all Democrats were hard core supporters of that nominee, that is supported the same person all along. That's at best.
The project that we must begin, is to unite with each other. This is different from the kind of unquestioning obedience that Bush demanded from the country, but is, instead, a moment to understand that the whole of the Democratic Party necessarily contains more talent than can be found in the partisans of any one candidate. The call from McGovern in today's post puts it kindly, but firmly:
I have endorsed retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark for the Democratic nomination. If my opposition to the Vietnam War made some think I was unfit for the presidency, I give you Wes Clark, a four-star general who was a twice-wounded hero of the Vietnam War and supreme commander of the Kosovo intervention, which saved thousands from a genocidal ethnic cleansing.
If you can't go for Clark, I give you John Kerry, also a hero in Vietnam, an excellent senator and a strong leader who would be a good president. Sen. John Edwards also is a bright light in our party. And we all know that Howard Dean has courageously blazed the way for Democrats these past two years.
<HR>
For those who want to unify the party, I would suggest thinking about the difference of uniting with, and uniting behind.
FDR is considered by many to be the greastest American President - usually mentioned along side only Abraham Lincoln in steering the nation through grave crisis which threatened its well being.
Did FDR run on "I have a specific plan and the rest of you should vote for me, because I am better than Hoover" ? Did the Democratic party say "Let's vote for anyone but Hoover" ? No to both. Instead, FDR set out a course, a general diagnosis of what ailed the Republic. When in office, even the "money changers chased from the temple" found that they had a line into the inside, and the hundred days was made possible by ideas from all sides. It truly was a uniting of the country with the President, rather than under or behind.
If the Democratic Party wishes to win, and then truly use that victory to govern, it must do likewise.
But how? Electoral victory is still determined by media and by mantras that play on CNN and CBS. But governing is done through the richer conversation which letters - including the internet - make possible. The fusing of ideas into policy, justification and communication of policy will take more than a closed and closed minded staff.
Again I repeat - whoever the victor is, his supporters are a small band out of a large party. Many people of great ability and intellect have not yet made up their minds, and are willing to trust their fellow Democrats that Kerry is the front runner for good reason. While the outcome has a great impact on the careers of particular individuals - those who picked the right horses will, of course, gain the spoils that come with the access to power - to exclude the rest of the party is a recipe for certain disaster.
Disaster in that people communicate in whatever means works. If a campaign becomes a closed fortress, then the only messages from Democrats will come writ on cannonballs. If a campaign understands that there is greater intelligence in the nation which manages the business of the world, then the messages will come quietly, and criticisms will be voiced carefully. Bush escaped criticism because his followers did not care what he did, so long as he did it to arabs or democrats - and sometimes they were not clear on which was which. The result, of course, is a run away freight train of government, which has bloated beyond usefulness and left us with a dangerous situation.
The choice is up to the remaining potential nominees. All three of them have, at one time or another, stumbled badly for wont of help and advice. Success has a way of providing an excuse for mistakes: but it is a foolish excuse. Dean was taken out by the merest brush of the media's hostility. Any candidate in the race who thinks that they can withstand a crushing assault from without, while alienating support from behind them - or reducing it to a drone like "vote for me serfs! Or its four more years of Bush for you!" - will find that they are sadly mistaken. Commentators on television barely conceal their naked conservative biases, and will certainly want fresh meat. Anyone who has read about the campaigns of 1800 or 1932 knows what a vindictive and enraged conservative elite is willing to stoop to to hold power. To expect less with trillions of tax cuts on the line is, pollyanistic at best.
<HR>
I realize deals offered in public are almost never considered, but before more unfortunate statements are made, and more, metaphorical, Democratic Blood shed, I suggest each nominee offer a simple and reciprocal message.
"This election Democrats have said they want Anybody But Bush. To achieve this will take the fullest efforts of Everybody But Bush. I promise that I will fill my administration with the best, without regard to who they supported in the campaign, and that the channels for ideas and proposals and energy will be opened wide to all who are with the Democratic Party, and the American People, to right what has gone desparately wrong in these last years."
"Some saw the folly early, others hoped that consideration would limit the damage and engaged from the inside to the best of their ability. We now know that we cannot let divisions over past tactics prevent us from uniting for a common vision, and a common objective."
"I promise to take the best of America, so that we may do the best for America. The military moto is that no one is left behind, the American creed is that no one is left out. So we all believe, and so we must all act."