This is not the most worthwhile diary that I have written but I think it needs to be said. MyDD looks like no other leftist blog: roughly 70% of the diaries are attacks on Democratic presidential candidates. Now I'm asking those who writes these hit pieces: what is your purpose? To weaken the Democratic party? I am not suggesting that we should stop debating which candidate is the best, but since the differences between the Democrats are still very minor compared to the differences between the Dems and the Repubs, it would seem appropriate with an attack geared at the Republican candidates every once in a while. Do you realise that Giuliani is a closet fascist who believes that "freedom is authority"? Do you realise that Mitt Romney is on record saying that he would double the size of Gitmo? These people are dangerous and will destroy America if we let them. Hillary, Obama and Edwards won't.

A certain Hillary supporter (guess who?) has even said that he/she would vote for Giuliani over Obama. It makes you wonder. Myself I would never dream of voting for any Repug over any Democrat in 2008.

I am sick of the attacks on Democratic candidates on this blog (not by the front posters so much as by the various partisan community members). I have decided to leave this community as of today, I will read the front page diaries but the rest is frankly crap which seems more appropriate on FreeRepublic.com than on Mydd. But this diary is not about me, I am insignificant, it's about what has happened to this place when partisan trolls have infected it. It's disgusting and frustrating to watch.

Reading the diary about Hillary's lack of a vision I reacted to the idea that Obama's vision is about creating consensus. Well, that's not the way I interpret Obama's vision after having read both his books and many speeches.

It turns out that one of the four winners in Obama's "Dinner For Five" contest is a transgender person. Palm Beach Post has the story:

Expect another load of depressing polls showing Hillary leading the Dem primary with 10 or 15 points today. Shed some tears, yell at the computer screen and then remind yourself that there is 8 months left to stop the inevitability express. We can stop Hillary if we want to and if we start focusing our efforts.

As we all know there has been a lot of hit diaries and flame wars lately. I think that this is unfortunate and distracts from the fact that we have a great slate of candidates to choose from. I came across this article about Barack Obama from the New Yorker which I think nicely explains why and how Obama is different from a candidate like John Edwards. I like Edwards and I can certainly understand why some people prefer his combative rhetoric to Obama's dispassionate talk about 'unity' and purpose. It seems that some people feel let down by Obama, because they thought that he would be something he has never been. Obama has not changed, he has been this way and talked this way all his life. At least that is what I think after reading this profile.

Some choice quotes (it's a very long article):

In the aftermath of Katrina I haven't heard one single Democrat speaking in public about the threats of global warming. Why the hell is that?? They should be out there 24/7 informing the public about how global warming is as serious as terrorism and that Bush ignores it because of his Big Oil buddies. I recently read a poll (can't remember the polling firm's name) in which 55% of the respondents thought Bush had signed the Kyoto Treaty... this is a MISERABLE FAILURE of Democrats. The American public is clearly concerned about global warming (according to several polls) and a large majority supports signing the Kyoto Treaty but the Dems do not use this to their, and the world's, advantage. WHY NOT???

(This diary is cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Kerry wasn't electable, he never was. Period. The usual counterargument against "electability" as an important quality of any candidate therefore fails.

Electability doesn't equal wishywashiness or timidness. It only means that the candidate we pick should be able to win on a national level, against a Republican. If that candidate is a rock solid progressive that's a big plus - but in the end he/she must be able to bring the votes. Granting that electability is important let me review two prime contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination: