Replies

The few remaining Democrats who are not at the mercy of the fever of putting Herself in the White House may possibly succeed in only managing to put the Democrat party in the ditch for several years, not allowing it to plunge into the abyss.

There will be several years before the Democrats can expunge their ranks of this poison, a suppurating infection that has sapped their strength and ability to reason logically. There was an opportunity, back in 1998, to purge themselves then, by demanding the focus of the infected thinking resign from office. But party was vastly more important than principle. They may lose power, doncha know.

The Republicans had gone through a similar devastation in 1974, when the Republican leadership of the House and Senate marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and demanded that Nixon resign, to avoid an almost-certain impeachment hearing. For this, the Republicans wandered in the wilderness for the span of the Carter Administration, but recovered to the degree that Ronaldus Magnus brought the American people, and the Republican party, back to respectability.

In one important aspect, it makes no difference whether a bad Chief Executive is removed from office or not. The party to which he belongs will suffer the consequences for years. If the departure is voluntary, the years will be shortened. But if the situation is fraught with denials and resistance, and the object of the political fight, clearly in the wrong, insists on standing ground despite overwhelming evidence of incompetence and mendacity, it will take far longer to reestablish trust and plausibility with the American people.

Repent, Democrats. You may never understand or agree with the positions taken by those whom you consider to be "righteous", but base your opposition on something more logical than blind and unreasoned defense of the incompetence of the regime of the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001". They have been false prophets, and have failed you miserably.

I don't fully understand your comment. You seem to be suggesting that the American voting public tends to punish bad behavior in a president by exiling his party into the wilderness of unelectability (at least as to the office of POTUS) for a spell. Although that is an interesting conjecture in the case of Nixon (Carter cast as the "cleansing" anti-Nixon), I am nor sure I agree this is happening or will happen in the case of Clinton.

Gore was not repudiated by the American people; he lost on the electoral battlefield due to the slimmest difference of votes in Florida. In losing, he ran a Clinton-style "third way" campaign that stressed more centrist positions. The strategy made sense; it had worked twice before. In the current election, Lieberman is the candidate most closely allied with this strategy.

By endorsing Dean, Gore is openly repudiating the Clinton-style "third way" strategy and embracing an unabasedly leftist and personality-oriented "I hate Bush" strategy. Why he has done this is not clear. The author of the article leading this thread seems to believe Gore is striving to topple the Clintons and believes he must repudiate their political strategy as well.

If this is a truly declaration of war between the Clinton and post-Clinton factions in the Democratic Party, announced by a defecting Al Gore who hopes to topple Hillary as the heir apparent, we can expect some truly nasty manuevers by a counterattacking Clinton faction. There is simply no way Bill and Hillary are going to gracefully surrender power to Al Gore and Howard Dean.

I have a hunch Gore believes no Democrat can beat Bush in 2004 and he is trying to reshape and gain command of the battlefield in preparation for 2008. It is none other than Hillary Clinton, the blacksuit beast herself, he is striving to neutralize or destroy.

We must encourage the Democrats in their vicious civil war.