This isn't a substantive diary...I just had to get something off my chest.

It really irritates me whenever someone on this site posts a poll in favor of Obama and someone (and there's always someone) feels compelled to say something along the lines of: "Don't get cocky. This doesn't mean we've won. A lot can happen between now and November. The GOP has all kind of dirty tricks planned. We are still going to have to work hard for it. Pretend we're 30 points down." And so on.

Listen, we all know. Really. We really already know that a poll is just a snapshot in time and that the GOP will pull dirty tricks and that we're going to have to work hard to elect Obama. Seriously, we got it. Just because Kos posts that Obama and McSame are statistically tied in freakin' Georgia!, that doesn't mean people are saying, "Welp, that wraps up that state! Nothing more to do here, it's a done deal. Movin' on!" Really, no one is saying that. I promise.

For all you folks who feel the need to protect us from poll-fueled complacency, I know your heart is in the right place. I really do. But please, stop. We got it. Really.

While it's certainly true that the primary contest between Obama and Hillary led to two divided camps of passionate supporters, the fact is that the difference between those two are nothing compared to the choice that lies ahead. The difference between the Democratic and Republican nominees is stark. McCain knows this and he knows that his positions are become deeply unpopular. That's why he will be trying his best to run as a moderate, a kind of Obama-lite, while trying to paint Obama as the actual radical. There is nothing new in this strategy...what's new is that this time it won't work.

There is no doubt that the upcoming race is going to be grueling work. The GOP is going to throw lots of elbows and use every dirty trick they can think of. But this time we are ready. This time we have a candidate that is a master of political jujitsu who isn't afraid to hit back and hit back hard with honesty, passion, and wisdom. This time we have a candidate that knows how to win the money race. And this time we have a candidate that can welcome republicans and independents while at the same time being willing and able to attack flawed conservative ideologies. Obama does not have to and will not run as GOP-lite; this time, he can stand tall and proud as a progressive Democrat and win.

Obama consistently makes the eloquent point that this primary has not been about any one candidate, and I don't think there's anyone who really disagrees with that. In a larger sense, it has been about the Democratic party and the greater progressive movement. But, in a more pragmatic sense, it has also been about who will follow the winner into the halls of power. While the policy differences between Obama and Hillary are relatively minor, the differences between their professional teams are not.

As TomP reports, Obama will be keeping Howard Dean as chairman of the DNC while installing Paul Tewes as a key strategist. This is great news, both for Obama and the party, as both men have amassed amazing strategic and organizational accomplishments. If Obama had not won the nomination, we might instead be hearing about Dean being fully replaced by Harold Ford Jr. (the same man who seemed to be the only "pundit" who thought McCain's embarrassing Tuesday speech was a successful one).

The Democratic primary has been an historic one in a number of ways. That it came down to a woman and an African-American is nothing short of amazing, and (hopefully) symbolic of a seismic shift in race and gender relations in our country. That the primary has lasted as long as it has is also one for the history books, and academics will no doubt be studying it for decades to come.

Although Barack Obama has more or less been the nominee for several weeks now, his de facto victory is finally becoming acknowledged in the MSM and with many super delegates. His main opponent's tenacity is also becoming legend; that Hillary Clinton has kept her fighting spirit even after the unexpected draw on Super Tuesday and the wave of Obama victories in February is a testament to her fortitude and sense of commitment. And although she has recently vowed to keep fighting, the nomination process is now over and Barack Obama is our nominee.

And now, it is time for reconciliation.

In a recent article over at Slate, Doug Kmiec, a lawyer who worked in the administrations of both Reagan and Bush Sr., endorsed Obama. In this brief statement he had some nice things to say about Obama, such as...

I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights.

Good stuff, that. What we have here is yet another example of a conservative who sees in Obama the possibility of bringing dignity, honesty, and competence back to DC. Bravo for him for "coming out" about it.

However, that is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about a single paragraph in which Mr. Kmiec delineates his conservative principles as justifications for being a member of the Republican Party.

I have no problem with Clinton supporters trying to keep up spirits and wishing for an ideal scenario that will propel their candidate to victory. Heck, I stuck with Edwards up until the end, so I understand the compulsion. However, now that it's obvious that Obama has the nomination virtually wrapped up and that Clinton's path to victory has narrowed to a tiny sliver, the efforts to bolster her have become ever more ludicrous and acrimonious. Take this recent DKos diary by 4water (who clearly just registered to post this little gem). A snippet from this frightening scenario:

But many other things contributed to [Obama's] downfall, including many of his own making. And when the Clinton supporters walked out of the Democratic Convention in August because [he] accused Hillary Clinton of making it tough for him, and because he insulted half the democratic party for voting for her, Obama was left alone with a young, over-hyped crowd that was too naive and inexperienced to mount the kind of effort he would need to defeat John McCain.

This is a short diary, but I feel compelled to get this out. Last night showed that Clinton's negative tactics work, which will only encourage her to ramp them up. Because of this, Obama will now have to reciprocate (it's already started). Although Obama has the majority of committed delegates locked down, Clinton will continue to muddy the waters to convince enough super delegates to give her nomination.

It's time for Gore and Edwards to endorse Obama. Although Edwards alone carries little weight now, if he were to offer a joint endorsement with Gore, it would recapture a positive news cycle for Obama going into the final set of primaries. It would bolster him by giving a big vote of confidence while silently repudiating Clinton's negative tactics.

Mr. Gore and Mr. Edwards, if you are going to endorse, the time is now.

