<$BlogRSDUrl$>
2008 Ground Rules
Do I have a favorite in this race? Of course I do. But I find it foolhardy to viciously attack the other candidates simply because I find a different one preferable. The truth is that any of the candidates would make an acceptable nominee. Whether it's Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Gore, Vilsack, Biden, Richardson, Clark, Dodd, or any other serious candidate (i.e. not Sharpton or Kucinich) - if any of them should win the nomination, I will happily work for their victory in November. None of them are perfect - each of them is a mix of strengths and weaknesses. Which shouldn't be surprising, because they are human beings. None of them agrees with me on absolutely everything. Also not surprising, since they are not me.
Can we all please accept that each of the candidates are honorable people of good will, that each wishes the best for the country, and that each will likely do the right thing most of the time? All of them are liberals, all are Democrats, and all them are competent individuals who agree with the principles we adhere to: economic equality & security, international cooperation, social justice, and cultural tolerance. It is just silly to reach for our swords because someone has a slightly different take on these issues, or is a bit more cautious (or daring) than we would be.
In short, in our eagerness to find the non-existent "perfect" candidate, let us not forget what our true purposes. Let us not forget who the real enemy is. It is just juvenile and short-sighted to tear down the leaders of our party in the name of political idolatry or ideological purity. Attacking our own only makes it easier for the Republicans and D.C. pundits to ruin us.
In this spirit of intra-party charity, I am taking on my personal mission for the 2008 primary campaign. While I will choose one of the announced candidates to actively support, I will strive to never say anything derogatory about any of the other candidates. But I will go further: should any one else level an attack at another Democratic candidate, I will defend that candidate - even if it is my favorite candidate attacking one of his rivals. I will defend the integrity and qualifications of each of these candidates from one another, and I challenge every other Democrat to do the same.
And who knows? Maybe we could actually have a campaign about what is the best for the country, rather than about hairdo's and innuendo.
5 Comments:
-
"Absurdly enough, the 2008 elections have already begun." There's nothing absurd about it. The American public is very unhappy with the Iraq War and Resident Bush's decision to send more troops. There is an obvious leadership void, thus people are eager to pick the next president.
By
The Democratic Party is virtually assured of victory in 2008, so whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will become the next president. Obama will declare in a few weeks, and Edwards is already a candidate, so the ideal ticket would have both of them on it (Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama).
Marriah, at 12:42 PM
-
Well said.
By
Amazing to me that mud-slinging has become some sort of sporting event over the last 3 elections. And, you'd think with all the "Good Christians" in government they'd remember the "He who casts the first stone..." thing.
I, too, will support the Democratic candidate whomever they shall be. I'm told that is a bad way to consider who to vote for. But, the way I look at it, better to vote FOR someone than AGAINST someone else.
Well, unless, of course, it is Barney the purple dinosaur :) Penguin, at 3:01 PM
-
Marriah: I'll say we're assured of victory when there's a Democrat standing on the podium taking the oath of office on January 20, 2009.
By
Penguin: Barney might be better than the jokers there now. Arbitrista, at 4:21 PM
-
The reason a Democratic Presidential victory is "virtually assured" is because of the historical and structural precedents.
By
1. Only once (1988) has the same party been elected to the presidency 3 times since 1940.
2. You have to go back as far as 1928 to find another election in which there was no heir apparent from either party. Thus, 2008 will strongly represent 1928, except in the reverse. In 1928, whoever became the Republican nominee was assured of victory because of the roaring economy, and the credit citizens gave to the Republican Party for the economy. The reverse situation is present today: everyone hates the Iraq war, and the citizens blame Bush for the war. Therefore, the majority of voters will be voting for a way to end the war.
In terms of voter turnout, this means that the youth vote will remain high, on par with or exceeding 2006. The only problem is that the Republicans have a fake 3 million vote surplus: the exit polls different from the "official" results by 3 million votes in 2004 and 2006. If the Democrats change that with reform of voting machines by 2008, this fake cushion will disappear. Barring that, look for several Western states (AZ, NM, MT, CO, NV) to vote Democratic as the Hispanic vote and Ex-CA vote affects those states. If Edwards is at the top of the ticket, it will be a sweep of the South as well. Marriah, at 11:50 PM
-
I think you're far too in love with the structural and historical precedents. Yes they're favorable, but how often to these precedents fail? Once upon a time, Presidents always took the House when they won. They used to always gain seats. Once upon a time a President losing the Congress in his first midterm spelled defeat in his re-election bid. Once Presidents were guaranteed to lose seats in Congress during the midterm. Once Presidents either won big re-elections or lost big.
By
These historical trends are just that -trends. They are certainly indicative of a Democratic advantage in 2008, but to say it's a done deal? Please. Arbitrista, at 12:02 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home
:: permalink
