While I have my issues with all three top runners in the Democratic field, I feel great about '08

Because the GOP field is a mess. Not a -single- candidate they have will hold up in a general election. Every one of them has serious, easily exploitable electoral issues that are going to be very difficult to overcome. Giuliani treats objects like women, Romney wears magical underwear (unfair to pick on, but it will be picked on), Thompson is a fish-faced abortion rights lobbyist (dead to the GOP base), and all others are malaprop machines on a far more damaging level from a media standpoint than even our current GOP in chief.

We've got about the best chance to win we could possibly have--better even than in 2004, and with a midterm victory leading into the election. So first, feel good about our chances. Next, feel good about what even a deeply flawed Democratic president can do.

I realize most people don't see significant change coming from any of the top three candidates. Though prejudging that on campaign promises or even legislative history can be misleading, a good case can be made that none of them will rock the boat as president--certainly not to the extent DUers wish they would. But you have to be careful about being so big picture that you forget how much the office can magnify small differences into critically important gulfs that affect millions. Even assuming the worst, things will improve drastically.

1. Foreign policy is the big one. There is a vast difference in potential harm between a war enabler and a war -monger- when it comes to the presidency. When someone else is the commander in chief and wants to treat the army like a box of toy soldiers all while claiming any dissent is unpatriotic and endangering the country, ambitious cowards (most politicians) will fear to oppose the pushed-for action. When an ambitious coward is the CiC, the de facto power of deployment is taken away from the mongers, and fear of a failed war suddenly takes a bigger role in the decision. This means fewer unnecessary and imperialist wars. Note Clinton's flirtation with an Iraq action and the resounding boos he received--the Democratic base is far less gung ho on random war than is the GOP, and the first rule of politics is "stay in office." It's easier for a GOP president to go to wars of choice than it is for a Democratic president.

2. SCOTUS. This is what the oath is all about. Protecting the Constitution absolutely requires that a Democratic president replace potentially retiring liberal justices like Bader Ginsberg with liberal replacements. As hideously unfit as Alito and Roberts are for their positions, and as pathetic as Democratic opposition to their nominations was, we now have precedent for putting in quite partisan justices. We, however, have a far more beneficent point of view, and this will help millions maintain their rights--particularly minorities, women, and those who oppose at least the most extreme cases of overweening capitalist power.

3. Domestic policy. Especially the interior and the EPA. Labor. If we can get back on track as far as minimum wage, labor rights, environmental regulation, corporate regulation, even in a minute fashion, we've helped millions, and delayed extreme damage to our economy and our natural treasures.


There are more examples, but I'm trying to make the case for why people should feel pretty good that we might seize the presidency. The three major candidates can't fail to disappoint the rightly high expectations of myself and other DUers--they are all too tied to the system in place as far as I can tell. But those seemingly insignificant differences are -hugely- magnified by the office. We can't get so big picture that we refuse to see the value of what those small differences can mean for millions of people world-wide, however much more needs to be done.

No matter who is in the office in January, 2009, our work won't end.