Can the Dems fumble the ball?

I have removed the brilliant Ford advertising ploy, because I object to soft porn, especially nauseating soft porn. I posted it on an LSD trip and am in no way accountable for it.

Life has resumed it's normal course, and has reverted to its previous vapid milquetoast zeitgeist. I would sigh, but I don't have the heart.

The purpose of this post, however, is not to throw coals on the fire of my despair--to use a little Emo talk--much as I want to. I have a job to do: I need to inform you, my bucolic audience, of what is going on in the world beyond our humble shire. And if I don't, who will? I'm going to feed you politics whether you want it or not. Why? Because, frankly, I'm sick of people moaning and groaning whenever I bring the subject up. Groaning won't magic it away, you know! Blogging about politics is a dirty job, but again, someone has to do it. So, suck it in and do your part. Or I'll turn drill-sergeant on you, you meatheads.

The big issue in the political world is: can the Democratic party, so lauded after the midterm elections, fumble the electoral ball? At first it would seem incredible. Bush's war in Iraq is still going on, and the results thus far have been a decided mixed bag. Destabilizing Saddam Hussein was a good thing, but we've bungled in several ways since then. However, we can't leave. Why? Because it would be rubbing salt in the wounds of the Iraqi people. WE broke the country. WE need to fix it, which I'm sure is what John McCain meant when he said he could see us still in Iraq one hundred years from now. I hope he's exaggerating, but frankly if we've learned one thing from Korea and Vietnam, it's this: don't leave the job undone! We leave Iraq now, bang, instant civil war. The region is thrown into chaos. The oil-dependent world is thrown into chaos.

This is the atmosphere the Dems exploited in the 2006 midterm elections, where they gained seats in the House and Senate. Since then, they've been predictably innefective, failing to do anything much even by the incredibly low standards of the brainwashed, homogenized type of diversity-championing bourgeois bimbos the Democratic party continues to insist on electing.

Remember Jimmy Carter? Well, he's reincarnated in B. Hussein Obama. Frankly, I'm a sucker for a good 'ole inspirational message, and he pelts 'em out like Joel Osteen. I'm not surprised he's doing as well as he is. Of course, he has no substance and could not, in all likelihood, make it to a second term. Just like Carter, his presumptive idol who just won't die.

Clinton, on the other hand, is on some level competent and sensible, with a keen sense of irony and a relentless thirst for power that makes her an ample foil for Obama's numb, vague, photogenic rants against injustice and lack of hope. Unfortunately, she is fit and qualified to be president. Sure, she was only First Lady, but she has the know-how and she's still served in the Senate for four years longer than Obama.

Ann Coulter has said she'll campaign for Hillary if (he did) McCain got the nom. We're still waiting for that, but it shows the dissatisfaction with McCain in the GOP ranks. Frankly, he was my second-to-last choice at the beginning of the race, and became my last choice after Giuliani dropped out. The man is a wretched old coot with questionable morals who is willing to swear at a fellow senator on the floor of the Senate who disagreed with him. But the question is: can he upset the Dems?

The Democrats' smiles became fixed as the contest between Clinton and Obama deepened, and the polls closed until McCain was only a fraction of a percentage point behind Obama, and Clinton was far behind him. The controversy about Obama's pastor, the incident where Hillary Clinton was caught lying through her teeth, referring to landing in Bosnia "under sniper fire," when in reality she was welcomed by a delegation and a little Bosnian kindergartner read a poem to her and Chelsea. Discontent has been growing, and compounding that is the fact that whenever the contest is seriously contested all the way to the convention, as Obama's and Clinton's probably will be, the winner loses. Simple as that. It happened with Kennedy and Carter in 1980, and with H. W. Bush and Pat Buchanan in 1992. It could happen with Obama and Clinton.

What would a loss for the Democrats mean? Well, first of all, the insufferable Clinton-as-savior golden-age reminiscing would grow even more acrimonious, and Al Gore's rhetoric would probably kick up a percentage point or two on the Crap Scale. Other than that, it would prove what David Limbaugh called the "intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic party." To lose this, of all elections, would prove what conservatives have been saying for years: the guise of tolerance has been washed out the window, the Democratic base is fractured, and there will be room for a new leftist party to arise.

What, on the other hand, would a win mean? It would mean that the media has been successful in its boycott of reality, and that American sensibilities have become so warped that Obama's messianic crud has become the currency of our culture. Or that Clinton's tell-it-like-it-is method of lying has blinded voters to the truth. Either way, life will go on, but it will be a blow.