2005: The Splintering of the Democratic Party

A Publius Essay | 3 February 2005 | Publius

[Publius]

The year 2005 will mark the 72nd anniversary of the New Deal, the seminal event of the modern Democratic Party. Democratic policies and rhetoric all hail from that era of Big Government protecting the American people from Big Business. As long as the party held to its roots in economic equality, it prospered. When it marched boldly into the quicksand of social change, it alienated the Great Middle of American politics and lost its way.

Now the signs are all in place for another great Democratic debacle, but with one major difference. This time, the Democrats are headed for the ash heap of American political history.

New England is where American political parties go to die. In 1814 Alexander Hamilton, guiding light of the Federalist Party, had been dead for a decade. While Hamilton would have argued vehemently against a new war with Britain, preferring instead to resolve differences through diplomacy, he was astute enough to understand that certain arguments stop at the water’s edge. When the ragtag remnants of the Federalist Party, then holed up in New England, organized the Hartford Convention to discuss secession, Hamilton must have turned somersaults in his grave. Once Andrew Jackson routed a British invasion at New Orleans, the Federalist position smacked of treason, and the ragtag remnant was annihilated in the next election.

In the 1850's, with founder Henry Clay dead, the Whigs lost their way over slavery. While even the Great Compromiser might have found it impossible to square this particular political circle, the temporizing of the Whigs made them toothless in the face of people who were absolutely sure of what they believed. It took only a few electoral cycles for the Whigs to be replaced by the Republicans.

The Roots of the Democrats’ Dilemma

In 1964 Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in a popular and electoral vote blowout. One thing that can be disastrous for a political party is for it to get everything it wants. Following the election, the Democrats felt they had decisively won the argument, and Goldwater’s defeat cleared the way for the enactment of Johnson’s Great Society programs. Medicare and the war on poverty quickly became law, although poverty clearly won over time. The Democrats had achieved the goals set during the Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy years. What was left?

In the late Sixties the Democrats made the error of turning to social change – in that era it meant race – and promptly alienated a key group of voters later to be known as Reagan Democrats. Ethnic blue collar Democrats were liberal on economic issues and had agreed that the situation in the South was intolerable, but there was no such consensus on de facto segregation in the North. When the courts went beyond the law and ordered busing to promote racial balance, the future Reagan Democrats became angry. Thanks to the rising tide of Black Nationalism and the violence of urban insurrections, sympathy with the problems of black America began to wane.

In the Seventies the Democrats invested their energy in promoting social change via the courts, this time in the area of sexual liberation. At bottom, liberals were trying to change the social attitudes of Americans by judicial fiat – to infuse them with the proper revolutionary fervor – and they failed to see that the resistance of the Great Middle was but a desire to de-politicize the affairs of daily life. As a rule, social attitudes change at their own natural speed and do not require a political party to push them along. The Democrats forgot this and ceded the Great Middle to others.

As Reagan shifted the Great Middle to the right, the Democrats spent the Eighties in a state of shock and denial. Looking at the Democratic Party, Americans saw a collective of America’s misfits and malcontents, and the result was disastrous. The Democrats had jumped on the bandwagon of social change and had forgotten the economic issues that had made them the majority party. The institutional party had become totally disorganized and obsessed with process while the nominating electorate was dominated by left-wing ideologues. Upset and bewildered, the Reagan Democrats made a new home in the Republican Party.

After the Dukakis debacle in 1988, Mark Russell posed the question, "Why do we expect our generals to be serious men and our brain surgeons to be serious men, but we expect our presidents to be game show hosts?" In 1992 the Great Game Show Host slouched onto the scene. Bill Clinton emphasized economic issues and fudged the social foolishness that had gotten his party into so much trouble in the past. Clinton’s pitch was simple: “Guys, we can take a stand for our beliefs and go down in flames, or we can go back to basics and win.”

Once elected, however, Clinton discovered that in running for office from the center, he lacked the political capital to enact any genuine liberal programs. His first major expenditure of political capital was NAFTA, a Republican initiative. A few months into his presidency, Clinton realized with horror that he had become an “Eisenhower Democrat”. Having sold the party to the lobbyists of K Street to raise enough money to compete with the Republicans, Clinton had robbed his party of its soul. The left wing ideologues took note but kept silent lest they lose the perks and privileges of power. Their day would come, they thought.

