The best man may not win, but he still remains the best man.
I couldn't gloat over a victory if it was gained merely by superior gamesmanship.
That negates the whole idea of values.

I like to think there are values higher than mere political tactics involved.

I think everyone has some core beliefs they can't let go of. I certainly do.
As it happens, one of them is that tactics should not overpower principles.
But let's face it, everyone gets a little iffy in finding the exact place where to draw the line Beliefs are beliefs, and they remain pretty impervious to strict logical argumentation, especially in times of competition and conflict. ..
.

I don't agree with Holly's choice of candidate, but it's up to Holly to practice democracy by expressing her own preference.

There's strategy involved here with the two Dem candidates that interests all kinds of other parties besides the candidates and their loyal voters.

Clinton is perceived as having more negatives overall than Obama. Obama is more of a lightweight (by a good deal) and now is having some terrible baggage exposed. (None of us with any smarts have ever joined those who see him as the next JFK, the next Martin Luther King, the next Messiah. That earns laughs by us at their expense. He's simply another Dem party-machine politician who is very smart, and younger and attractive and appealing to the naive youth and others who like someone who is younger and more attractive than Clinton. The programs of Obama and Clinton are nearly identical. It's just different packaging.)

Not only do Dem people have preferences for Clinton vs. Obama on experience versus attractiveness, and (more Clinton than Obama) see one versus the other as doing better against McCain in attracting crossover votes (positive selection criteria) or having less negatives and reducing crossover votes for McCain (negative selection criteria, as with typical US Dem-GOP “lesser of two evils” voter strategy), but other parties who can influence the choices of voters and who want McCain to prevail may try to get people to prefer that candidate which they hope will do less well against McCain in November. (This strategy typically has sought to get people to vote for Clinton and hope she rather than Obama gets nominated.)

Plenty of us find the temporary tax reduction to be a gimmick, especially by any Dem who is likely to greatly raise taxes after inauguration, but don't engage in self-discreditation by referring to a blatantly left-wing-activist Northeastern “economist” such as the notoriously biased and otherwise Dem-party-hack Krugman. Quote someone reputable and respectable instead. Plenty of others disparage this tax reduction gimmick. (It doesn't amount to much saved per capita or household over the summer travel season.)

* * *

“1968 here we come.”

Wouldn't that be fun — lots of losers destroying each other like desperate, starving…Rats.

We don't need Smelly Socialist-kid riots in town, but a brawl or two in the convention is just what we need this year rather than the typical predictable Dem babble-filled circus. Let the two camps (with their separate sets of war drums, smoke signals — ha!) fight each other, and let the Florida and Michigan outlaws try to crash the convention and get seated (Dems = Rules Don't Matter). This would be fun.

At this point Clinton is viable all the way to the convention, and it's the Obama side, rather than the Clinton side, that has the people in it resembling the Nader and even the Ron Paul voters.

Lots of points. Lots of pain. Lots of anger.

Listening to this rant I am more convinced now then ever before that the democratic party is in as much trouble as is the Republican party.

1968 here we come.

Your post Mike is why there are going to be many, many democrats who do not vote or who will not vote for Obama or Clinton or who simply might cross over and vote for McCain.

People keep saying that ahh shucks once we pick someone everyone will get behind Him or Her. Well I propose that enough will not to turn this election into a win for McCain. Or certainly if not a win then a huge, huge loss for the Democrats because they are going to be so hopelessly split and angered with each other that a redefined GOP just might emmerge from the ashes with a more moderate face and a more mainstream platform.

This is the same group which had this to say about Sen. Clinton and her husband *last year* in response to the (now stacked-deck uber-conservative) Supreme Court's ruling on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: “Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and their allies blocked this law for 12 years — but finally, it is illegal in America to mostly deliver a premature infant before puncturing her skull and removing her brain, which is what a partial-birth abortion is,” commented Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

How about Rush Limbaugh, who is encouraging (far right) Republican voters to turn out for her? Did Bill's appearance on that show just before PA voted not offend you? It did me. Why?

This is the same guy, who (just to pick one from among thousands of extraordinarily offensive remarks by him) said “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.” Certainly, there was also that daily (it went on for 8 years) “America held hostage by Clinton” countdown that bugged me. I spent the '90s defending the Clintons from this ass, only to see them embrace him in '08 when convenient.

How about Richard Mellon Scaife, who endorsed her candidacy for the “Democrat” (sic) primary and with whom Hillary had a sit-down just days before votes were cast in PA ?

This is the same guy who declared her to be the murderer of Vince Foster. Who funded the entire Whitewater and “Troopergate” “scandals” etc via American Spectator, et al. Again, I spent the '90s defending the Clintons from this ass, only to see them embrace him in '08 when convenient.

Holly, are you willing to toss out the opinions of those “elitist” economists (including Krugman, by the way) who believe the gas tax pander is ludicrous on its face?

Are you ready to “obliterate” the 70-million men, women and children of Iran because their “leader” is an ass (they have no nuclear weapons remember, this is all hypothetical, assuming they get one, assuming they'd use it, assuming Israel's own, very real existing nuclear weapons didn't deter them oh by the way)? And do you think that statement helps or hurts the cause of democracy and moderation in Iran?

Do you think her direct ties to the defense of Black Panther leaders like terrorist Bobby Seale and the American communists who ran “one of America's most radical law firms, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein” the same law firm she went way out of her way to join in the 60s (in Oakland, which is right next to Berkeley, which is Communist for 'kill Americans!') are as offensive as Obama's 20-years-after -the-fact ties to William Ayers? (Got news for you – Republicans think it's *very* special).

Holly, why are all the “usual suspects” concentrating their fire on Obama instead of the hated Hillary? I think you know, in that dark place deep down inside.

The bottom line Holly, is why would a self-identified Democrat like yourself vote for a Republican that can't win? Well, the Republican running in the Democratic primary, that is. And of course, the Republican that *will* lose to the real Republican running, come November.

More on the IN law at:

http://thinkdodone.typepad.com/ccd/2008/04/will...

Best,

Shaun Dakin
CEO
StopPoliticalCalls.org