My dear comrades!

I think divisions are just amplified due to the Internet. The divisions will also fade very quickly when this is settled in a couple weeks. I refuse to believe the small but vocal fringe online speaks for the bulk of either candidate.

I'd be down for supporting an Obama run in 2012, but only if Hillary wasn't running.

If Hillary was running, I'd probably back someone else....(not her, of course).  But I can't take much more of gender vs. race politics.

Well, my first choice didn't make it to my state, so I had to pick someone else, and did end up volunteering for that campaign.

The one constant in this world is change (yes I know a loaded phrase these days), but my point the issues of 2012 will not be the same 2008, just like 2004 wasn't the same as 2000, etc.  And the world I have inherited is not the world my grandparents or parents did.  So I'm willing to listen to anyone who would think they have a good idea for where to go next, including third parties, not-crazy republicans, etc.  Please don't interpret that as a defection threat.

Looking back on 2004, I was never very excited about Kerry, I wasn't thrilled with any of them.  Dean was entertaining and enthusiastic, but not enough substance if my memory serves, Clark was intriguing because we haven't had a general on the Dem side that I remember, and I've never really felt the magic of John Edwards (I think I see it, I just don't feel it).  So this time around I was open to all who would put themselves out there, and I hope I'd have the same open mind in 2012 (god forbid it really comes to that).

If Obama lost in 2008, I'd want neither Obama nor Clinton in 2012.

If Mark Warner runs in 2012 , he gets my vote over Hillary Clinton.

If anyone runs that is more moderate/conservative he would probably get my vote over her .

Assuming she doesn't win this time and runs again .

Neither Clinton nor Obama was my first or second choice.

A lot can happen in four years.  If the choice was down to Clinton and Obama again, and the political landscape was identical (doubtful), I'd support Obama again.

Unlike a lot of folks here, I feel like I can be an informed voter without having off the charts admiration and love for a candidate.  Likewise, I don't need to have a pathological hatred toward my candidate's opponent.

I really think there are a lot of posters on this board fulfilling strange emotional needs through the love and hatred of these two decent and flawed candidates.

Depends who runs and what the situation is like. You put it in terms of "YOUR" candidate as if the person I voted for on 2/5 was the one I wanted all along. He wasn't. Your hypothetical is way too hypothetical. Too many things will have happened between now and then to know how I will respond. It's possible that Obama could conduct his GE campaign or his future Senate career in a way that disqualified him from consideration for my future support. Clinton has certainly done so late in this primary season.

I approach every primary season taking a serious look at the available options - usually ending up with one that drops out before I vote and then choosing between the remainders. Assuming the dems lose in 08, I don't know why 2012 would be any different for me.

that no matter who is elected in 2008, they will not be re-elected in 2012.

No, I don't want any of the current choices on the line then.

I feel there is so much wrong that no matter who is given the job as POTUS in 2008, there will be so much still wrong in 2012, that the POTUS will be the equivilant of Jimmy Carter.

No one can 'fix' the current energy crisis, the same for the economy, infrastructure and social issues.  A Democrat will most likely be able to stop the military action in Iraq, but terrorisim will still be a threat to us.  I hope that whoever wins understands that their 'laundry bag' of promises (and one in particular has made a boat load of them that I doubt he can even imagine how to address) will be opened and scrutinized by the American public often and closely.

No.

By 2012 I hope there's a Democrat on the scene who's better than either of them.

We don't nominate past losers in the Democratic Party. If Obama loses, neither he nor Clinton will be the nominee in 2012 (although we'll probably have to put Clinton in a padded room to keep her from trying). SCHWEITZER '12!!!

If Clinton were to lose this year and run in 2012 she would certainly be my first choice, largely because of what I think she has learned from this campaign.

Do you not think it is as simple as this is the first primary since political blogs have come of age?  I suspect the average voter is blissfully unaware of 99% of the stuff discussed here.

I don't think I can get myself to support Clinton again ... not in the primaries anyways. Proved too polarizing and I just don't like surrogate drama.

I would be willing to give Obama a shot again but not in 2012, perhaps much later.

By 2012 I hope we can have other leaders.

This year is the single best chance for both of them.

though i support obama over hillary (and certainly over mccain), he is far from being my ideal candidate. were he to lose (i don't think he will) i hope that someone more progressive  will move into the spotlight. i would not rule out supporting someone else in 2012 against president obama (not hillary though).

i am hopeful that pres obama will take the u.s. a bit to the left and pave the way for others to take it a bit further.

One thing that's missing in your argument, I think, is quite critical: the rather surprising and heretofore unknown fact that the "factions" each candidate has attracted this election season has been of essentially identical size. I think a necessary condition of the level of bitterness we have encountered is that the battle has been so long and so even that neither candidate was knocked out early.

What's really weird about this battle has been that I don't think anyone would have identified the fault lines in the Democratic Party beforehand in the way they have come to be revealed. There are very few policy differences for people to rally around. They are entirely class/group issues. Underneath those issues, though, there's clearly a great deal of resentment and distrust and simple disdain across those lines. I think the consensus beforehand had been that it was the Republican Party more riven by class and other distinctions, with the moneyed class and the social conservative/religious  working class eyeing each other very suspiciously.