Congressional Democrats, ideologically at odds with the president, felt they had the luxury of not marching in step with Clinton and didn't fear him the way they would have feared an experienced operator like Lyndon Johnson. Thus, his health insurance initiative crashed and burned, and Republicans went in for the kill. The post-Watergate reforms had the effect of locking the Congress of 1974 in place for twenty years, but Clinton's failure to produce the promised changes brought in a Republican Congress for the first time in forty years.

Internally, the two parties are very different. The Democrats function like a federation of state parties while the Republicans have always been a top-down organization. This gives the Democrats an edge when they don't control the Executive. Republicans, without the Executive, seem lost. They need a leader to snap them to attention and send them marching in step. Newt Gingrich took that role and made his troops the force of change in the Nineties, but in provoking a government shutdown Gingrich failed to understand the role of entitlements in the American psyche. People had come to expect certain things from their government, and they didn't want anything to get between them and their government checks.

Having lurched too far to the left with “Hillary Care”, Clinton positioned himself as close to the Great Middle as he could. Unwilling to show the ruthlessness required in politics, the Republicans nominated Bob Dole even when it was obvious months before the convention that he couldn't win. Frustrated by their inability to defeat the slickest president in modern times, the Republicans grasped at a straw held in the mouth of a White House intern.

In retrospect Rush Limbaugh was right. Neither Congress nor the American people would countenance the removal of a president for offenses related to illicit sex. To most Americans in the Nineties, Bill Clinton’s behavior was not outside the mainstream. By couching the 1998 election as a referendum on impeachment, Gingrich misread the situation.

Talk to ardent partisans about the 2000 election, and you’ll get two very different versions of reality.

A Republican will tell you that the networks called Florida early and suppressed Republican turnout not only in Florida, but nationwide. Some will accuse the networks of collusion with the DNC in attempting to steal the election for Al Gore. A partisan Florida Supreme Court attempted to keep the theft in motion, but the US Supreme Court honored the Constitution and stopped it in its tracks.

A Democrat will tell you that Al Gore won the national popular vote and the vote in Florida. Bush was selected illegally by a partisan US Supreme Court when his father called in some IOU’s. The election was stolen, plain and simple. Bush lost and took up residence in Al Gore’s big white house.

But the events of September 11, 2001 changed everything.

War, Disconnection and Marginalization

The Republicans were now in power in time of war. With Afghanistan out of the way and Iraq on the table, the Democrats found themselves in a quandary.

The Democratic Party had played a key role in the creation of the United Nations, and there was a strong belief that being a responsible player on the world stage meant not engaging in unilateral action, but working through the UN to gain the support of world opinion. This is the origin of the “global test”. Had not Jack Kennedy gone to the UN first during the Cuban Missile Crisis? With most of our traditional European allies opposing regime change in Iraq, Democrats were split on whether to authorize an invasion. The initial success of that invasion coupled with the guerilla war that followed furthered splits in the party. The perception of lukewarm support of the war effort on the part of Democrats led to losses in the election of 2002, and the party’s left-wing nominating electorate was on the warpath for peace.

At the center of this difficulty is a problem unique to liberals – a willingness to accept the adversary’s viewpoint if it puts their country in a bad light. Liberals call it “being objective”, but it is really a lack of faith in America and a lack of faith in traditional American ideals. While fine in peacetime, it is deadly in war.

• “If we pull out of the Middle East, the Muslims will leave us alone. We’re not a force for good there.”
• “If we stop using Middle Eastern oil and rely on homegrown renewable energy resources, we’ll stop global warming. We use a disproportionate amount of the world’s energy anyway.”
• “If we give up the sillier vestiges of rugged individualism and pack ourselves into the cities, we’ll have a better and more diverse society.”
• “If we put our sovereignty into the hands of the UN, we’ll be giving the rest of the world a good example. World government is inevitable. Let’s be first.”

At their core, these ideals are not American, but “UNeesian”, to invent a word. To UNeesians, patriotism is a vice. To UNeesians, America doesn’t have the right to lead because its hands are dirty, courtesy of slavery, Vietnam or some other flaw in its past. To UNeesians, America, like Israel, is a source of evil in the world.

In time of war, social issues take a backseat. One of the key UNeesian objections to the war in the Middle East is the belief that the money should be spent on something else. Spend it on government-run health insurance, government-run schools or government-run Amtrak, but don’t spend it on war. That’s immoral. Spend it on social change. But there comes a time when people become weary of social change and want stability, particularly freedom from attack by foreign religious fanatics.

