Obama supporters (like MJ, and especially AK) seem to be saying that if the Clintons succeed in defeating Obama with bareknuckle politics, it will destroy the Democratic party.

But consider for a moment what this whole Clintons-destroying-the-party meme is really saying.

It's saying Obama is the Democratic party. I must have missed that memo.

This is nothing less than Cheney-style fearmongering. This is a political version of "we don't want the smoking gun to appear in the form of a mushroom cloud." It's a crass, vicious message aimed straight at our most primal emotions. This from the campaign that is supposed to be above it all.

H.L. Mencken said,

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Is this Obama's message of hope - that he is the only hope for the future of the Democratic party? Because that's not a message of hope, it's a message of fear. If you believe it, you're being played - by a (gasp) politician. Say it ain't so, Joe Lieberman. Say it ain't so.

I have seen plenty of Obama supporters in the comment threads who indicate they will never vote for Hillary in the general election, or that they'd rather vote for McCain, or any number of similar immature, Lieberman for Connecticut, take-my-ball-and-go-home attitudes. My six-year-old son would say these people are acting acting like babies.

Is this Obama's idea of bringing people together - against anything Clinton?

In various comment threads, I have attempted to defend Clinton, even though I think she voted stupidly for the joint resolution of force against Iraq. I'm voting for John Edwards in the primary. I think he'd make a good president. People say he's painting himself as a populist when his record isn't that of a populist. I believe that he has grown, matured, and become wiser. People do that - just look at Al Gore. The Al Gore of today would never have lost to George Bush in 2000. I am most uncomfortable with people and politicians who don't change and who can't admit to mistakes. I support Edwards BECAUSE he has become a populist. I support him because he has changed his mind about things.

Anyway, I have no illusions about his chances. It would take a miracle - a complete meltdown of either the Clinton or Obama campaign - for him to win the nomination. My second choice, as you might guess, is Clinton. But I support all three of them. My choice of Edwards is merely a matter of personal preference.

If our three Democratic candidate were steaks, they would be ribeye, t-bone, and porterhouse. Saying one cut of meat from the same cow will destroy the party is - there's no gentle way to say this - fucking nuts. "Everybody knows the porterhouse is the king of steaks and a t-bone is just a porterhouse with the best parts removed." Only profoundly shallow and silly people make these kinds of arguments.

If Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for him in November. Without hesitation. Gladly. I don't think he's the best Democratic candidate, but only by a matter of degrees. He is orders of magnitude better than any Republican.

If Obama loses the nomination, how many of his supporters will say the same of Clinton or Edwards?

If Obama loses the nomination, how many of his supporters will instead blow up the wells as they retreat?

The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear. - H. P. Lovecraft

Josh asks this today.

If Gore is smart, and I think he is, he'll say "I endorse the Democratic nominee for president, whoever that may be."

I'm still very much undecided about who I prefer as the Democratic candidate for president. But if I could get Obama, Clinton and Edwards in front of me and ask them one question, it would be:

"Who would make a good Attorney General?"

If they seem reluctant to name names, I'd offer this follow-up:

"In the past, Senator Lieberman's name has been tossed around as a possible choice. Would the Senator make a good attorney general, in your opinion?"

Their answers (or refusals to answer) would go a long way toward making up my mind.

Whenever anyone says we shouldn't criticize our heroic generals, I say George Armstrong Custer.

Josh has a new post up arguing that McCain doesn't even have a Hail Mary left in his depleted political arsenal. He writes:

But you can't undo the last three-plus years. Someone who is a master of the politics of opportunism can manage countless transformations. Not someone whose whole schtick is candor, authenticity and integrity. McCain is a good example of the fact that life can take almost everything away from you, and usually does. But your dignity you've got to give away. And he did.

I think he does. It isn't one that any political advisor would ever advise him to do. In fact, most professionals would say it is political suicide. But I think the American public would find it politically refreshing, if not endearing. And it would give open anti-war Republicans, as well as closet anti-war Republicans just waiting for an excuse, someone they could openly support as a real alternative.

He could say, "I was wrong. I see that now. I thought that if we just gave the president enough time, he could find a way to win in Iraq. But the truth is, he hasn't been looking for a way to win. He's only be looking for a way to protect himself politically from being forced to admit defeat. He fooled me. He fooled a lot of people. I supported him, and I was wrong to support him, and as a result a lot of good soldiers and Marines have paid the ultimate price. But no more. I draw the line in the sand here. I am going to do everything in my power as a US Senator to stop this insanity. I hope I can make a difference, but there are a lot of Senators who are still blind to the situation we are in. I don't know if I can make a big enough difference in the Senate, but I do know that as your president, I can make all the difference in the world."

Campaign Theme - All the Difference in the World.

It's a given that Tennessee is a Red State and that Harold Ford Jr.'s 48% of the vote total was a surprisingly strong run.

But let's look at what's really happening in Tennessee and see just how strongly Ford ran.

Tennessee is not as Red a state as you might think. Tennessee has nine US Congressional Districts - five are held by Democrats. Tennessee's Democratic governor just won his second term. The state House is held by a Democratic majority. The state Senate is controlled by the Republicans 17/16. GOP dominance in the US Senate is the aberration, not the norm.

Harold Ford Jr. ran against a relatively weak Republican opponent, compared to Lamar Alexander, who was elected to the Senate in 2002. Corker was the Republican nominee by virtue of a split in the conservative vote in the Republican primary between Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary. He was mayor of Chattanooga - Tennessee's 4th-largest city. Before the campaign, he was relatively unknown outside of southeast Tennessee.

Harold Ford Jr. comes from a prominent family of Tennessee Democrats. He ran unopposed in the primary, and in the General election, was tagged as the candidate likely to be the difference between a Democratic or Republican Senate. Several years ago, he was one of People magazine's Most Beautiful People. He was the media's Golden Child, with a prominent Newsweek cover just days before the election. He also ran at a time of Republican scandals and low presidential approval, and as part of a Democratic tidal wave.

Yet he lost in a state that gave 69% of the vote to Democratic governor Phil Bredesen. Bredesen and Ford campaigned side-by-side, with almost identical social platforms. Yet Bredesen received almost 400,000 more votes than Ford.

How could Ford possibly not win?

If you look at the results from 2002, you see how badly Ford really did. Bob Clement, a virtually unknown candidate outside his own Congressional district, and a man with as much personality as a church organist(bless him), ran against the Tennessee franchise of former governor Lamar! Alexander. The only thing Clement had going for him were his solid Democratic credentials - he was a faithful Party man, and the 2002 Senate race was his reward. 2002 was at the very height of Bush's popularity and Republican power. Clement's campaign ran almost completely below the radar because, frankly, the Democratic party didn't really expect him to win. Remember, this was before Dean's 50-state strategy.

Yet in 2002, just before the Iraq War, with Bush riding the wave of popularity and Republicans in complete control of the agenda, Bob Clement grabbed 44% of the vote!

That's just four percentage points fewer than Ford's 48% in 2006!

Harold Ford Jr. was a significantly stronger candidate that Bob Clement. Bob Corker is a significantly weaker candidate than Lamar Alexander. Ford had the advantage of Democratic momentum, while Clement was trying to get elected during the Golden Days of Republican power.

Yet Ford only managed to pick up 150,000 votes, 4 percentage points, over Clement's lost-before-it-began 2002 campaign total, when the Democrats were being labelled in the media as a permanent minority.

I don't call that a surprisingly strong campaign. I call it surprisingly inept. Ford should have buried Corker.

The question is, why didn't he?