The Themocrats' Winter of Discontent

It's not easy being sleazy these days:

MEANWHILE, ON THE OTHER END of the party spectrum, Joe Lieberman finds himself facing a possible challenge from his left. Rumors are afoot that Lieberman may be taken on by Lowell Weicker, the John Kerry of the Nutmeg State and the man Lieberman unseated in 1988. And Hillary Clinton may have to contend with a primary challenge from Jonathan Tasini, former president of the National Writers Union and an outspoken critic of the war.

Neither Lieberman, who has been staunch, nor Clinton, who has been shrewd, are likely to be defeated by the forces gathering against them. Nevertheless, they labor under the increasingly angry gaze of the antiwar faction.

Some Democrats, though, are trying to distance themselves from anti-warriors like Dean, and from House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed immediate troop withdrawal recently, echoing the position taken by Congressman Jack Murtha. But the damage has been done: Dean is the national party chairman, and until now at least, that position has meant something in determining the direction of a party. When these Democrats say that Dean does not speak for them, are they speaking for the party -- or is Dean? Is Kerry? Is Carter?

No one assumes that Lieberman is.


THE DEMOCRATIC DILEMMA IS well known: to rally enthusiasm and funding, they must appeal to their hard left flank; to rally votes in a national election, they must appeal to the center. Their challenge comes down to how to undermine the mission in Iraq while at the same time seeming to support it.

But it is very difficult to so systematically obstruct a war effort -- distorting its causes; condemning its conduct; slandering its leaders; doubting its success; declaring that even if it succeeds it will fail -- without giving people a pretty good idea of what you are doing.

The worst part is wondering how much more successfully the war might be going if the country had the benefit of two parties, whatever their differences, equally committed to winning it.

The American public will never tolerate this.

To put this in perspective:

The last Democratic presidential candidate to receive more than fifty percent of the electorate's vote was Jimmy Carter with 50.6 pct of the 1976 vote.

That's right---it's been almost 30 years since a Democratic presidential candidate locked down more than half of the electorate. Bill Clinton received 43 pct and 49 pct respectively in the 1992 and 1996 elections.

Who's extreme now?