Nothing bothers UNeesians more than a muscular United States working to mold the world into a place reflective of its traditional values. To UNeesians, these traditional American values are suspect. They remember Vietnam, but not World War II. And when they root for the enemy, as many of them did in the case of Iraq, they step over the line crossed by the ragtag remnants of the Federalist Party in 1814.

Trapped by Ideology

In 2004 the Democratic Party could have run against the Republicans from the right, a technique used successfully by Jack Kennedy. This would have meant taking the war against terrorism to a new level, to include racial profiling and securing our borders. Ordinary Americans not associated with Big Business would have jumped to join a party willing to militarize and seal the borders. This would have led to a stand in favor of economic nationalism, which would have brought many of Patrick Buchanan’s troops into the party.

But the Democrats instead argued that terrorism was a nuisance and that the US should apply a “global test” to military action, thus giving Europe and the UN a veto over America’s defense. From its “Democratic wing” came a hint that America got what it deserved on September 11. Economic nationalism, racial profiling and sealing the borders went against the grain of the party’s UNessian values. Further, without that vast army of illegal immigrants in the nation’s workforce, the declining birthrate would put the sacred programs of the welfare state in actuarial jeopardy.

Socially, the Democrats pushed for a continuation of the sexual revolution when people were tired of being confronted by sex every time they turned on the TV. After forty years of sexual liberation, people wanted a break from overt sex, particularly from the same sex variety. A key issue for Democrats in 2004 was the recognition of gay marriage – by fiat via the courts – which is not a priority for the vast majority of Americans who are not gay. This has led to the beginnings of an exodus from the party by Hispanics and blacks.

For an economic program, the party has not changed its stance in forty years, arguing for programs that even Lyndon Johnson could not push through Congress. When looking at an economic platform, the Democratic Party can suggest only more socialism. They succeeded in getting a new entitlement – prescription drugs for the elderly – and they still hope for some form of government-run health insurance, but the party has failed to answer the question, “Do you want the people who run Amtrak to take out your appendix?” When it comes to economic ideas, even the Mainstream Media admitted 25 years ago that it was the Republicans who had all the good ideas.

The Future of the Democrats

The New Deal coalition has been fraying ever since George Wallace cracked the Democratic Party in 1968 over race. Failure to defend the country and manage the economy has haunted the party at each election. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton defeated Republican incumbents only because of a failing economy.

In 2004, the Democrats nominated a New Englander who was deep in his party’s mainstream but was out of step with the rest of the country. In “reporting for duty”, John Kerry hoped to elide his party’s ideological marginalization, but since his defeat the rest of the party has stridently spoken out, raising disturbing questions:

• Are Democrats Americans or UNeesians?
• Are they citizens of America or citizens of the world?
• Do they truly believe that Bush is Hitler and that this country is no better than Nazi Germany?
• Are they seriously considering emigrating to Canada? Or France?
• Whose side are they on, anyway?

Much of this conflict has played out in the race for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, soon to be Howard Dean, another New Englander. Clinton’s decision to sell his party out to the Grifters of K Street still rankles. But Dean’s belief in going directly to the people via the Internet would have credence only if the “Deaniacs” were more connected to the mainstream. Dean’s supporters on the Internet, however, are among the most radical people in the Democratic Party. This will only exacerbate the differences between the party’s factions.

Today’s Democratic Party is made up of K Street Grifters, government workers, the remnants of the union movement, UNeesians, political correctness fanatics, Greens, homosexuals, liberal women and blacks. As Michael Barone has pointed out, blacks are the glue that holds the party together. But as they join the Great Middle, make some money and move into a nicer neighborhood, black Americans start thinking like Republicans, even if they can’t say so publicly. Bill Cosby speaks for many middle class blacks who are tired of the antics of their poorer brethren in the cities.

This hodgepodge of factions is not geared to occupying the same political party.

