Read this diary about the rationing of health care. Or this one (and numbers of others like it by other Kossaks here in Daily KOS) about my family's personal experience with what our health care system breeds. The policies toward health care reform matter to myself and others like me. The labels of people supporting them don't.
Or, if you prefer, read about how our nation's reputation is diminished and our moral standing in the world is sundered: Abu Gharaib; Joking about the War on Iraq, based on lies; "Liberal" hawks wrong about the war.
Or consider the nomination and acceptance of Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS and the decisions following those events.
Consider these things and more and understand: we are embroiled in a literal fight for what it means to be a Democrat, a Republican, an American, and what we stand for.
This isn't a fucking game.
The 'team' with the most members in Congress, or with the White House in its column, or with the SCOTUS in its column, or any combination thereof, wins and loses only by the most puerile, shallow analysis. Undertaking a more thorough, deep analysis should reveal a simple truth: who wins or loses isn't determined by the number of "D" or "R" names in Congress (or elsewhere), but rather by the policies enacted by these people, labels aside. And the "winners" and "losers" in this context are We, The People. We win or lose: not Democrats; not Republicans; all of us, regardless of label.
The fact that Arlen Specter now has a "D" after his name doesn't mean Arlen Specter is going to vote in a way that conforms to "D" patterns of votes prior to his switch, much less does it mean his votes will benefit America.
In fact, even the cursory glance through the Kos diary history that I provided above the fold reveals something startling: the label after a name is next to meaningless unless it is accompanied by votes and other actions that advance an agenda in accordance with actual Democratic Party principles.
Of course there is some circular, chicken-before-the-egg context of necessity: after all, "Democratic Party principles" are defined as much by the historical pattern as by the direction current Democratic Party members push the party. That's rather my whole point.
We can support anybody who puts a "D" after his name for the sake of having more "D" names in Congress (or elsewhere), regardless of their actual policies and views. Or we can support people who put a "D" after their name and who have, generally, certain views in common with those we believe are more appropriate for America. The two don't necessarily coincide, and blind support of "D" candidates just because they have a "D" after their name is not only intellectually lazy, it is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and outright inhumane.
There's another component of the deeper analysis: the fact is there is a reason that people like Kos and the rest of us who frequent this site believe that electing more Democrats, in general, is good, and it's because in general Republicans support and work for the very intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt, harmful policies that (most) Democrats (ought to) oppose. It isn't blind belief that a "D" magically makes a person support "D" policies, even if it does imply (most of the time) they're more inclined to.
If this site were really just about electing more Democrats, regardless of their policies or actions, then it would have died a long time ago. And it would have deserved to.