Only three more days until the Nobel Peace Prize winner is announced in Oslo. Lots of people are speculating that if Gore wins, he will use it as a platform to run for president. If he is the winner this Friday, I myself give it a 15% chance that he will run (scientifically calculated by gazing into the bottom of my coffee mug). However, I also predict that if he does run, he has a 99% chance of winning both the nomination and the White House in a landslide.

Until then, here are a few recent news items to whet the appetite.

The 2008 election is an history opportunity to shift this country back to it's liberal roots and so begin to repair the injuries inflicted by the GOP in the last three decades. We have a cadre of compelling candidates, all of whom can defeat anything the Republicons currently have in their stable of Old White Men. With this in mind, Democrats are in a wonderful position—we can actually choose a candidate that represents true progressive principles, instead of merely choosing the "lesser of two evils." We can, in essence, choose a president that will be the flag-bearer for a revitalized, constitutional country that values work over wealth, health over profits, and fairness over bigotry.

To a large degree, the policy positions offered by the candidates are more similar than not. They all have good ideas. And all the candidates have weaknesses as well, no doubt about it. Hillary is being dubbed the winner by the media and a lot of Democrats in this country are favoring her (although an equal number despise her). What many of them do not understand is that a candidate is more than their policy positions...we have to look a bit deeper to catch a glimpse of who they really are and what their values might be. It is doubly true in Hillary’s case that, as the saying goes, you are who you associate with.

I have two questions for anyone willing and able to answer:

1. How soon after winning the nomination can the Dem nominee pick a VP running mate?

2. If Edwards wins and picks Obama, what would that mean in terms of money and the questions about public funding? In other words, would Obama be able to filter his general election money to the Edwards/Obama effort?

Just curious...

I believe I am an average anyone-but-Hillary partisan on DKos. I don't hate her, and of course things in this country can only improve with her in the WH, but I do think that her presidency would essentially be a slightly more socially liberal form of GOP-lite.  

But with her $27 mil announcement today, I have to say that her nomination is looking a lot more likely. Yes, I do think that Edwards can still win (although the odds seem lower now), and Gore would take it if he actually ran (we'll see what happens in a couple of weeks), but for all that, she is undeniably in a powerful position right now.

What I'm asking is for any Hillary supporters who might be willing to convince me that her candidacy is a good thing. I can honestly say that my ears are open and I'm ready to hear your arguments.

When I read that Edwards was going to take public funding, my original response was negative. It seemed to somehow signal some kind of defeat. But then I remembered thinking the exact same thing when I read about Kerry infusing cash into his campaign via a mortgage on his house. I figured that was it for him, especially since it happened so close to the Iowa caucus. But of course, we know what happened.

Although the dynamics are different this time around, I am more convinced than ever that Edwards is going to get the nomination.

Hillary is going in with a lot of institutional support and a very disciplined team...this gives her an advantage that Dean didn't have in 2004. However, just as Gephardt piled up on Dean to drive up his negatives, so will both Edwards and Obama have to do the same with Hillary, who already has very high negatives. The obvious advantage to this is that they won't have to go nasty to be effective...simply pointing out her weaknesses (e.g. hawkishness, pro-corporate, DC insider, etc) consistently will erode a lot of her support when it comes to casting the vote.

I must admit that, at this time, I do not think that Gore is going to enter the race.

However, if he did, the context could not be more ideal for him than what is brewing now. None of the current candidates are being rallied around...Hillary is polling high on name recognition and fond memories of the Big Dog, but she also has high negatives and doesn't inspire excitement. Obama inspires lots of excitement, but he doesn't inspire confidence and his play-it-safe campaign is turning it down from a boil to a simmer. Edwards is the darling of the progressive blogosphere, but the corporate world is frightened of him and is trying to kill his candidacy by simply not covering him (and it's largely working). None of the other candidates are really contenders, leaving the field open for a Gore entry.

This is going to be short but sweet...

I gave a donation to John Edwards tonight, the first since 2003 (to Howard Dean). I have very little discretionary funds and it took a lot for me to finally open up my pocket book—even as modest as my donation was. I did so because he made me really believe, for the first time, that he can beat Hillary. He was willing to stand up to her and bring her terrible judgment into question. At tonight's debate he said:

I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war.  And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war. We learned a very different lesson from that.

This was a double-decker challenge: not only towards her unwise Lieberman-Kyl vote in particular, but also her general lack of ability to learn from her mistakes. Further, he solidly aligned her with Bush, which was a brilliant move.

If he keeps this up, he might just start chipping away at the largely media-induced lead she is currently and undeservedly enjoying.

Edwards rocked tonight...see TomP's excellent diary for much more.

nyceve recalled in a recent diary her question to Jeffrey Feldman, "I really don't get it, why is Hillary so distrusted...on Daily Kos?" I cannot answer for DKos, but I'd like to answer for myself.

For me, the issue isn't really distrust. I don't think she's lying (at least, not any more than any politician does by necessity). I don't think she has a secret lair under a volcano where she plots her evil plans. And I really do believe that she believes that her presidency would improve this country.

At this point in time, her presidency would most certainly improve the country. The GOP criminals in charge have so dessicated our government and political processes that any democrat in office could only make things better. In the case of a SCOTUS vacancy, Hillary would certainly appoint a  reasonably-impartial justice. She would sign many bills put on her desk by a Democratic congress. She would work to repair our reputation with the rest of the world. All good things.

I think what nyceve might be tapping into is that, for many of us, this is not nearly enough.