• The Grifters of K Street want to get the money that pours from the government faucet directed to specific industries and companies they get paid for representing.
• Government workers want more government – at a time when Americans no longer want to pay for the government they’re getting.
• The remnants of the union movement want economic growth, but are split on whether immigrants are potential union members or people who would take away union jobs. They can’t seem to penetrate the new industries that have arisen over the past forty years.
• UNeesians want to turn America over to the UN when the country is edging toward pulling that corrupt institution down. They hate this country at a time when people have rediscovered patriotism. They want to emigrate if they can’t get everything on their wish list.
• PC fanatics want to protect America from discussing solutions to problems they thought were settled in the Sixties when certain classes were protected.
• Greens want no further economic growth, desiring to return to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle – whoops, no hunting allowed! They also want to regulate the environment and push businesses worldwide into bankruptcy.
• Homosexuals want their lifestyle decisions ratified by law and don’t care how it’s done or whether the American people agree with them or not. A liberal activist judge is sufficient.
• Liberal women want a social safety net that doubles as a husband, noting all too well the instability of the institution of marriage.
• Blacks who have resisted assimilation, choosing instead to remain in the urban underclass, want welfare and reparations for slavery.

These factions have only one thing in common – an insatiable appetite for more government, an appetite not shared by the majority of the American people.

Endgame

On occasion in American history, concepts like Left and Right become blurred, parties run out of steam and ideas, and a wing of one party wraps around a wing of the other party. Sometimes one party will even splinter. Then the two parties re-form when a new issue arises. The Nineties, like the 1850’s, represents a time when one party ran out of steam and ideas, and everybody noticed it.

The Democratic Party is now restricted to America’s cities and to the suburbs of certain states. It is almost absent from America’s heartland. Its values are out of step with the Great Middle. It has forgotten its economic roots and become lost in the swamps of social change once again, vehement in its insistence on forcing that change down the throats of a reluctant nation.

The center cannot hold.

The Democratic Party will splinter like the Whigs. Soon there will be at least three parties on the left: the Green Party, the Labor Party and the Reparations Party. The Grifters of K Street will merely change their spots, as many of them have done since the 2002 election, and switch allegiance to the Republicans now that they control the federal faucet. Americans once represented reasonably well by the old Democratic Party, like Zell Miller, will reluctantly pull up stakes and find a new political home.

It will be another twenty years before a new set of issues emerges that permits a true second party to coalesce. The Republicans may well be running the store for decades.

[uglybiker]

BUMP to finish reading in the morning.

[Nat Turner]

The interesting thing that the piece merely glossed over is the role of WAR in the dissolution of politically irrelvent movements. This war on terrorism will not the final catalyst for the end of the Dims. That is reserved for the Second Civil War.

DEO VENDICE

[Alia]

Thank you! That was very good and comprehensive. I only add to it.

Internally, the two parties are very different. The Democrats function like a federation of state parties while the Republicans have always been a top-down organization. This gives the Democrats an edge when they don't control the Executive. Republicans, without the Executive, seem lost. They need a leader to snap them to attention and send them marching in step.

This is sheer snap, right-on-the-target, in-perfect-lens analysis. Short, brutish, and correct.

It is further made clear in how libbies (Dems) approach the issue of WOT and the UN/ICC. And why they are hysterical: "we need everyone to agree to this war". A "multi-lateral" approach; and why they belittle the unilateral. This is also exemplifed in Dem current attempts at "reinvention" -- with one branch of their Coalition of Whining doing the hard left tact while attempting to posture another branch, "The Whining Apparatus", composed of Kerry, Hillary, Billy, as "more moderate". Then there's the hard right within dem party, Lieberman, Miller... and the left wing and "moderates" are beating the tar out of Lieberman, Miller, and because... I think, ultimately, that Dems are trying for a "top down approach" since it seems to have worked so well for the Republicans. What it continues to do, IMHO, is confuse the various branches within the Coalition of the Whining who for soooo many years have been engrained with a different approach and are resenting the "top down" methodology/strategy.

A Democrat will tell you that Al Gore won the national popular vote and the vote in Florida. Bush was selected illegally by a partisan US Supreme Court when his father called in some IOU’s. The election was stolen, plain and simple. Bush lost and took up residence in Al Gore’s big white house.

Dare we mention also that mere days after Mr. Al's flip-flop in re election results and "conceding", Mr. Al and Mz. Hillary published el numerous articles calling for the elimination of the electoral vote. They were pretty desperate to have Al win BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Jesse Jackson already had his "protest at these cities" website up.

The Democratic Party had played a key role in the creation of the United Nations

Off the top of my head: created in 1947 in SAN FRANCISCO.

I like your alliteration of "UNeesians". Very appropro.

