I remember hearing arguments not unlike this about eight years ago as someone who preferred Gore among Nader supporters, who insisted upon a real third way. I didn't have much to say at the time- I wasn't entirely unpersuaded by the argument that Gore and Bush were very similar in that neither was nearly the ideal candidate for president- but it is the damage and neglect imparted upon this country by exactly the people you say that leads me to disagree with your first point. The "Bush League" necessarily includes more than the president by himself, and by comparing Gore to Bush years ago, as many compare Obama to McCain now, I missed the point that a Gore administration would undoubtedly run the government in a fundamentally different way than the Republicans offered to do. In the end, despite the impressive dedication of his supporters, Nader failed even to gain public funding, and liberals went 0 for 2 in 2000.

This is why we even have to look forward to such a complex and terrifying future. I do not make the comparison between then and now because I find any fault in your idea, but because by November, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that this endeavor will contribute to even the most marginally favorable outcome.

I certainly can't expect you to vote for Obama, and the assumption that I do- much less the assumption that I haven't produce an argument any more substantial than "you're racist"- is insulting to my intelligence. I very much doubt that I am alone in holding that opinion.

The Democratic Party has been loyal to very few of its constituents over the course of the past eight years. I'd imagine that Obama supporters on the whole haven't been any more impressed with the state of party politics than most Clinton supporters, and either candidate would have meant a change in leadership.

The preferred style of that leadership, however, has been in question. For me, as well as for the millions who will vote for Obama, our response to the issue of experience is the same as it was on day one: it doesn't matter. History, at least, is often on our side in making that point: one president who happened to have only one term in Congress and an impressive series of speeches on his resume before being elected was named Abraham Lincoln. I don't remember hearing anyone seriously deride that presidency.

Which leaves leaves us back where we started. This hasn't been the discussion about the future of public policy that this country needs. Why? Because of "Obamabots" and "hipocrisy" and "Swiftboat" and "demographic" and all these other threats and insults that I keep hearing thrown around that prevent us from listening to each other.

Six and a half months ago, I was perfectly happy expecting to vote for Clinton in the general election, but persuaded that Obama was the better candidate. From that standpoint, I hope I can be forgiven for seeing a great deal of animus and very little pragmatism involved in the large majority of opinions expressed here until someone is willing to demonstrate differently.