Dems "Mismanaging The Bordello During Gold Rush"

That's for Damned sure. This is the longest election "year" on record, at least in my life time. Clinton people want to remind us that Bill the nominee until June. What they don't seem to get is that we reached a year ago in elongated election season, which began the day after Kerry lost to the swiftboaters and other scumbags of the Rethugs other anti-Truth and Democracy squad.

Junior was a lame duck around the same time he made that ridiculous speech about having political capital. Did Karl convince him that he actually won that election or does the guy have more gumption than anyone in the entire world. Now he is a dead duck and McCrackers will be with him even before he is nominated, if and when the entire truth is told about the last 7 years.

I think it's fair to say that most Democratic voices of prominence publicly favor the bloodshed. Those still backing Hillary Clinton favor it because they must; it's the only possible route to victory, however obstructed, narrow and perilous for all that route may be. Those backing Barack Obama favor it publicly because they must not appear undemocratic; it's the best public relations route to victory, however determined that route already is.

To be sure, there are a few, such as Senator Pat Leahy, who have dared to utter trifles of common sense. But they are few indeed, and when they do suggest the obvious they are promptly intimidated into issuing retractions and clarifications -- mustn't hurt anyone's feelings, or for the good of the many, disabuse the few of their hopeless cause. That's the Democratic way: self-destruction through endless and high-minded bickering.

I wonder? Is it against the law to hang up on an ex-president?

And it's even fairer to say that virtually all conservative voices heartily endorse the Democratic approach. Why wouldn't they? After all, what could be more profitable than watching one's enemy scatter and expose its splintered flanks day after bloody day. So concurring conservative advice is simple, short, and pretty much superfluous: You go, girl -- and don't let anyone tell you different.

Is there a difference between an old fashion liberal Republican and a DLCer?

But there's always that rare and honest exception. In this case it is the New York Times' David Brooks, who, having already calculated Hillary's doomed odds in print, went on "Meet the Press" last weekend to splash even more frigidly honest water on the denial of Democratic faces.

Host Tim Russert first read to Brooks what Hillary had to say to the Washington Post the day before: "I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for."

At this point, most Democrats dutifully genuflect and then cower into byzantine exegeses about the greater glory of democratic action, no matter how pointless. Remember, we mustn't step on anyone's sensibilities. But Mr. Brooks wasn't feeling delicately inclined Sunday morning, so he let Democrats have it with both barrels, and it deserves a refiring:

Credentials fight. Is this what the Democratic Party really wants?

What happened this week? Her approval ratings are now at their seven-year low. This has begun to hurt her, in particular, but it's begun to hurt the entire party. Barack Obama used to lead among independent votes against John McCain. Now, according to some polls, John McCain leads among independent voters. This is going to go on, and people are going to wonder, "Do we really trust these people to run the country?" Now, I still think it's a Democratic year, they still have the advantage, but we've spent the last six or seven years making -- the Republicans have been making it clear that they're chumps. We've forgotten how the Democratic Party can be chumps. And they're going to be bringing out the worst in each other and we're going to say, "Are these people going to really manage the entire health care system?" I mean, these people couldn't run a -- I was saying the other day, they couldn't run a bordello in a gold rush. So it's just going to bring out the worst of the party and diminish the prestige of the party and particularly the prestige of the two candidates.

When I heard that, in the background I also heard that chorus of angels that Hillary once mocked. But you will note it took a card-carrying member of the old chumps to warble the thundering truth to the new chumps. Not being imprisoned by any factional alliances among the suffering, Brooks could simply tell it like it is.

What's more, however, he told it like the electorate is beginning to see it -- and their vision couldn't be clearer.

The remaining Democratic contest isn't about democracy or "the issues," as we're lectured by some. Democracy already played out and now mathematics is doing the mop-up work, which Brooks, as noted, already noted in writing. As for genuine issues, when was the last time you heard one untrampled by the horse race? No, the blather about democracy and issues are mere canards -- justifications for prolonging the bloodshed and thereby keeping Hillary's coffin creaked open ever so slightly.

Nor was Brooks' point merely one of belittling the politics of desperation. It was far more incisive, for it got at the core of public confidence in the Democratic Party at large.

Why, indeed, should the public have faith in a party that promises, say, improved health care, when so many of that party's key negotiators -- now better known as superdelegates than congressional members -- can't even get together on declaring a futile political contest at an end in the interest of future solidarity? Do they inspire you with confidence? Pump you full of hope? Enlist your enthusiasm?

Or do they just look like a bunch of clowns?

And if you don't think that clownish image is settling in and metastasizing throughout the electorate -- and, as well, inflicting immutable damage on the party's presumptive nominee -- just take a look at the latest polling numbers. Then take a look at the numbers from a month ago; and then, finally, imagine what the numbers will look like three months from now, at which point a hefty chunk will have taken on a certain permanency of Democratic disaffection.

For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.