When this election season started I thought the Democrats might have learned a thing or two from the last two cycles and decided not to eat their young by completely obliterating one another in the primaries thereby setting up the Republicans with all their arguments for the general. It appears I was completely wrong as Edwards says Obama is in Never-Never-Land, Clinton has hit Obama’s experience and Muslim roots and Obama has not only linked Clinton’s Iraq War vote to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto but now has put all of her experience as First Lady down as simply attending tea parties.

Now I understand the importance of the vetting process, I believe in it but I also understand that in politics sometimes you have to consider the greater value.

In 2004 it was hard to swallow when John Edwards was named the Vice Presidential candidate for John Kerry, a man he had just attacked during the primary. Edwards helped open the attacks on Kerry, giving credence to the idea he was unelectable.

How in the world could any of these three lose and turn around and give the winner any viable or sincere support at this point? Who in the world would buy it and what, other than being a good loser, would they gain? When Clinton is asked in July why she suddenly now believes Obama has the best experience over, lets say, John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, how could she do so with a straight face?

Likewise how could Obama say Clinton will change the system away from the George Bush era after spending the last year calling her a Washington insider who is bought and sold by lobbyists?

How could Edwards support anyone in this race after spending the last year going after anyone and everyone who wasn’t John Edwards?

In short, ever pundit has been looking at the disarray in the Republican primary and seeing fatality, while ignoring the utter chaos brewing in the Democratic electorate. Will Democrats rally regardless of who wins? Probably, but will that rally truly be sincere? I don’t know.