My very first blog post here at TPM was about keeping my eyes on the prize. Namely, I had to come to grips with the fact that, even though my preferred candidate of choice was ahead in every metric, there was still a chance that Hillary Clinton could gain the nomination by convincing the super delegates to endorse her. I stand by my original statement, that even though I find her campaign tactics completely distasteful, I would still vote for her in November, because a  Clinton presidency is still better than a McCain presidency.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actually incredibly close as far as policy is concerned. Their environmental policies are almost identical, and they both earned a 100% score from Planned Parenthood for their pro-choice voting records (John McCain, on the other hand, received a 0%). While there are some differences, they are still extremely similar on health care, the economy, education, and pretty much every other category.

Which is why it is absolutely confusing to me that Democrats across the nation are now saying they would rather vote for John McCain if their preferred candidate does not get the nomination.

Really? Really?

This tactic of temper tantrum-based revenge voting will only hurt all of us in the long run. Can we afford another Bush-esque presidency because of some disappointment and hurt feelings? Is the person behind the message more important than the message itself?

Would you really want to make a career working behind the counter at McDonald's if you didn't get into your college of choice, instead of choosing another school that is just as good, but different?

Because that's what voting for McCain would entail: at least another four years of crappy work for crappy wages, instead of opportunities to move forward and become better as a nation.

I believe either of the Democratic candidates would give us those opportunities. McCain would just make us stink and wallow in self-loathing.