How Democrats Self-Destruct

BELOW AN OPEN LETER TO BARAK OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR.

In support of all those who shout here in vain against the Clinton scourge, against the Clinton camp who simply wants more of the same "failed policies of the past", in support who those who want change at any price because it can't be worse than these past eight years, nothing can, I submit a letter requested by the Obama's campaign director. It is an open letter to the super delegates. We all know that the entrenched congress is opposed to Obama and the will of America. We know the bought and paid media is nothing more than an establishment, corrupt, rubber stamp for government policies and afraid of their own shadows. They reflect this gutless country so afraid they might lose their next new car they would defeat any change agent more of the same stupidity regardless of the cost. They are afraid of change, which is necessary for global survival. I am opposed to the infrastructure of the Green party since the level of anarchy dictates against any real positive direction. Or for that matter a run by Nader, not enough charisma to attract sufficient voters, not that his message lacks importance. Hillary followed directly in the footsteps of Karl rove and George Bush and the republicrat from Connecticut, Lieberman her good friend.

Change is the only hope for this country and the world!

Dear Mr. David Plouffe,

Thank you for your request, although by e-mail. I am a visual artist, Filmmaker and global communicator. I have recently returned from Africa and work on both sides of the Atlantic in Europe. I know from my work that people for the first time in a long time are hoping for a change in America. Europeans believe that Barak Obama offers the possibility that America will once again join the global community. His stated environmental objectives create enthusiasm in those in other parts of the world.

There are some who believe that the democratic will of the people should be overturned by the presumption of power as in the super-delegate issue of the Democratic Party. This raises the specter of large-scale defections toward the Republican agenda by the youth vote, should the Democratic Party not align itself with the peoples democratic and non-militant direction. Should this occur it would affect world security and the issue of climate change directly. These issues are dependent upon radical solutions, which include global economic changes. Defection of democrats and particularly the young people-who hope for change and believe that change is necessary could possibly tilt the election toward the Republicans should the youth opt out. They would refuse to turn out for the Clinton camp.

Many fear that Obama may lose the election as a result of the strange electoral system and candidate approval mechanisms, felt to be undemocratic. This reflects the basic problem of what many think is a so-called Democracy in America where a win in the popular vote does not guarantee the change in direction of the country.

The Electoral College can make a change as we saw in the 2004 election which allowed Bush to take office; this renders the popular vote, void. The Democratic Super-delegate issue is a reflection of the absurd non-democratic American condition of the Electoral College. Should Barak Obama win the popular vote from America's Democratic caucuses, delegates and committed states prior to the convention I do not believe that he should accept second place as vice president, which seems to be the mood of the media controlled election process and spin jockeys. I believe that he should maintain himself as the democratically designated elected leader of the Democratic Party. Contrary to that hack journalist, Blitzer and his 'Dream Team".

Obama forced to that position should form a third party and run against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This would be true democracy in action but we all know this is a fantasy. People everywhere both in this country and abroad want change in the USA. Should that occur Obama needs a ready made party and given his environmental agenda the Green Party and others might supply the reasoning. However they are in such disarray and is probably an unlikely thought. His rhetoric suggests, that we must move away from the "failed policies of the past" if we are to save this world for future generations. However, his statement should show a willingness to take the lead in the conviction that he espouses.

Obama has stated he has run because the time is now not in the future. The changes needed, are as he puts it, "right now", not in the future and the perils of environmental collapse are approaching so quickly that we do not have the luxury of another eight years of "business as usual" which would be the Clinton way, before he could claim the office of president. Clinton knows that she can not win against McCain without Obama. To defeat Clinton and the return to the failed Bush methodology, she amply displayed to win Ohio with the politic of fear. Obama requires that he turn to a radical shift in campaign policy it necessary to win.

He is a populist candidate that has offered hope! He should continue that platform with the courage to take the steps necessary if the standard-bearer position is denied to him to effect party and changes in American direction. He should take this radical shift and direction, if necessary! By doing so he would serve notice to the Democratic Party that democracy is not lost in America should the first place be denied. The party is being prepared for Clinton to take the crown with the discussion now on the table for Michigan and Florida to vote once again. We all lose and the possibility of change and it goes down with her selection.

If Obama takes half the country with him to a third party we all have a chance. He believes that the failed policies of the past exist within the entrenched two party systems in congress represented by the Super delegates. The only way of preventing another move to those failed policies is not to allow Hillary Clinton to win by forcing Barak Obama to take second place. But does Barak Obam have that amount of courage to suggest this option, I doubt it, though I support the man. This would be the last hand to play and he should be discussing this in the back rooms of the party as Hillary is discussing, the two other states she covets for her crown.

