Dear Democrats

We thought we couldn't take down the Clinton's intra party so we decided to take her down internally. We didn't like her because we knew she was serious and effective.

SUCKERS!

faithfully Yours

Ted Kennedy is not an idiot.  Do you think he would say something so horrible if he didn't think (1) that it was true and (2) that everyone basically felt the same way, so why not say it?

The disconnect is amazing.  It's like the Obama folk who say, "Don't attack Obama.  Don't you realize that 50% of all democrats support him?"  And you just want to say, "uh, who do you think those other 50% support?"

They are absolutely clueless, and blinded by their certainty that they are correct.  The media is exactly the same.  They are shocked when someone comes out and says that they actually like Clinton, and totally convinced that that person must be either deluded or racist or insane or all three.

"Real" leaders do not blow off sub-committee chairmanships with the lame excuse that they were too busy campaigning.  Gosh, it's not like we have anything important going on in Afghanistan, or need the support of our European allies or anything.  And it couldn't possibly be useful to someone who wants to lead the freakin' country to spend some time actually getting some foreign policy cred, could it?  Oh, wait - he lived in Indonesia 37 years ago, so what am I thinking? - of course he's ready to lead...

I'm about to disclose something shocking, something I haven't discussed in about seven years. (deep breath.) I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.

I rationalized it: the nation survived Reagan, the nation survived Nixon; there are checks and balances--Congress and the Supreme Court wouldn't allow Bush to do anything too moronic; Gore might win anyway; I was in a "safe state"; a significant Nader protest vote would teach the Dems not to alienate the liberal base of the party. I thought I had so many great reasons. I honestly thought the worst case scenario couldn't be that bad.

And through that first uneventful summer this seemed to be the case. Bush had abysmal approval ratings, he hadn't accomplished anything, and he had already taken what felt like dozens of six week vacations to Crawford. Al Gore had grown a beard and put on weight, and because of a long succession of slow news days this somehow became noteworthy.

Then, as George Bush is fond of saying, everything changed. The worst case scenario suddenly became much worse. I don't need to rehash how; you know.

The other irony is that weak-willed middle-mongerer over the next 8 years turned into a hugely important progressive voice that I respect deeply. I wonder what I missed in 2000, how the media manipulated me.

I didn't teach the Democrats anything with my "protest" and I still feel like a jackass for my "principled" stand. I also don't look forward to being asked by my son, whom I plan on raising to be very politically conscious, about whom I've cast my vote for over the years. We all get one "oops" I hope. I wish mine wasn't so monumentally bad and didn't come at what turned out to be such a critical juncture.

Russ Feingold is a special case.  He needlessly and viciously trashed John Edwards as he endorsed Obama just before the Nevada caucus.

Endorsements are a part of politics but I can't remember a time when politicos made endorsements while virulently trashing the opponent.

Leaving only an electoral choice between right and farther right (in economic terms) will further diminish participation in the political process.

During the "roaring 20s" both parties were fairly conservative.  After 1920 the percentage of eligible voters participating in elections dropped throughout the decade and was little improved in 1932.  In 1936, after four years of Roosevelt, the participating percentage shot up dramatically.