|
Democrats' Shot At 2008 Win Looks Like Dud How much of a beaten, beleaguered, hapless lot of lost pols are the Democrats after Tuesday's ballot box mugging? Curly Howard didn't get slapped around as much by Moe as did this crowd of Gallup Poll panhandlers. Good grief, the Washington Generals score more often against the Harlem Globetrotters. But wait! It gets worse. The Iraqi air force had more bench strength than this party, which has about as much of a future at the moment as Yasser Arafat - only less so. It's one thing to lose an election as John Kerry did. It's quite another to look into your party's crystal ball and see that Ralph Nader has a better chance of getting elected to the presidency in 2008 than anyone claiming to be a Democrat. If you were a Democratic Party honcho, which has to feel like presiding over a cootie convention, trying to figure out how to get this Elba of the electorate back on some semblance of viability has to be as daunting a task as rehabilitating Jack Kevorkian's image as a family doctor. Where to start? It's a small thing, really, actually more cathartic than anything else, but jettisoning party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who comes off as the spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Henchmen, would be a tiny step toward restoring a scintilla of dignity to the Democratic cause. After all, since he's presided over a political party's decline rivaling O.J. Simpson's fall from grace, McAuliffe has more than earned his place in political history as the ebola virus of the Electoral College. Possible replacements? Well, there's always former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, or perhaps recently unemployed Sen. Tom Daschle, who would seem to have the inside track since the Democrats wouldn't have to pay for moving expenses. As for potential Democratic presidential candidates in 2008, the list is shorter than likely husband material for Ellen DeGeneres. And what very, very few White House aspirants there are would hardly inspire anyone to start whistling the theme to ``Camelot.'' To begin with, can we please, please, please dispense with this Ezra Pound-like delusion that New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Eva Peron of Chappaqua, has any remote prospects to get elected to the presidency of the United States? Really now, with the possible exception of Ted Kennedy, is there a more polarizing figure on the U.S. political scene than the Mary Todd Lincoln of the left? Or put more simply: Charles Manson will win parole before the Typhoon Mary of managed care ever haunts the West Wing. Why does Clinton enjoy a certain counterfeit political currency among the chattering class? Well, compared with the current crop of potential presidential candidates, to some the Kitten With a Tax Code looks downright Margaret Thatcheresque. Certainly John Edwards can lay some claim to be the heir apparent, but four years between elections can either be a swell opportunity to put together a base constituency or a descent into more obscurity than the Sinclair Broadcasting Corp. There are precious few others. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is young (49) and certainly would help the party reclaim Midwestern voters, as would Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsak. The same logic holds true with North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley, 54, in trying to recapture a Southern constituency. Still, it's abundantly obvious as the Democrats sift through the detritus of Tuesday's results that the dearth of leadership makes the PLO look like a pillar of transitional orderliness. How bad is it? Howard Dean is probably looking to 2008 and practicing his primal scream. Uh-oh. |
XOXOX
bump
Yes. I posted it here. :)