This public denial by him of allowing super-delegates to determine the election would be a way of circumventing the second place the congress and CNN want him to accept. It would force the super delegates to reflect the will of the people. I heard one of the super-delegates speaking from Georgia. He was black and under examination by the press, it was clear that the position of many "super delegates" would be to overturn the national-will, regardless of Barak Obama taking the popular vote or the majority of delegates. "The failed policies of the past" has put the youth of the USA and the World in the present circumstances of possibly destroying their future and their life.

In the final analysis the USA did not rise to the level of intelligence and courage necessary by electing George Bush to office for two terms and I doubt that it will by choosing Barak Obama to lead. The media and the democratic establishment suggests the "dream team" scenario by supporting the status quo and have the temerity to think it can choose the way the people's choice will be suborned and thus nullifying the very democracy they espouse. The height of cynical belief. This congress has not dealt with Bush and Cheney for lying to the American people and Wolf Blitzer on CNN is the scourge of presumption and simply a clone of the establishment.

These policies, if continued will lead to chaos and the disaffection of the youth and could, by default, elect John McCain and with him a continuation of war for another hundred years. This is a moot point since thirty years remain before environmental disaster takes hold because that is the time we have left to make the radical shift in global politics, environmental direction and economics.

This is an open response from a European blogger. Included below:

Aggie67 February 16th, 2008 2:20 am 
I hope you Americans realize that we, in the rest of the world, are following these primary elections of yours with the greatest of interest. Whatever you do affects us so much. The election of George W Bush seemed to have been such a corruption of the democracy you hold dear, please don't let it happen again by your incessant bickering amongst yourselves. The world needs you to get back to REAL DEMOCRACY, so that we can all live a safer life. What we can't understand is why you don't seem to have "one man, one vote" It all seems to be based on which candidate has the most money, delegates and very strong lobbyists. Definitely not one, man one vote and the winner of the popular vote don't seem to win the election. Weird definition of democracy. 


Deibold accidentally leaks results of 2008 election early

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5W9Nl8ENlo

See An Unreasonable Man if you want to get the whole picture folks. In the current set up, we the people haven't got a chance. All progress has come because of the very real pressure of the little folks getting organized against the established power brokers. Read history and I beg you to see the film. I promise you, you will become clear eyed! Then at least you know what will really get our country back and it ain't what we are being offered currently. That is the sickest joke of all.

Hard to say about the self-destruction. Could be either that the Dems are picked by the corporate media for the purpose of failing, they're told at periodic times by the Bilderbergers/Trilaterals/CFR's/AIPAC or whoever they are to yield on occasion, or they start out reasonably well -- best of intentions -- and the handlers get increasingly greedy, crooked, etc. and push them over the edge.

This happens because the big monied interests that line up behind the corporate candidates really sees the world only through their own eyes, and so they start pushing an agenda which is antithetical to the bottom 90% of the country.

I tend to think they're bad from the start, though, and don't give them the benefit of the doubt any more. Been there, done that.

I posted in January that the Democratic nomination will be decided by superduperpooperdelegates at the convention (70 of whom haven't been named yet).

In February I posted that the Dems could easily win in November. If Clinton dropped out, the Dems could have a United party and 9 months for a 'rebirth of democracy' (symbolism is the key).
They could spend their days hammering the Rethugs instead of each other.

Instead, Clinton (especially) and Obama will tear the party apart, doing the Rethugs' job for them.

Clinton will be anointed at the convention and will then lose to McCain (it's as simple as ABC - anybody but Clinton).
BTW, to all you Obama supporters - when you get shafted at the convention, you will be welcome with us progressives in third-party land.

I had a thought this morning. Why are the Dems still doing nothing against the Rethug administration? Aren't the Rethugs going to be out of office, next January?

Or do the Dems somehow know that the Rethugs will return to power, and so they don't want to antagonize them more than just for appearances?

RichM,

Good points, but of course the sad fact that we cannot prove anything to any satisfying degree in political discussions means that political arguments are rarely, if ever, resolved, though we may find entertainment in them.

