This is a very brief diary, probably more suited to a comment in a open thread. Too bad.
I have just finished watching the Frontline special, "Bush's War," which ended with a very important sentence, which we all should call to the front of our primary-addled minds right now:
"Soon, Bush's War will be handed to someone else."
Think about that for a second. Roll it around your mind like a choice cabernet franc in your mouth. Consider it from multiple angles like the devastating bon mot you've been planning to drop in a viciously funny campaign diary.
There is not a snowball's chance in Baghdad August that American troops will be given any order to disengage while this administration sits. The vice-president has made that clear with an offhand reference to Peter Gabriel's most successful record.
Soon, another resident will move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, read the note in the center drawer, give orders to replace the "O," "H" or "M" keys on the computers, and sit down with his or her national security staff to determine what to do about Operation Iraqi Freedom.
There will be a great difference in the tenor of that meeting if the expected Republican nominee leads the meeting than if one of the two potential Democrats is the president. Mr. McCain has made it ultimately clear he has no intention of changing the policies evolved under the current administration. "One hundred years" isn't a rhetorical flourish. It is a vision and a clear declaration of policy.
Therefore, if you wish to see a different outcome to America's greatest foreign policy disaster ever, it is incumbent upon us that we elect a Democrat to the presidency of the United States in 2008.
To do that, we will need all Democrats and D-leaning Independents to march into the voting booth this fall and confidently, even joyously, pull the lever, push the button or fill in the dot for our candidate. "Too close to call" has been proven to mean "Close enough to steal."
I honestly don't know how we can find sufficient comity and unity after this spitball fight to accomplish that unlikely mission, but we must. From the time of FDR, our party has represented a grand coalition of workingmen, women, minorities, hawks, doves and other bird species whose only attraction to us was our reasonable, rational approach to the great problems our country faced.
If the current battle continues in its present form, with any ammunition considered fair, up to and including blanket statements about the motives and methods of the candidate we oppose, that coalition may be strained too badly to be repaired in time to face our practiced, determined foes who intend to keep our brothers and sisters fighting an unwinnable war in Mesopotamia for the next century.
As I say, I don't know the way back from our current impasse. But, if there is such a way, we must walk it.
No one can be dismissed from our grand coalition. No vote, and no voter, can be taken for granted.
I would be glad to hear any suggestions for the task of reuniting this coalition. Snark, devilishly clever nicknames and horribly funny video mashups devastating the last defense of intra-party enemies not welcome. (Don't worry--my spiritual largesse will probably have worn off by tomorrow and I'll tip your awful, hilarious photoshop efforts.)
But, for the sake our brothers and sisters still stuck in an unwinnable nightmare Between the Rivers, how exactly are we going to elect a Democrat this November?