This has been a busy week for me, so I haven't been able to post much. However, I've been able to quickly scan all the usual websites, and came across this earlier in the week, from TalkingPointsMemo. Here's how I would headline it:

DLC'ers Threaten to Quit Playing and Take Their Marbles Home

If Marshall and the rest of the elite-conservative wing can't handle Howard Dean as the nominee--well, should I tell them to Fuck Off? It was bad enough when these folks bolted the party back in 1972--no, McGovern would not have won anyway, but the intransigence of the elite-conservative Dems turned a loss into a landslide. VERY fortunately, Nixon was such a paranoid creep that he couldn't resist playing dirty, even though the deck was heavily stacked in his favor--which brought about Watergate and his downfall.

And yet, these same elite Democrats, the ones who bolted or abstained in '72, couldn't take advantage of the political equivalent of winning the lottery--in spite of Nixon's utter political disgrace--and, for those too young to recall, his actions were despicable--but, in spite of this, the best they could muster up was Carter. Jimmy Carter--Southern, Conservative-Christian, member (albeit not in the inner circle) of the Trilateral Commission, and millionaire farmer. Carter was caught in a rough spot--between the bills coming due on Vietnam, the soaring price of crude oil, and the lingering effects of the mid-70's recession, he had almost no chance. Still, the best he could come up with was Sweater Days and speeches about malaise.

As Jimmy was caught in events beyond his control, so Bill Clinton benefited from events like the technology boom that supplied entry-level jobs for thousands of folks (including myself). But let's face facts: the populist wing of the Democratic Party was never a BIG fan of Bill, just as we saw through the so-called 'outsider' label that Jimmy attached to the lapel of his expensive suit. But we supported these guys--well, we supported them to some extent (Disclaimer: I was too young to vote for Carter, but I did pull the lever once for Bill--back in 1992). IF the Republican candidate MUST be defeated at all costs--like in the next national election--then yes, I will hold my nose, if I must, and, even vote for Joe Lieberman if I have to--fortunately, Joe's campaign is simply waiting for someone to come up with a good eulogy...but yeah, I DID that back in 1992, when Clinton was the lesser of evils. In '96, Clinton was easily going to win the State I lived in--Wisconsin (brr)--so my vote went to deny him a mandate by keeping his total below 50 percent...

And, yeah, I voted for Nader in 2000. I did so without ANY regrets, knowing that Bush would easily take Louisiana, and he did. Would I have held my nose and voted for Gore if I was living in, say, Florida? Probably, although the problem in Florida WASN'T the Nader voter, it was the combination of systematic denial of voting rights to large numbers of poor and minority voters, a dumb strategy by Gore's legal team, and intimidation from the wingnuts. BUT: if the DLC'ers are willing to bolt or abstain, to the benefit of George W. Fucking Bush in 2004, then it might well be time to think about sticking a fork into the party. The Marshalls of the world, at some point, need to be reminded that the Democratic Party is a COALITION, and the coalition is held together by allowing for the expression of ALL points of view. Besides, Dean, the erstwhile front-runner, is surprisingly moderate on all kinds of issues. Hell, I DON'T plan to support him with a great deal of enthusiasm, but I WILL vote for the guy, if he's the nominee. And Marshall and his ilk ought to consider the same, especially as the USS Kerry is listing pretty badly after hitting the iceberg, Joe L., as I said, is waiting for a decent eulogy, Edwards seems to be positioning himself as a potential candidate for VP, while Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun are there to get out the vote (including mine, but you'll have to guess which one of these three will get my vote come primary time)--leaving Dean, Gephardt, and Clark as the last three standing.

The folks in Iowa might be able to win one for the Gepper, but their train runs out of steam up north. I don't want to say Dean's got an absolute lock on New Hampshire, but he'll have to do some awfully stupid things to lose the Granite State, while Clark pins his hopes down south. Dean's unfortunate choice of metaphors shouldn't hurt him too much, provided he manages to put it behind him--here's a hint for Howard: if pushed, tell folks that you regret the poor choice of words, but you still want to appeal to conservative southerners who've been voting Republican. And then ask for the next question. Works for Bush, and Scott McClellan.

In 2004, the point is to defeat Bush, and all he stands for: to paraphrase Grover Norquist, I don't want to abolish the neo-con movement and Project for a New American Century. I simply want to reduce them to the size where I can drag 'em into the bathroom and drown 'em in the bathtub.