If Obama ends up with the nomination then I will be truly torn in November. On the one hand, having the president and Congress from different parties is the only way to ensure checks and balances in our sad little two party system. That's why I voted for the Democrat in the last Senate election. Someone, anyone, needed to be there to say to Bush, "No! Bad!" and smack him on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. Of course, this is McCain of the McGain-Feingold First Amendment Reform and Incumbent Protection Act so that gambit could turn out wrong if he decides to reach across the aisle and find harmonious ways to fark us all in the ass.

On the other hand, I'd like to see Obama win so that I could hear the crying and lamentations of spurned Clinton fans who would be denied the opportunity to say "I told you so." If Obama wins the nomination and the presidency then the Clintons, all of them, are finished. As a man who likes it when bad things happen to politicians, this would tickle me greatly.

Senescent Dawn: mastethom: If Obama ends up with the nomination then I will be truly torn in November. On the one hand, having the president and Congress from different parties is the only way to ensure checks and balances in our sad little two party system.

For the most part I agree with that. All things being equal I strongly prefer the executive and legislature to be different parties. This time around, two things are pushing me in Obama's direction in spite of that: the president's power as commander in chief of the military, and the ability to appoint supreme court justices. I very much don't want the equivalent of a 3rd term Bush in charge of those responsibilities any more. Especially the military thing. More wars would be disastrous for us right now.

I pretty much agree with you, as well. However, since Congress must approve judicial nominees and, ostensibly, approve the president's use of the military, more Democrats in Congress could mitigate the dangers. They would need balls though, so there is that problem.