Saturday, December 29, 2007

I couldn't have said it better myself

I was getting all set to write a post about the Democratic race. It was going to be a different post than the GOP ones, because while I have my preferences, which I'll get to, there are a whole passel of candidates that would be a staggering improvement over anything the GOP has to offer. Even Hillary, who annoys the crap out of me (and who I've stated that I wouldn't vote for in the past...although who knows what would happen in that voting booth in November) is still light years further into reality than anyone with an (R) next to their name. Then I came across this post by AnnArborBlue (we'll forgive AAB's collegiate allegiances this time) on Daily Kos:

Why You Should Vote for Whoever You Want
by AnnArborBlue
Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 06:41:16 PM PST

Because none of the Democratic candidates suck. No. really. Despite what you've heard from various people around this place lately, none of the "Democrats" is really a Republican, none of them are Bush-lite, and none of them killed your mother and then hid her body. That evil, centrist Hillary Clinton has a Progressive Punch Score of 91%, good for 16th in the whole senate. And that noted hater of labor, Barack Obama, has excellent ratings from labor organizations. Joe Biden, despite an unfortunate tendency to open mouth and insert foot, has been the best critic of the Republican field. Dennis Kucinich, for all of his quirks, is the most uncompromisingly liberal voice in the race. Chris Dodd has been the loudest voice in the whole field on civil liberties issues. And John Edwards, well, read pretty much any diary on this site to find out why people like John Edwards.

AAB then goes on to address what, to me, has been one of the most frustrating part about reading some of the blogs about candidates:

I'll be frank, if you are incapable of recognizing that every candidate on the Democratic side shares the same core principles, and that every candidate on the Republican side opposes them (or at least pretends to), then you're a part of the problem. If you can't separate "I like candidate X" from "I must hate candidate Y", then you're a part of the problem. If you truly believe that someone is a bad Democrat for supporting a different candidate in the primaries, then you're a part of the problem. And frankly, the rest of us find your self-righteousness, really, really dull. We've spent 7 years now dealing with a leader who has total conviction and zealous certainty in everything he believes, and who demonizes anyone who thinks differently. And it's sucked a lot.

If you think "Candidate x is the best choice for America" means "candidate X is the only choice for America, and anyone who disagrees with me must be destroyed (or just annoyed for 6 hours on the internet)", then it's time for you to grow up. Because there's going to be a nominee, and the chances are it won't be your candidate. That's something you're going to have to get past, or, God Jed, I don't even want to know you.

I totally understand thinking that one candidate or another is really your favorite, and you truly believe that they are the best choice to lead this country to a better place. But thinking that means that every other (or really any other) Democratic candidate would lead us further into the hell that the Chimp and the Shooter are creating is self-defeating. I don't know who's going to get the nomination. I don't have the same excitement about Hillary that I do about Obama or Edwards, but how can you realistically compare Hillary to Rudy, or Mitt, or the Huckster, and not see the differences?

Can't we all just get along?


schmidlap said...

Well, the problem for some of us is that we believe different candidates have different chances of beating the rethug nominee.

There is a certain candidate whom I believe would absolutely, positively guarantee a rethug victory, almost regardless of who wins their nomination.

So, while I will grant you that the candidate I speak of would make a decent president, certainly better than any thug, I must say that ensuring her defeat (oops, cat's out of the bag) in the primary is imperative or we *will* have a rethug president for 4 more years, which just might be the end of the Republic.

I'll try to have more to say about it on my blog before Iowa.

drmagoo said...

I don't disagree that (ehem) she would be the most problematic (of the major candidates - I think Kucinich would have even more issues), which is why Fox is shilling so much for her to get the nomination, so they can spend 10 months tearing her and Bill down. I don't think she's unelectable, though, but I do think that electing her (especially since some of the grassroots orgs aren't as thrilled with her candidacy) would be more of an uphill struggle than Obama or Edwards.

schmidlap said...

Sounds like we agree on the basic problem, and the disagreement is perhaps one of degree.

More soon.