We have a problem.
Step back for a moment, though — let your analytical mind take a much-needed nap — and consider our situation for the upcoming presidential election. We've got Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Dean, and Clark — all names that have been bandied about with the "front-runner" tag firmly affixed. What gives? Why can't we make up our minds? It's not as if we're desperate — in need of a "savior," as the FReepers would like to believe — and its not that we can't identify the differences amongst the potential nominees. So, that aside, and with all due respect, what's our fucking problem? I'll take a stab at it, below the fold.
A problem? Yes — but it's the best problem a political movement could ever wish for. They don't realize it yet, but the Republicans will be puke-green with envy come this time next year. The issue, however, is that we don't realize the depth and breadth of our problem — so I'll just come out and say it.
We have too much talent. It's the same problem Harvard has when they sift through the 18,000 applications they receive in any given year and realize that, in the end, they've got to reject 16,000 of them. It's the same problem the St. Louis Post Dispatch faces each year when they're forced to choose the 100 Neediest Cases from the thousands of letters they receive.
So, why do we argue over the 'best' nominee? That's easy — because we're eventually going to have to pick one. Are we doing the right thing? Absolutely. But I think we're going about it in a divisive, inefficient way.
If we've learned anything about American electoral politics in the past six years, it's that a candidate's past will be vetted, researched, and scoured in the hopes of finding some twenty-year-old peccadillo. Skeletons will be dragged out of closets. Youthful indiscretions will be put on trial. Dirty laundry will be aired — you catch the drift.
How can we prevent this from happening? We can't — but we don't have to engage in it, either. It's important, going forward, that we avoid undue reticence in the interest of supporting a candidate. So you've already made up your mind? That's great — I envy you — but don't stop there. Help us understand the rest of the field by digging deeper, uncovering positive traits in the other candidates and engaging in open, thought-provoking discussions weighing positive against positive.
In other words, please don't voice your support for one candidate by opening the baggage another candidate carries. Support your favorite candidate by casting light on his/her positions, policies, and personal virtues — and leave the dumpster diving to the opposition.
IN OTHER WORDS: Let's all support every candidate until the very last minute of the day on we have to pick one. Having concentrated on only positive traits until then, we can completely avoid ending the careers of all of the other primary contenders, while focusing all of our efforts on debunking the Swiftboating of only one candidate!