|
Edited on Tue Dec-18-07 04:38 PM by Cyrano
There’s no rule that says whoever wins the most primaries gets to be the nominee. So what if the Republicans decide that they have a loser on their hands and nominate someone they think can win? Who? How about Chuck Hagel from Nebraska, or Susan Collins from Maine?
Yeah, I know, many Republicans can barely tolerate both of them as “too sane,” but put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Wouldn’t they rather win than have a Dem in the White House? What if they had a choice between Hillary Clinton and Susan Collins? What if they had a choice between Chuck Hagel and Barak Obama? Which way do you think Republican votes would go?
I believe that ’08 is going to be both an unusual year and another all-out, ugly brawl between the two parties. And for that reason, I believe we have to put up a candidate who can win no matter what the Republicans do. Who is that candidate? Beats me. But my guess is it would be someone carrying the least baggage from the past. (Please don’t read Dodd, or Edwards, or Biden into what I’m saying.)
The point I’m making here is that we must pick a candidate who can beat ANY Republican they put up (including the ghost of Saint Ronnie). Most of the threads I’ve seen on DU have been diatribes for or against one of our candidates, and far too few reasoned arguments of why we should nominate X, Y, or Z.
With just a few weeks to go before Iowa, how about fewer fights among ourselves and more ideas put forth on how we can come the closest to guaranteeing a victory in ’08. The ongoing existence of our democracy depends upon it.
I have my own opinion on who our best candidate would be, but none of them have yet locked up my vote.
|