Your bulleted points beneath this para:

In 2004, the Democrats nominated a New Englander who was deep in his party’s mainstream but was out of step with the rest of the country. In “reporting for duty”, John Kerry hoped to elide his party’s ideological marginalization, but since his defeat the rest of the party has stridently spoken out, raising disturbing questions:

Shows the Dems knew already they had lost the party core "unifying themes" and ergo put out a Facilitator (Kerry), and not a genuine candidate, in attempts to keep the "dialogue" going or even to start.

Soon there will be at least three parties on the left: the Green Party, the Labor Party and the Reparations Party

Yes, the "groups" within the Coalition of the Whining are brawling over the financial pittances, and who gets center stage. No, I don't mind watching this. It's long overdue. I think, often, here on FR, we see some "conservatives" trying at the UNeesian approach; railing that their very own coalition of whatever should be dictating to the GOP. And that when FReepers support the GOP, they are called "Bushbots". Amuses me everytime I see it in post.

Thank you for referring me to what I consider a very good synopsis of the winds that are blowing. Please do ping me, if and when you author another.

[JusPasenThru]

Bookmarked.

[Publius]

I think, ultimately, that Dems are trying for a "top down approach" since it seems to have worked so well for the Republicans.

I hadn't noticed that! Very perceptive. First, Clinton sells out his party to the Grifters of K Street to emulate the Republican fundraising apparatus, and now they are opting for a top-down governing model. This won't sell within the party no matter who gets to play the top dog.

...the Dems knew already they had lost the party core "unifying themes" and ergo put out a Facilitator (Kerry), and not a genuine candidate, in attempts to keep the "dialogue" going or even to start.

Again very perceptive. I merely saw Kerry as another representative of New England, that graveyard of American politics. You've delved deeper.

...the "groups" within the Coalition of the Whining are brawling over the financial pittances, and who gets center stage.

Follow the money. Control of the party's fundraising apparatus is the one critical element of this whole mess.

It makes me want to erect a grandstand and sell tickets for the show.

[wayoverontheright]

Excellent reasoning, eloquently presented.

[Alia]

I hadn't noticed that! Very perceptive. First, Clinton sells out his party to the Grifters of K Street to emulate the Republican fundraising apparatus, and now they are opting for a top-down governing model. This won't sell within the party no matter who gets to play the top dog.

It WILL sell but only to those who stand a chance of getting "PAID". LOL. It's part of the whole socialist (entitlement) mindset. It's "built in". The rank and file will be told it's about "principle". I ask you: "What principles do the Dems have"? "By any means necessary"? lol. The rank and file will only approve as long as the "entitlements" grow, and they get paid "that way".

Follow the money. Control of the party's fundraising apparatus is the one critical element of this whole mess.

You are sooo right.

It makes me want to erect a grandstand and sell tickets for the show.

lol. I'd like to buy one, thank you!

[knews_hound]

Bookmarked for future beer payoffs.

[JessieHelmsJr]

ping

[fairtrader]

God Bless You. I couldn't have said it better.

All things in moderation and yes that includes Free Trade.

[Sam the Sham]

I do not believe that any evidence exists that having sexual relations with an intern and then lying about it under oath is in the mainstream of American behavior.

Zach, powerful men fool around. Powerful men cheat on their wives. Powerful men have always had mistresses, courtesans, geishas, slave girls, concubines, right of the first night, wive's handmaidens, etc. In a country with a 50% divorce rate infidelity shocks no one.

Another point that I wish Publius had mentioned is that I think the American people associate Watergate with the Time of Troubles of weak presidents in the second half of the 70's during which the Senate basically ran the country. How much of the politics of the 70's turned around Senate fights ? Salt II, ERA, Panama Canal Treaty, etc. That is why the American people protected Reagan over Iran-Contra and Clinton over impeachment. The American people did not want a crippled presidency over a bit of tail.

[Phsstpok]

Overall good essay, but several key statements are just off...

The Democrats function like a federation of state parties while the Republicans have always been a top-down organization.

This is way too broad a claim to let go without some evidence.  Frankly I think the opposite is true of the current Republican and Democrat parties.  The power comes from the grass roots organizations in the Republican party, while the Democrats are owned, body and soul, by the national orgnizations such as the recent MOVE ON and the more traditional NEA.

