By Hank Edson

No matter who the Democratic Party nominates, that candidate ought to win hands down--following as he or she will, the worst administration in history, during which the Republican Party controlled all three branches of government.

That's why diverting the political discourse into considering any other alternative is to put oneself at odds with the interests of the Democratic Party.

We, the people of the Democratic Party, already have a resounding victory.  Don't tell us our victory is at risk; it is not.  Don't tell us you will save us; we don't need to be saved.

We don’t need a candidate selection process, in fact; anyone will do. Make no mistake about this.

The fact that we would like a genuine leader does not mean that we are in doubt about our victory over the abusive politics of Republican rule.  It does not mean that we are looking for an answer to our fears.  We are not afraid.  We are eagerly anticipating election day and the victory it will bring us.

Clarity on this single point is now the deciding factor that we, the people of the Democratic Party, should apply in choosing a nominee for the presidency.

The one who get's this point is in.  The one who doesn't is out.

This is why our nominee must be Barack Obama.

Hilary Clinton’s bid for the presidency has been whittled down to the “big state” argument: the argument that she won the large states with the most electoral votes, which tend to be won by Democrats, and that Obama won the small states, which tend to be won by Republicans.

The Clinton team argues that Obama won’t be able to beat McCain in the general election because the states that supported him during the primaries will be won by McCain and the states that McCain would otherwise lose, won’t vote for Obama because they wanted Clinton to be the nominee.

It’s bad that Clinton has been reduced to making such a stupid argument, but it’s disqualifying that she has chosen to make an argument so contrary to the interests of the people of the Democratic Party.

Clinton is willfully projecting for her own benefit a scenario in which the Democratic Party loses small state after small state to John McCain. And then she is insanely suggesting that Obama can’t win California, New York, Texas and Florida because her success in those states demonstrates their undying allegiance to all things Clinton.

On one hand, this argument might suggest that Obama can’t win these states because her success indicates a Republican leaning amongst these voters. On the other hand, it might suggest that Obama would somehow so anger the state’s democratic voters with his electoral victory among pledged delegates that democrats in big states would simply not vote.  No matter what it suggests, this argument is absurd, self-serving, and a grave disservice to the Party.

We already have a win. We don’t need Clinton. And we don’t need her suggesting our victory is in doubt.  We definitely don't need to entertain her desperate rationalizations of why democrats must nominate her, even though she doesn't have the votes.

I urge my fellow democrats to think about this and announce your support for Barack Obama--if you have not already--based on this principle: Democrats are going to win big in November and we don’t want a candidate whose nomination depends on calling that victory into doubt.

We are done with Republican rule.  Our every spoken word should explain why.

Copyright © Hank Edson 2008