As I stated earlier, I was making my decision based on the short-term, believing these are perilous times. A long-term timeframe leads to totally different choices, and third parties become much more serious alternatives. Occasionally, as you state in your 1964-1968 example, unexpected events can make the long-term strategy produce positive results in the short-term, though when that will occur is unpredictable. However, that is always something to keep in mind. Personally, I believe that if HRC is the Dem nominee, the short-term gain from a Dem victory over McCain is so small that it makes sense to pursue a long-term strategy of third parties, acknowledging that unforeseen events may bring forth fruits for that strategy even in the short term.

Kernel, reread the piece and i'm sure you'll agree that Mr. Tristram is describing, in a denigrating fashion, the political coverage, not the candidates themselves.

IMO, he is spot on.

What are we talking about, Democrats like Hillary and Obama. They are republicans. McCain is a borderline fascist, inspite of being a prisoner of war and tortured, he still believes in the use of force.

Which candidate is against the death penalty? Which will halt the war? Which will have universal health care? The answer among the front runners in '0'. No big surprise.

Just finished watching An Unreasonable Man and I am so outraged I don't know what to do with all this feeling. RichM and CoMarc and others who have made some very compelling arguments in the past, I now see exactly why you say what you do. I honestly don't think I can ever vote for a Dem again. I thought it was just my congressman---I was wrong. The party of my dad the union man, is no more. R.I.P. What they have done to Raplh Nader is nothing short of dispicable. They will never have my respect---not that they care---they don't give a flying fig about us ordinary folks---but they still expect us to keep "votin em in." Not anymore.

Now I understand why 50% of the American people don't bother to vote--they have no faith in the current system---and that is exactly how the current system wants it. In fact they would probably rather that even fewer voted. Oh wait a minute---that's exactly what voter suppression is all about. Guess 50% is too risky--might get to hard to control outcomes.

Dear lord, I am so outraged!

Too much emphasis is placed on presidential contests, which can only be marginally useful in a wider political struggle.

The Clinton voters are dynastic enthusiasts; they are in no sense democratic. It's rule from the top & they believe in the same executive rule that the Bushits believe in.

Obama's appeal is a ground-upward appeal; whether his supporters can break the grip of the DLC on the Democratic party remains to be seen. It would be advantageous to progressives for that to happen, but it would not be a solution; it would only be a strategic gain, not a long term one.

As for the Supreme Court, it was designed to prevent democracy from growing in the U.S., and it only failed in its function for a period of three to four decades.

It would be foolish to have any faith in the electoral system that exists; the question is, how to transition out of it while using some of the mechanisms it provides.

The fact that Clinton smells, votes,
acts like a Republican does not matter
to those who are ignorant of that.
You dont need to be educated to vote, or informed.

People vote for a candidate based on race, or
the most recent smear or deceptive news story
or ad. They vote for candidates because they
look like a dem. Pasty white votes pasty white
Regardless of who is the better candidate.

Somebody drank our milkshake tonight.
Tomorrow is another day
Barack needs to get tough to win
without appearing aggressive or losing
his dignity. 4 more years of shillary
and bill lurking around the WH
is too depressing to contemplate.

If Tristram cannot come up with any better description than a "naive peacemonger" for Obama, and a "begrudging divisive bitch" for Clinton, he better crawl back in his dark hole and keep quiet.

One would think after reading some of these articles and posts that CD has been invaded by a collection of Republicans bound on discrediting the only people that have any chance of getting this country back to sanity again.

Usually when one has to depend on such descriptions as Tristram used, it only shows a lack of real intelligent thought, and is not helpful in any way, except that he got rid of his venom.

There will be a great inhaling of hope by young/idealistic Democrats between now and November, Obama will win, and a few months later there will be a great exhaling of a sigh.

Bush will go down as the unitary who had tremendous powers to wreck the country, and Obama will be the weak guy who tries to bring it back on track. The question, then, will be how unitary power works. Is there a fundamental asymmetric aspect to it? Unitary executives, by design, have more power to do harm to other countries (and their own) than they have to fix things?

Or will it turn out that Obama is more on board with Bush politics than most people realize?

Tristam -- "Needless to say, nothing would revive my faith and pride in the country more than being proven wrong next November."

November? Most of the higher-level 2008 U.S. election races are already races where all of the candidates left in the running are centrists or rightwingers financially-backed by the rich and the corporations.

America's government is supposed to kick the candidates in America's unfairly-high-spending political campaigns out of their election races.

If Democrats lose it will be their own fault, not Ralph Nader's.

Nader wants to hold their feet to the fire. But do you?

If you want the war on Iraqis to end (with a million innocent victims, mostly children) you must PUT ON PRESSURE! Please, oh please, don't let them take your vote for granted. We'll end up with nothing ... again.

Tell Obama you will NOT VOTE FOR HIM unless he makes some credible promises: out of Iraq and Afghanistan, single payer healthcare, the environment, poverty, racism, ..... to many to name. He would win by a huge landslide if he took this approach. But ... you know, his bosses don't like single payer healthcare any more than they like a prompt exit out of Iraq.

IT'S UP TO US TO PUT ON THE PRESSURE. NADER CAN HELP US DO THAT. Come elections, you can vote for whomever. But for now: BE A CREDIBLE THREAT! Go to his speeches and PROTEST, rather than drool over nebulous promises.

There is no reason to be worried about a Republican win. Aint gonna happen unless the Dems lose on purpose - like the last two elections.

kivals (2:40) - Let me give you a "Tip O' the Hat" for the high quality of that counter-argument! It points to a different conclusion than the one I wind up with; but I fully respect the elements of your argument, & don't deny that I feel sympathy for much of it. (I particularly like, among other things, that it doesn't depend on any naive illusions about Obama.)

You zeroed in on a weakness in my 1:52 post, namely that the sample size was too small. I was aware of that weakness when I wrote it. I believe that essential parts of the cycle I was describing (which of course others like Walter Karp have written about, as borrusky mentioned above), with the Dems playing the role of capitalism's "B Team," could also be extended to include FDR's coming in to "save capitalism from itself" after the 1920's. But making a convincing case for that would have required too lengthy an explanation (too many details & apparent exceptions to the pattern). So in the interests of brevity & simplicity, I just omitted that part, & went only with the last 40 years. // So you're right that my version had that weakness -- though I'm not sure that the idea itself has that weakness.

And of course, even with a larger sample, your point that no historical pattern really "proves" anything definitive about the future -- particularly in a dynamic & rapidly-changing environment -- would remain valid.

One might ask, though, could your same argument not have been used in 2004, when (as was mentioned above) it was conceivable that this same McCain could have been Kerry's running mate? Could it not often have been used to support voting for Democrats? In 1964, when the whole country was terrified (not without reason) of nuclear annihilation, would that same argument not have led one to vote for LBJ, who was supposedly less of a crazed warmonger than Goldwater?

If we went back to 1964 (which at the time, also seemed to be a uniquely dangerous juncture), and tried to assign weights to different courses of action, a maximin calculation would have aimed at keeping Goldwater out of the White House. It would not have favored third-party politics. If one had tried at that time to estimate the probability that the 2-party grip on the political system could ever be broken (& multiplied that by a suitable utility factor) & compared that to the apparent marginal utility of supporting LBJ, one would have assigned a near-zero probability to trying to break the duopoly. Supporting LBJ would have seemed therefore a much wiser investment of energy (more likely to avoid the worst outcome; & far higher chance of success).

Yet only 4 years later, there was a remarkably serious opportunity to break the duopoly. A careful 1964 weighting of all possible courses of political action would never have foreseen this. Meanwhile, LBJ's Vietnam policy was in fact close to the worst possible outcome. // At almost every moment since 1964 (when viewed in realtime), the idea of building a 3rd party seemed a wildly unrealistic pipedream. Yet today, 44 years later, it's easy to appreciate our loss, that this "unrealistic pipedream" never became a reality.

"A better choice would be a candidate not bought and paid for by the controlling oligarchy of the rich as are the 3 remaining republicrat viers."

You've got that if you just open your eyes. Support the Green party against the two Republicrats.

Actually, the one thing you can count on (based on past history) is Obama taking a hard turn to the right after Clinton concedes the nomination. You've already seen a beginning of it with the disavowal of any negative talk about NAFTA (an Obama economic advisor has been telling the Canadians not to listen to what Obama says as its all just for internal US political consumption).

The hey-dey of the candidates talking like they actually care about the Dem base is about to end. Most likely what you'll see is Obama using the old Bill Clinton tactic of picking selected targets among the Dem base to go after in order to prove to conservatives and the media that Obama is 'independent'.

In a few days, Obama will stop saying the rather liberal things he's been saying. And he'll actually start attacking parts of the Dem base. Its because he thinks he's already got our votes locked up, and he'll use that to turn hard to the right.

The cure to that is for progressives to get deeply involved in the Green Party nomination contest, ignore the Dems, then support the Green Party in the next election. If you don't put the fear of God into Obama that he might lose his base, you are just going to be walked all over.

