We need John Edwards. We Need Hillary Clinton. We need Barack Obama. We also need Howard Dean, Chris Dodd and Al Gore. We need Kucinich and Richardson.
Why?
Because none are perfect, but all together are the perfect cure for what ails America.
I'll open this diary by making one thing clear:
I cannot and will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Or Edwards. Or Obama. Or any other Democrat. Or Republican for that matter.
I'm Canadian, so I can't vote in the primaries or the general, and I'm sure for some of you that fact will invalidate what I have to say (I'm sure some of you will flame me for having the audacity to even say it), but I feel strongly that the election of a Democratic President is essential to the World's health, and to allow America to recover some of her pride and dignity.
Me, I'm all for the blood-sport of primary politics. It's really no different than a Canadian party choosing a new leader in a leadership race--my own party went through a similar messy leadership campaign a year or so ago, and we ended up with a compromise candidate being elected: Stephane Dion (next Prime Minister of Canada I tells ya).
The new Liberal leader made peace with his opponents and (for good or ill) brought them into his inner circle to help strengthen party unity after a fairly divisive race (which had followed from an era where Paul Martin had the knife out for his own predecessor Jean Chretien). Martin's infighting had left the Liberals fragmented and weak in the face of Stephen Harper's conservatives. And so Canada got a neo-conish government.
The leadership race didn't make the Liberals weak--I believe it made them stronger by allowing the various factions within he party to test their strengths against their opponents weaknesses and hone themselves for a fight against the true enemies--Harper's Conservatives. Instead, it was the back-room backstabbing of the Martin era that weakened them, but that should be in the past.
What does this mean for Democrats? I say let each candidate wage their campaign against their opponent's weaknesses. Those who survive should be strong enough to take on the real enemy--the GOP. There is no reason that Obama or Edwards should give into Hillary's inevitability, nor should Edwards or Clinton drop out just because Obama's making gains. Each of the current crop of candidates brings one or more strengths to the party's fight against the GOP in November.
Barack has energized the youth and the independents. John Edwards is speaking out about the inequalities of the Two Americas. Hillary has been an agent of change, and has experience the dogfights needed to be president. Richardson knows foreign policy like no one else. Kucinich is a progressive voice par excellence. Though Dodd and Gore aren't running anymore, they each have been speaking truth to power about the abuses to the constitution and the environment.
I want to see a vigorous primary battle, ending with a nominee who is tested, tempered and honed. The real danger is when the candidates (or worse yet, their followers and supporters) forget that they are really all on the same side, and fight so dirty and nasty that the nominee isn't tempered and tested, but broken and battered. I want to see the eventual nominee win graciously, and have his/her opponents graciously support their win.
I want party unity when all is said and done--and dirty campaigning (and nasty supporters) tears apart that unity--and our ability to win in November. I want everyone--no matter who they support to remember that.
I say let them take the gloves off--but everyone needs to remember that by November the Democratic party's nominee was chosen democratically, and if you're a member of that party, and you believe in democracy, then you should support that nominee.
We can all put band-aids on the primary cuts after a nominee is chosen--lets just try to make sure that it's only band-aids we need, and not a full body cast.
Sean