The Democratic Party had played a key role in the creation of the United Nations, and there was a strong belief that being a responsible player on the world stage meant not engaging in unilateral action, but working through the UN to gain the support of world opinion. This is the origin of the “global test”. Had not Jack Kennedy gone to the UN first during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Yes, but Bill Clinton had destroyed this entire premise with the war in Bosnia.  No UN blessing at all.  they didn't even try.

With most of our traditional European allies opposing regime change in Iraq, Democrats were split on whether to authorize an invasion. The initial success of that invasion coupled with the guerilla war that followed furthered splits in the party. The perception of lukewarm support of the war effort on the part of Democrats led to losses in the election of 2002, and the party’s left-wing nominating electorate was on the warpath for peace.

The timeline is all wrong for this statement without explanation.  I think I know what you're trying to say, but the obvious errors over cause/effect render this point invalid.

I really like the rest of piece and the "Uneesian" tag is very good.  Unfortunately it is awkward and I don't think it will catch on.  There must be something that carries the same idea and is easier to stomach?  Internationalists doesn't carry the right connotations, while UN hegemonist carries too much ChiCom connotation.  Turtle Bay loyalist?  Turtle Bay patriot?  It would make for some lovely cartoons.  Ah well, I'll keep trying.

The Democratic Party will splinter like the Whigs. Soon there will be at least three parties on the left: the Green Party, the Labor Party and the Reparations Party.

I agree with the idea that they will splinter, but I'm not sure of your designations.  The DLC will remain as a power.  I don't think they fit any of your descriptions.  Where are they, the Labor Party?  I think the "Reparations Party" will fail on the issues of same sex marriage and anti-Christian bias that you mention.  The reparations movement is too tied with the radical left and they are too tied to the gay agenda to tolerate the traditional Christian core of the black and hispanic communities.  I watch for a new "Minority Conservatives" movement to rise up and challenge the traditional country club niche in the Republican Party instead, pushing them over to join their banker friends from Goldman Sachs.  Think about it.  Most country club types are dims nowadays and have been for some time..  The reparation types will end up a very small fringe group, probably subsumed into the radical end of the Greens.

Again, a very good essay.  I don't necessarily think you are wrong about any of the things I have chosen to pick at, but I do think you need to provide more support for your assertions, as stated, if you're going to take these particular positions.  However, the overall point is right on.

  Pontificating from on high, a Happy New Year to you (that's a joke - the pontificating part, not the "Happy New Year")

[Christian4Bush]

bttt

[Caipirabob]

This is just awesome. I thought I was reading a doctoral level historical analysis. Well done.

[Paulus Invictus]

Nice job, Publius! I see the RATs going over to being controlled soon to a new bunch of radical liberals like Soros and Moveon plus the Hollyweirds. That should terminate the party. Where will that leave Hitlery?

[NeoCaveman]

bttt

I really think that since the McGovernites took over the party, with their weak on defense and social liberalism (amnesty and acid) they've been going down hill with the occasional uptick.

[tcrlaf]

PING!!

[knews_hound]

It cannot be overemphasized that one of the biggest problems the Dems have is that Demographics is against them.

Their biggest weakness is that they are primarily a Party of Urbanites.

This pic illustrates their dilemma in 2004.



As migration away from the big cities continues, their decline is sealed.

Good. I love this essay BTW. I suggest others read it often and have it bookmarked. I am tempted to write my own as we see things differently in pace, execution and outcome, but we see eye to eye on the big questions and results. Keep up the great work.

Cheers,

knewshound

[Publius]

Where will that leave Hitlery?

That is the 64 million dollar question.

By following Bill's advice, Hillary has positioned herself in the sensible center, which is exactly the right position for winning elections in a two-party race. But first you have to win the nomination, and that requires paying obeisance to the Hard Left. That's the kiss of death.

While the DLC folks behind Hillary work with her as a centrist, the Hard Left believes that in her heart of hearts, she's a Stalinist like them. (Maybe she is and maybe she ain't.) She can support the war, and she'll be forgiven because she is all things to all Democrats. But right now, thanks to Dr. Dean, the Hard Left controls the party bureaucracy, and the Deaniacs (and their foreign backers) control the money spigot. At some point Hillary is going to have to play ball with them, or their support will go to Gore or Kerry.

But once she plays ball, she walks away from the center. Tough conundrum, isn't it?

[cgk]

Fantastic...