The problem is, now that these fissures have come out into relief in the Democratic Party, I don't see how they really go away easily. My guess is that future Democratic candidates will have to try to win by playing off one group against the other, working off by then pre-existing and well known themes to appeal more to one side than the other.

Given that the underlying bases are of such equal size, that might portend more battles of similar ugliness.

Perhaps what will make the difference is if one side or the other has their candidate win, and that candidate fares very poorly in the election. It's very hard for a wing of a Party to maintain any clout or credibility after they have been deeply embarrassed in an election.

If Obama loses he won't be back and neither will Hillary. The Democratic Party is not kind to its "losers".

I think in this scenario Mark Warner would be a strong frontrunner for 2012, Evan Bayh would most definatley run as well

MY candidate, of the two who remain, was my fourth choice (counting Al Gore), so of course I'd consider other candidates.

The candidate who came very close to being my fourth choice has dropped from a close fifth to "no fucking way, not ever".

I disagree.  How might the Democratic party avoid a similar battle in the future?  Simple.  Another candidate will declare, he or she won't start out with these factions hating him or her, and that candidate will win, and quickly, simply by virtue of being a third choice who is acceptable to most people.

If Edwards had had some ability to jump back into the race, say, around the time of the Ohio/Texas primaries, and wasn't hobbled by his having failed to collect delegates before, I think it's possible he could have turned himself into the front runner by now.

A candidate in 2012, essentially, would be able to do just that.  And his name, I'll bet, is Mark Warner (though the Dems would have to lose this cycle).

think either Democrat loses in 2008.  

I just cannot imagine any person who calls themself a Dem voting for that puke, John McCain.  I started out a supporter of someone else, and have not jumped onto the Clinton or Obama bandwagon because I think their policies are pretty much the same with some small exceptions.  There are things I like about both, and things I dislike about both, but it matters not to me, because I'll vote for either one in November.

I plan on voting for the incumbent Democratic President in 4 years :) because once a victor is declared I will happily work to get out the vote, phonebank and donate to that person.

McCain is so stupid he probably thinks a 401k is new kind of assault rifle. He's a phony, lying, foul mouthed, flipflopping, adulterous, do nothing, warmongering, woman hating piece of garbage who will do or say anything to be elected. People can see through him, and anyone who is stupid enough to vote for him needs to have their head examined. So..the next freaking person I hear (Clinton or Obama supporter) say, 'I'm voting McCain' if their candidate loses needs to be humiliated until they never show up here again.

I must respectfully disagree with the assertion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (as CEO's and owners of their campaigns) are equally culpable in this downward spiral / war of words and complete degradation of the character of the other. Diaries here and elsewhere (and www.attacktimeline.com for those with an open mind) point to direct and purpose ful attacks of disinformation and character (best but not only example: "she'll do or say anything to win") coming from the Obama campaign as far back as summer 2007. I saw it for myself in the lies and disinformation about Clinton's position on NAFTA and HealthCare that PAPERED Ohio in February thanks to the SEIU. Clinton ran a positive campaign way past the time when she should have started fighting back - describing her strengths and capabilities, speaking about the importance and opportunity of Democrats winning the White House in 2008, and attacking the current administration. It was only in light of the primary defeats in January and February that it became clear that she had no choice but to fight back. When she chose to fight back, one could say it was nasty - but heh - John Kerry was criticized for not fighting back! My final observation is that there is a difference between a negative attack and TELLING THE TRUTH - ah but you've probably not even read this far.

This diary is not for criticizing either opposing candidate.  This diary is for speculating if you would or would not back YOU candidate in the future.

I can imagine circumstances developing over the next 4 years that would end with me voting for either candidate. I can't, though, imagine not at least considering other candidates.

As painful and nearly intolerable has been this seasons debates regarding gender & race, I think it's an invaluable service to the country to be having this discussion=as compared to past primaries.

I cannot imagine what the primaries will look like in 4 or 8 years, & I wouldn't have predicted this season 4 years ago.

At the moment, there are a small and dwindling number of Democrats I am loyal to--good people I trust to lead us and who I feel share my view of the Democratic Party and what its purpose is.

Al Gore.
Hillary Clinton.
John Lewis.

That might be it, actually. There are a few others who are close. My feelings might change, but I'll support either of them if they run for anything again, whether it's President or Beaver County Board of Supervisors. I'm not going to let the antipathy of other people stop me from supporting the leaders I believe in.

nice job in keeping the threads on topic. some folks don't like playing the hypothetical game, but it lead to some interesting declarations (and didn't drive to insult anybody). so i'm calling off the duel.

Yes, I would definitely support Hillary Clinton again for President.  

Regarding Obama, remember, Michelle herself said during an interview; "You only get one shot at us." in reference to Barack making another run for President -- as in this year, now or never.