RichM's 'sample size' is exactly correct in that it tracks the rise of the modern Dem party. This is no longer the Dem party that would allow a Jimmy Carter or a George McGovern to get the nomination.

So, if you tracked back further than 1980, you would really be comparing apples to oranges, as the Dem party back then was still based on the old FDR New Deal coalition, while the Dem party since about 1988 is the new Dem party created by Clinton, Gore, Lieberman et al that is the DLC Dem party. This Dem party is build on corporate money and subservience to corporate interests in order to keep that money flowing.

"Then let's quickly review how Dem presidents have fit into the general scheme of politics in the last 40 years. Since that time, there have been 2 Dem presidents: Carter & Bill Clinton. The general pattern has been a kind of endless cycle, consisting of:

1) A period of 8-12 years of Republican looting, which eventually gives way to rising public anger at the system; then

2) A caretaker period (4-8 years) where the Dems, capitalism's "B Team," is permitted to come in to provide a few cosmetic improvements & give the public some time to get over their anger; at which time

3) The "A Team" is refreshed & ready to return for more of the usual plundering & murdering."

Excellent summary, RichM. I would add that in the event that the B team manages to hang on more than 4 years, some idiotic scandal is invented to morally outrage the populace so that the rightious A team isn't kept from the trough for too long.

I recognized how it worked shortly after the first election of Ray-gun which I was too young to participate in. It saddens me to find out how DUMB the majority of the population really is. The cycle is all set to continue again.

RichM,

I agree with your depiction of the past few decades, but I believe that your sample size of presidential administrations is too small to strongly support any conclusions, especially given how fast US political sensibilities are evolving. Based on such a small sample size in such a dynamic environment, we cannot have high confidence in any prediction with regard to the outcome of the interactions between (1) any Democratic president of the future and (2) unknown international crises and other events to come, rising dissatisfaction and economic dislocation of the US population and the associated political evolution, increased communication by non-elites through the Internet within the nation and internationally, other technological changes that will impact the economy and lifestyle, and other numerous factors.

We just have to make our best guess as to what approach will provide the best outcome. Even with regard to determining what is the best outcome, there are different methods, e.g. over what term of years, and does one prefer maximin (maximizing the minimum, i.e. avoiding the worst possible outcomes), maximizing the expectation (maximizing the average over the set, probability distribution, of possible outcomes, roughly equivalent to utilitarianism), or maximax (maximizing the magnitude of the best outcome judged to be a realistic possibility).

Considering the abundance of negative trends in the current US, and the potential for absolute catastrophe on a national and even a global scale, I prefer a maximin approach over the relatively short-term future (e.g. 10 years), avoiding the worst possible outcome. Madman McCain and Wal-Mart Clinton appear to be almost tied in presenting a threat to the nation and the human race in that short-term, and so I would support an approach that focuses on keeping both of them out of the White House.

Hillary Clinton is such a whiner, an embarrassment to real women. She whines about being picked on compared to Obama. What a loser. She's also a Republican at heart and is proud of her conservative upbringing. She said she's going to "stay the course" (just like Bush). Republicans never ever go away, even when they know they're not wanted. She's a Bush supporter. Hillary is a true Republican, nasty smear tactics and all.

RichMs narrative is consistant with all the available information I see. An intellectual framework for making sense of this behavior was published in 1989 by a writer and editor for Harper's.

Walter Karp in Indispensible Enemies divides the political world into "hacks" and "reformers".

Carter, Bill Bradley, John Edwards, Dr Dean, Paul Wellstone are all Democratic Party reformers.

Clinton, Lieberman, Kennedy, Kerry are all hacks.

All the reformers have been driven out of the Republican Party leadership. Thus Ron Paul and Huckabee are insurgent reformers.

McCain tried to maintain a reform image with a hack reality, but the reality is now showing clearly.

Hillary is a stale old party hack and Obama is coming into focus as another corporate centrist hack.

Karp says the goal of the hacks is not necessarily to win elections, it is to keep reformers out of power. The easy way to do this is to have a Republican hack running agains a Democratic Party hack. Then no one cares who wins.

Karp lays out a completely different Civics lesson from what the nice lady taught you in 9th grade.

Where Karp gets interesting is when he talks about dummy candidates such as Mondale and Dukakis and thrown elections such as McGovern.

The Democrats are trying to field a strong hack candidate against Kucinich in the primaries. Expect a very dirty campaign there.

