OK, I realize when people sign on to write regular columns for national political publications they will often fall back on conventional wisdom or whatever they heard at last night's poker party for story ideas. Somedays you just aren't going to wake up with a good idea for a new column. But this column goes far beyond the lack of a good idea and/or a new idea. I'm simply left wondering - what the hell is Todd talking about? Uh, the fact that there are divisions in the Democratic Party means they can't lead? What kind of nonsense is that? There have been divisions in it for well over a century - but somehow Clinton, LBJ and FDR muddled through and accomplished a few things. What the hell does the fact that a handful of Bill Jefferson's friends choosing to defend him, or Ned Lamont launching a Senate race against an incumbent mean for the party's "ability to lead"? What, did Senator Sununu taking out Senator Smith in a primary in New Hampshire kill the Republicans' "leadership"? If Todd's problem with them (at least partially) is that their "voice" is all over the place - wouldn't replacing Lieberman clarify that voice and help them lead? And the worst thing that can happen to California Democrats is that they'll win the 2006 elections? Then exactly what the hell would the best thing for them be? That they lose? This - is - just - silly.
Sorry if I seem to be blowing up over a mindless, silly column - but this one is just so plainly bizarre - and from a writer and publication that normally provide vastly better analysis than this - that I am vexed by it.
Posted by armand at June 15, 2006 10:35 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics