The Only Thing You REALLY Need To Know About The '08 Presidential Election

I've been amused at the quasi "recommended diary" war we've had going on. Each day it seems there's 2 or 3 Edwards diaries crashing against 2 or 3 Obama diaries. With the occasional "HILLARY SUCKS" diary tossed in.

I can understand the urge to pick your candidate and speak out proudly about them. No one is saying otherwise. But I would like to take a moment to remind ourselves of the ONE thing you REALLY need to know about the '08 Presidential Election.

Find out on the jump

Simply put, the one and only thing you really need to know and dare I say believe is this. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination, you MUST support them.

The day this race is over, all the losing camps need to immediately get behind the winner. No "YOU'VE DOOMED US ALLLLLllll" bs. No urging your choice to run as an independent or jumping to any independent nominee's campaign.

We must get behind whoever is the nominee like our lives depend on it. To be honest, they probably do. The lives of our service members. And the life of the very Constitution we hold dear.

Lets be honest people, there's good reason to not be excited about every single one of our nominees. Clinton brings with her DLC baggage and a love for opinion polls. Obama may be more than a bit naive with his "we've got to come together and compromise" rhetoric. Edwards recently annoyed the hell out of me with his answer to a marijuana decriminalization question. I'd go on and cover all the "one percenters", but it really isn't worth my time.

But you know what? Any single Democratic nominee for President will be better than the best Republican nominee. President Kucinich beats them all, hands down.

I'll admit, I have a hard time getting excited about the nomination race. I live in Indiana. By the time they get around to asking me who I'd like, the decision will already be made. But that doesn't mean that the second we pick a nominee I won't get behind them 100% and do my best to make sure they become the next President of the United States of America.

So please remember that despite your candidate having the best health care plan or whatever, if they lose you just have to deal with it. And get behind our nominee with all your heart and soul. Our absolute unity behind our candidate will be the difference between President "insert name here" or President Huckabee...or Giuliani...or McCain...or (shudder) Thompson.

To be honest, any Democrat who does not fall in line and give their all to our nominee is no more of a Democrat than Joe Lieberman. So that's the decision folks, be a Democrat or wave your Connecticut For Lieberman flag proudly. But you can't do both.

•  I can see the comments now . . .

  "I agree . . . unless it's Clinton."

  I do agree, emphatically.

  by prodigal on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:49:30 AM PDT

  •  What does that tell you?

    What does it tell you that she's the only one capable of dividing the party?

    by malharden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:57:06 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    Even if it's Obama.

    (I said that to tweak the other person who responded to you.)

    by Montague on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:00:48 AM PDT

    •  If you mean me...

      Good luck with that, I don't tweak easily.

      (Okay, there's about 3 posters that get me going pretty easily. But that's it.)

      Truth be told, I am still waffling. For example, I've given Dodd actual financial contributions...but no other candidate.

      You'll find I defend Obama a lot, but mainly because I find the criticisms to be lacking. Not (yet) because I have decided to vote for him.

      by malharden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:55:23 AM PDT

•  NO.

  Unless Hillary does something to fix this pattern of dog-whistle offenses aimed towards underscoring "scary things about dark people", she can count me the hell out.

  She's pulling the Dem version of a....wait for it....Tancredo.

  I'm simply not supporting that. I'll vote for every other Dem on the ballot and will leave the Presidential line blank.

  And I live it Virginia, so dammit my vote means something.

  (During the McLurkin "saga" I felt that folks similarly offended by the Obama campaign's handling of that should follow their hearts. I am doing same.)

  by malharden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:56:14 AM PDT

  •  So

    The fact that she had a jackass running her Iowa campaign and was stupid enough to let Bob freaking Kerrey speak in support of her will cause you to perhaps not cast that ballot that puts a Democrat in the White House?

    Sorry, but Clinton is very very low on my list. Below the one percenters. But if she's the nominee, so be it. Fall in damn line and do your part.

    Sure, she comes well versed in dirty politics. But she's better than Mitt Romney.

    Sure, she will piss us off by being too much of a hawk. But she's better than Mike Huckabee.

    Sure, she will piss us off with too much "centrist" bs. But she's better than Rudy Giuliani.

    Sure, she brings with her extreme baggage from her past that the Republicans will try to use. But she's better than John McCain

    And so on. If you really think that Democratic President Hillary Clinton would be worse than any single Republican nominee, I really have to question your commitment to our party. President Hillary checked by an overwhelming Democratic majority in congress would be approximately Elevendy times better than any Republican checked by a modest Democratic majority in congress. Because you can damn well bet that overwhelming and modest is the difference between our 100% unity behind our nominee and division.

    by wheelimus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:03:45 AM PDT

    •  Feel free to question my commitment to party

      My commitment to party will not come at the expense of my self respect. I will not suffer indignities that I feel are targeted at the neutral core of my being, not at legitimate shortcomings that I cannot improve upon.

      If Bob Kerrey's dog whistle implied that he did not like the way black people dressed (See Stern, David: NBA dress code) you could agree to disagree about generalizations on clothing and what those surface differences might mean.

      But that wasn't what Kerrey's whistles were getting at.

      He was talking about who Obama is as a person. As a human. And, I don't appreciate it.

      Yes, I will sacrifice supporting the party on the altar of human dignity and self respect.

      To me it matters not what the Republican would do in that situation. Because the Democratic Party is suppose to be better than them. And, if you'd choose Kerrey (Hillary) over other, better examples of primary candidates, then the party is choosing her over me (and other voters they lost). That's a decision the party gets to make. But I don't have to give you my self-respect in the exchange.

      by malharden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:21:35 AM PDT

      •  I understand the POV

        and it's your vote to do with as you'd like.

        But for me, personally, my self-respect, while it may be comforting, is worth jack-shit when I'm facing down the reality of another administration of constitution shredders.

        Just my POV, take it or leave it (and I'm rather sure I know which of those you'll choose).

        by Spit on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:47:35 AM PDT

      •  I understand your line of thinking, but

        How much will your self respect be worth if enough like minded people cause a Republican to stay in the White House? Because that would just guarantee more of the same. Nothing progressive happening, veto threat after veto threat, rollover after rollover.

        Contrast that with a Clinton presidency with a strong Democratic majority, and we will be able to push this country in the most progressive direction since the New Deal.

        Of course, I'd rather it be an Obama presidency. Or an Edwards. Or, well, any other Democrat pretty much. But it's hard to argue that a Clinton administration wouldn't take this country in a better direction than every single Republican.

        Self respect is nice, but when it comes at the expense of the good of the union I have to question the worth. Self respect won't bring us universal health care. Self respect won't force us to change course in Iraq. Self respect is nice, but I'd rather hold my nose when I vote and still be able to look myself in the mirror the next morning.

        by wheelimus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:57:53 AM PDT

•  Guarantee you

  that this won't work.

  But for what it's worth, as far as I'm concerned I will be voting (D) for president until everything the GOP has become in the last decade or more is dead, drawn and quartered, staked-through-the-heart, decapitated, burned, and its ashes strewn over different corners of the earth. I want the scariest of those scary fuckers destroyed before I can consider anything else personally moral, no matter where my personal morals otherwise might fall.

  I'm not in love with any of our candidates. At all. But nothing, and I mean nothing that they're guilty of is even the teensiest, tiniest scrap as dangerous as the flag-or-bible-wrapped fascism the other side has taken on as its core philosophy.

  My copper coinage.

  by Spit on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:03:08 AM PDT

  •  Here here!

    Congratulations to the rank of Yellow Dog ism.  My feelings are very close to yours.   There are a few of the D's that I might need to hold my nose when voting for, but they are guaranteed to be day and night better than anything the other side is going to offer.

    by DanD on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:11:44 AM PDT

•  Rudy is

  a hell of a lot more shudderworthy than Thompson. Thankfully, neither really have a chance at this point.

  (yeah, tangential nitpick.. I agree with the substance ;)

  by Illissius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:32:14 AM PDT

  •  Don't be too sure about Rudy

    He's more or less my worst nightmare.  I don't understand why Repugs are going for him, but they do.  And since the Democrats aren't great at attacking viciously (at least they're not as good at it as the Repugs are), Independents might not get to know the real Rudy.  They might think he's kind of moderate and vote for him

    by Montague on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:03:58 AM PDT

    •  that is

      exactly my point.

      by Illissius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:26:23 AM PDT

      •  What I meant is

        that I think Rudy DOES have a chance and that's why I'm extra scared.

        by Montague on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:52:01 AM PDT

        •  Well, Bush did win in '04 somewhow...

          I'd say just about any of the Republicans has a chance, especially if the progressive movement is splintered.

          by wheelimus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:00:54 AM PDT

          •  I agree that we must not

            let ourselves be splintered.  All the Dem candidates are more progressive than the Repugs, and furthermore I believe all of them would work as progressives in the WH on important issues like health care and taxes.

            It is strangely true in American history of the past half-century at least, that even when Congress is run by Democrats, Republicans still wind up in the WH a whole lot of the time.

            by Montague on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:37:44 PM PDT

        •  I'm talking about the Republican primary

          not the general. Rudy is something like 6th in Iowa, behind Romney and dropping in New Hampshire, behind Romney and Huckabee in South Carolina, and in the only 'early' state where he had a lead, Florida, Huckabee is fast catching up to him (nationally, too). And the more people get to know him, the more they dislike him.

          He's finished. (Thank the FSM.)

          by Illissius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:15:39 AM PDT

          •  My bad

            Primary, okay, got it.  Although I am not going to be convinced that Rudy's finished until he's really finished.  Huckabee would be my ideal Repug candidate because I do think his dominionism will scare the crap out of the vast majority of the electorate.

            by Montague on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:35:30 PM PDT