To those who think it's vital to unify the Dems & defeat McCain in November, let's first note (as the article's first paragraph reminds us) that this same McCain -- now the great "mad dog" bogeyman -- was seriously considered as John Kerry's running mate in 2004. The mantra of "We Dems must defeat McCain at all costs!" is thus rather ironic, considering that loyal Democrats might easily have found themselves voting for this same McCain only 4 years ago. (And of course, all loyal Democrats voted for none other than neocon Joe Lieberman in 2000.)

Then let's quickly review how Dem presidents have fit into the general scheme of politics in the last 40 years. Since that time, there have been 2 Dem presidents: Carter & Bill Clinton. The general pattern has been a kind of endless cycle, consisting of:
1) A period of 8-12 years of Republican looting, which eventually gives way to rising public anger at the system; then
2) A caretaker period (4-8 years) where the Dems, capitalism's "B Team," is permitted to come in to provide a few cosmetic improvements & give the public some time to get over their anger; at which time
3) The "A Team" is refreshed & ready to return for more of the usual plundering & murdering.

It's crucial to note that during the brief interims presided over by the Dems, no fundamental changes are ever made, and in fact a great deal of the Republican agenda is carried out by the Dems, but with lower-profile rhetoric. For instance, Bill Clinton carried out a marvelous Republican program - NAFTA, Telecom Act of '96, Welfare Reform, bombing Kosovo, starving Iraq with sanctions, deregulating Wall St, NO cuts in military spending despite recent demise of USSR, etc. Daddy Bush would have been proud of accomplishing this same program.

When you vote for Democrats, therefore, you are not striking any blow against the rightwing. What you are doing, rather, is choosing to continue with the above-sketched cycle, which (as a little thought will show) is capable of continuing indefinitely.

Think again - the choice between black and women is a forced choice to see who gets to run for president.

A better choice would be a candidate not bought and paid for by the controlling oligarchy of the rich as are the 3 remaining republicrat viers.

The final choice will be between a 'good ol' boy' and either a woman or a black.

Guess who wins !

kathy heckman...In the general election "...a very real debate with sparks flying."

You may be quite right about this. What concerns me is that the debate will center on who can best manage the empire.

What about those of us who are utterly sickened by the empire? What are we to do? Whom should we support? What about we who believe the military should be much smaller and the Pentagon budget greatly reduced?

You may also be quite right about another point as well: "...both candidates say that they agree in principle on many issues."

What to do?

That's 'road'. (Why can't I spell on these comment sections??)

I think after Obama wins the nomination, Democrats will unify around him. We will have some of the largest election rallies in US history, filled with African Americans, students, Latinos, union members, men, women hopeful for change. He will win a convincing majority, and have majorities in the House and Senate. He will begin a 'phased redeployment' out of Iraq. And then the fun begins.... Shortly thereafter the right wing will be screaming, the media will turn on him, the dollar could conceivably plunge (the economic picture won't be pretty in any case) and unless his supporters continue to mobilize, he'll be toast.

I don't think you should expect to see the same kind of debates after the primary's that you have seen on the Democratic side.

Obama was attempting to take the high road and not to come across as too aggressive toward Hillary Clinton. As, lately, the front runner, it is a common strategy to try to look Presidential and rise above the fray. And they are both members of the same party, after all. Clinton, due to second place status, took a (some say much) more aggressive stance, trying to nudge Obama back from first. And, whether you agree or not, both candidates say that they agree in principle on many issues.

The debate between the Republican and Democrat candidate will be very sharply defined and have so many opposite approaches to our government that it should (unless both candidates on meds) prove to be a very real debate with sparks flying.

No, Hillary is a divisive bitch. All things are not equal and the DLC and their right wing complicity has enabled this sad state of affairs.
There is no uniting with that.

If there is any sort of war activity--a bad attack in iraq or something with Iran--McCain will probably win.

Amen, puck!

Obama will prevail over Billary, and in the Fall election shred McCain's "Surrender" mantra, and in so doing create a clearer picture of what the supposed threats to America are (from within and out).

Those helping to educate the general public in the mean time to the knowledge base of "a clearer picture", as well as, engage and invigorate the general public will be those issuing THE CALL TO IMPEACH!

The general public is not "dumb" or stupid - they're ignorant and disenfranchised: thus educate and engage - on a human level it's the most pleasurable and functional action you can take (I know, I'm a professional expert on such things).

"Pasty white votes pasty white
Regardless of who is the better candidate."

Your predjudice is showing. And, it is NOT progressive.