In 1860, a lawyer from Illinois was the Republican presidential candidate.

His name was Abraham Lincoln. The country was deeply divided over, among other things, the racial issue of slavery. In an attempt to bring healing to a divided nation, this Republican chose as his running mate a Democrat from the southern state of Tennessee--a man who would, oddly enough, become the first president after the North won the civil war. A Democrat from the defeated South leading the country during reconstruction! Think of that. It's no wonder he was impeached, even though the Senate fell one vote short of removing him from office.

Today, another lawyer from Illinois is running to become the presidential candidate from his party. This lawyer is a Democrat. It has become apparent that the nation is still divided in many ways over the issue of race.

This afternoon, an anti-war Republican from the midwest, one Senator Chuck Hagel, spoke about what he sees as an opportunity for a third party to win the White House.

There are many disenchanted Democrats today because of how the issue of race relations has been played out by the mainstream media. I have contended in a post this morning that should Barack Obama lose the Democratic nomination because of the playing of the race card through the old ploy of "guilt by association," that there would be many who would abandon the Democratic Party in anger, spelling out it's death knell for years to come.

Is it possible that history may repeat itself? Could a Barack Obama, a Democrat from Illinois, regardless of whether or not he gets the nomination possibly choose a "moderate Republican" as a running mate--either as the Democratic nominee or as an Independent, and usher in a new party---either by reforming the Democratic party as it now stands, or by ushering in something new?

Some cringe at this notion. I understand. But, the vitriol of the current primary campaigns is getting heated beyond reason. Anger is rising. The lid is about to blow from the boiling pot on the red hot stove.

Something's got to give. I wonder what it will be.

Really, I do.

With her ruining mate Bloomberg to finance her election bid.

but, it won't be Bloomberg as he is from NY as well as she is and thereby cannot be on the same ticket. Bush & Cheney pulled it off because Cheney changed his address to Wyoming, but it would be a harder task to convince folks that the Senator from NY and the Mayor of NYC are running from a different state.

I wouldn't put it past her. But really, I doubt it.

Big Tom Daschle fan, I see. (just based on your Avatar, at least)

Bloomberg doesnt like the Clintons.

He only dropped out of his possible independant Presidential bid after it seemed likely that Hillary wouldnt be the nominee.

Obama wouldnt run as a third party candidate (he IS a real Democrat), but if he did Bloomberg might finance him at this point.

The majority of Hillary's support is from the "Old School" establishment of the Democratic Party. That establishment will stay w/ the Democratic nominee, whomever that may be. They always have supported the nominee, and they always will.

Hillary's support is almost entirely from mainline Democrats. She's not going anywhere. Obama, on the other hand, draws a lot of support from people with no connection or affinity to the Democratic party, why do they care what label he runs under?

Obama/Nader! it's perfect.

to run on a ticket together.

Barack wins the popular vote and the most non-superdelegates, but then the superdelegates push Hillary over the top.

no judgement, just context.


Not a real good analogy to bring up.

Divide and conquer, and we in the Democratic Party seem to be falling for it 100%.

you need to get out of the echo chamber. outside the actual campaigns and the uber-passionate like on DU, people don't see the vitriol you speak of. what I see is most Democrats enjoying the attention and the long race. I am a Hillary supporter, and you know how many times I have heard a democrat call her evil off line? zero. online? daily. I have never had someone treat me differently in person because I am wearing a Hillary shirt, which I do fairly often. online? all the freaking time. The anger I keep hearing about just doesn't seem to be there outside this small fraternity. Sorry.

He held only several terms in the Illinois statehouse, never had
held national office, and won recognition because of his
powerful oratory skills.

Lincoln would be vilified today because he was not a practicing Christian
(never baptized, but knew the Bible like the back of his hand, and never
ever went to church... he tolerated those who did);he had little formal
education, and was considered a 'country bumpkin' without the necessary
polish and 'politesse' to get ahead in politics.

He was also anti-slavery when it was considered political suicide:
Illinois was considered northern.. until you went south of Chicago,
then it becomes almost southern in ethic and attitudes.