Democrats, yes, have won a huge victory this year.  Fabulous.  Why?  We promise health care reform, we promise economic solutions, we promise government reform, better education, a reinvestment in American infrastructure, etc.  We promise these things, but let's be honest with ourselves, why did we win?  Our victory was in large part due not to a support for our ideas, but to an opposition to those supported by the other guys.  They suck, try us.  Like knowing you want Chinese food, but knowing, too, that the place down the block isn't really that great and besides it made you ill, so you're going to try the Golden Lotus, because it got some okay reviews and you're curious.  We're the Golden Lotus (which is actually located in Boulder, CO, and is very tasty) and they're telling us they want some mighty fine Chinese.  They're still wary of our ability to deliver and will go right back to the shittier restaurant if we suck, too.

A lot of the American people don't really have a thorough understanding of what the Democratic party stands for, what its values are, what its stance on various issues comes down to.  For too long our own lack of understanding with regard to our identity allowed the Republicans to attach labels to us.  But, now it's our turn.  We're on the offensive.  We must create a Democratic party identity that all Americans will recognize, and that most will find agreeable.  We must push aggressively forward on those values, flex our new muscles, and build ourselves up.  We've been losing for decades because we've been weak, because we've forgotten who we are.  We forgot the lessons of FDR's populism.  We forgot Camelot and the Great Society.  The Democratic party is a party that believes there is virtue in government, that a society is defined not by the religion, the race, or the personality of its people, but by the determination of its leadership to build something beautiful, to bring people together for common purpose, and to pave the way for a better humanity.

These beliefs, these values, are what brought America into becoming the powerhouse it was for the better part of the 20th century, and they can and perhaps will make us great again.  Our best times tend to come after our worst.  This is without doubt one of our worst.  Democrats can and Democrats must show Americans what it is that will make tomorrow one of the best.

I've been tossing this around in my head for the last few days, off and on.  Hillary Clinton is offered the opportunity to head up the State Department.  Great.  I have no problems with this.  I think, frankly, she'll do a fine job, and have no concerns about her abilities as a team player in an Obama cabinet.  Obama's not looking for yes-men/women, he's looking for capable people.  So that's great.  But I keep returning to the plaguing question of why she would accept this, and not only accept it, but seemingly work hard to make sure it happens.

Hillary Clinton is not yet a very powerful member of the Senate, but Reid's slowly working on remedying that.  With another term, she'll be getting up there and ready to head up some real committees.  This launches her into a better position for a 2016 run than she had this year.  With the legacy of Bill well enough behind that she can just be Hillary, with a presumably still strong Democratic party, etc., there's very little that'd be in her way, except the prospect of another young star, though hopefully by that point we'll be wanting a stay the course prez, and not the change prez we were all craving this year, which makes a young and inexperienced someone much less attractive.  When things are going well, we like someone grounded in the past.  So what the hell?

Then it hit me; the only possible explanation.  For clarification, the State department has not been a good launching pad into the presidency since the 19th century, so we can rule out that she'd be hoping to make the leap directly.  For the last century, it's been pretty well established that best place to be to maneuver into the presidency after the term limitations are up on the current president is to be the veep.  Joe Biden was picked as the veep, though, you say.  Joe Biden, I respond, is older than God.  By the time even 2012 rolls around, he'll be almost as old as John McCain was this year.  He strikes me as a one-term VP.

You see where I'm going with this; I know you do.  If Hillary is able to earn the trust and respect of those that put their faith in Obama this year through a stint at State, she would make a formidable choice for VP in 2012.  This puts her exactly where she'd want to be to run in 2016.  This assumes that Hillary's primary motivation would be ambition.  I don't think this is a bad thing, as it was often cited as being throughout the primary season.  I believe it's a righteous ambition; the ambition to truly serve the people of the country.

I also think that this isn't some scheming on the part of the Clintons, but a part of Obama's rationale as well.  We'll see what happens, though, I guess.

It's a little hard to explain why, as I haven't read it in quite some time, but "Watership Down" was the first thing that popped into my mind when I heard about McCain's house gaffe.  As those of you that have read it may recall, the rabbits in the book can't count beyond the number four and every number higher simply because "hrair" meaning a thousand but really just referring to any big number.  I think this can be used, in a way, on both sides of this. 

Pointing out that McCain can't count high enough to know how many houses he owns, as Kaine did, is all well and good, but I think the better tactic is to play along with it.  The reason McCain can't recall is that the specific number doesn't really matter; it's simply a lot.  Having three houses would be ridiculous, four would be absurd, but more than that?  What does it matter the specific number if it's more than four?  It's hrair, and that's too many.

Calls what a cover-up?  Apparently his wife's chances of winning.  Apparently if she's not the nominee, all of a sudden Democrats won't win the White House in November.  Now with a Republican candidate as piss-poor as McCain has consistently shown himself to be, I fail to see his point, but whatever.  Unless he's suggesting we should overturn how the whole nomination process works on the basis of a few general election polls, which sounds, at least to me, pretty absurd (read stupid).

You can read about it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/bill.clinton.mon/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

The media, the superdelegates, hell even the voters are apparently all engaged in an elaborate plot to cover up the fact that his wife is, in fact, the nominee.

I liked him in the 90's.  I really did.

I'm all for a united Democratic Party.  I've been pushing for it for some time now.  I am, however, through tiptoeing around the disgusting hatred that comes out of the likes of some "Hillary supporters."  I put it in quotation marks because I don't think they really do support Hillary.  I don't know what their schtick is, I don't care.  Ignorance must be confronted with reality.  Bullshit must be confronted with truth.  I cannot see it any other way. 

I was at the Colorado Democratic Convention this past weekend and I had many wonderful conversations with Hillary supporters.  The theme of the weekend was unity.  No question.  McAuliffe was there and he spoke about it.  Everyone did.  Democrats, whether supporting Clinton or Obama, need to stand united not only behind the nominee, but also in opposition of those that would degrade this process and this dialogue.

Some of the best people I've ever met are supporting Obama, some are supporting Clinton.  If I hear about one person who is really going to vote against the supporters of another candidate rather than vote for the issues they support, I think I might actually reach through and punch them in their very own face.  No more of it.

Vote for a better America.  Vote for a better world.  Vote for peace, vote for health care, vote for education.