My first choice for the democratic nominee was Dennis Kucinich. Dennis personifies my ideals, I agree with Dennis on almost every issue. I believe Dennis' candidacy was a great boon for Democrats. Because he had a platform in the first several debates, I think many viewers had a chance to see that liberal ideals really are MAINSTREAM ideas. Dennis has helped us take back the word "Liberal."
My second choice for the democratic nominee was John Edwards. I thought long and hard before making this choice. In the end, I decided to support John because he correctly saw that corporate power is the root of our most pressing problems as a nation. He recognized the huge difference between a high income and wealth. John proposed a program to help the needy that was at the expense of the truly wealthy, those living off economic rent. John's plan to combat poverty did not leave wage-earners fighting over the crumbs dropped by the truly wealthy members of the corporatocracy.
My current choice for the democratic nominee is Barack Obama. I was worried that Obama (I don't think I know him well enough yet to call him Barack) would be willing to give away the farm for the sake of unity. I didn't know if he'd be willing to stand up to the republicans and FIGHT. The following post by MilkyWay
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4245665 helped me understand that Obama does not view unity as and end in itself but as a means to an end. Because of this post, I can wholehearted throw my support behind Barack Obama. I've already made a donation, joined the Obama group, and ordered my yard sign.
No matter who ultimately wins the Democratic nomination (and I hope it is Barack Obama), I'll vote for the democratic nominee.
I'll vote for the Democratic nominee because the thought of four more years of republican rule makes me physically ill, the thought of more republican nominated supreme court justices SCARES me to death.
I'll vote for the democratic nominee because as Barack Obama so eloquently put it:
I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.
Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.
The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.