The Audacity of Victory

There was a recent Simpsons Episode where Ralph Wiggum was drafted by Democrats and Republicans to run for President.  It was pretty funny, about a B+.  But what really cracked me up was the "Springfield Democratic Party", which consisted of a flaming gay guy, an Arianna Huffington rip-off, and others.  The funniest line came from the Huffington character, who said something along the lines of "With Wiggum we can't lose, but somehow we'll manage too."

Party bases are ridiculous.  I'll say, the extreme left makes me grit my teeth almost as much as the extreme right.  Those liberal loonies who voted for Nader because Gore was "too conservative" are pretty much my shining example of how the base can be very, VERY stupid at times.  So how does the "Almost-Huffington" quote relate to the base?  In both parties, the base would rather lose on a pure-message than win on a good one.  I, on the other hand, am the opposite: I'd rather win and get some of what I want done than lose and get none of it.
So far, some liberals have been pissed at Barack Obama for having (what must be) a near blasphemous premise to his campaign: victory.  It seems that Barack Obama got a taste of victory in the Presidential Primary, and has decided he likes it.  He'd like to go on and win the whole thing.  Shocking, I know, a Democrat who has a drive for victory.  But there it is.  However, some idiots online think that if he has to change some of his message points to win, or if he has to associate with the likes of Sam Nunn, Evan Bayh, or Chuck Hagel, then he isn't worth working for.

Do me a favor, people; shut up.

And don't give me the whole, "I have the right to voice my opinion" thing.  Of course you do.  You can say whatever you want.  But then don't come crying to me when your opinion shows you have a grasp on the political system that reads at the Kindergarten level.  We're going with "War and Peace" here, not "Hop on Pop."  

The fact is that Barack Obama isn't going to waltz into the Presidency like people think he will.  Sure, he's got a good message and a fantastic campaign structure.  And Republicans did they smartest thing they could, they ignored the ramblings of the Limbaugh-esque base and nominated the only candidate with a shot in hell of winning.  John McCain is a real threat, and he might just win.

My big problem now is this VP thing.  Some of the nutjobs on Daily Kos (I still to this day refuse to open an account and comment there out of fear of just being associated with those people) insist that if Obama picks Nunn or Bayh, than they will stop sending him money and stop working for him.

Really?  You'll do your part to hand the election over to McCain just because Obama picks a running mate not as "prograssive" as you'd like?  I'll tell you what: why don't you stop being such a party purist and instead use your brain?  Do you want to keep Social Security?  Do you want Universal Healthcare?  Then you're going to have to let Obama pick a Vice President that'll help him win.  That might not be the one you want.  In my mind, Evan Bayh, a moderate Democrat, is probably the best choice.  Behind him is Joe Biden (who actually has a worse rating from NARAL than Bayh), also a moderate Democrat.

Obama's not picking Clark.  He's not picking Reed.  He's not picking any of your little liberal darlings.  Frankly, Obama wants to win.  And he's going to pick the VP that helps him do that.  All you're doing at this point is contributing to the PUMA effort to destroy the party.  

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None