When Stretching Isn’t Yoga

Stretch goals. Remember those? I hated them. They were impossible and rarely met. People felt set up for failure. They gave up. The organization did poorly and got crummy morale to boot. When I left corporate America, I thought I was done with those. Well, here we go again.

Welcome to Medicare for All, the ultimate health care reform stretch goal.

The Harvard Business Review, in an article called The Stretch Goal Paradox; confirmed the perils of putting forth impossible dreams unless you are already successful (that’s the paradox). Those who are in dire straits seem compelled to set out to accomplish the impossible, a Hail Mary pass if you will. But setting stretch goals, aiming for the impossible, is exactly what a group that is already at risk, shouldn't do. The criteria for success: a group with resources, people to support it, a recent history of success.

Oh, and the authors warn that it will be extremely difficult to achieve even in the best of circumstances.

So the question for the Democratic Party and its allies is: What kind of “company” are we right now? The one looking for a Hail Mary pass or the one well-positioned for success already? If we aren’t in a position to achieve a stretch goal, then being strategic with something that is a reach but not a moonshot, might be more likely to mobilize citizens beyond the base, and get something meaningful done on health care reform.

Hillary's Hard Choices and Ours

She’ll run. She has to. She is driven by duty and destiny. The question is, should we let her?

Her new book “Hard Choices”, chronicles her submersion into the world of international crises and the maddening complexity of international decision-making. The revelations on jockeying between and within conflicting agendas, the importance of nuances in language when agreement is reached … it’s all here. She convinced me that I do not have the personality or patience to be an effective diplomat. Still, the skill required to do that work, the excitement that must come from being in the thick of momentous events, the terrifying implications of choosing the wrong course, all this permeate the story and make it a valuable read. This is the story of a woman devoted to public service, vilified by the right-wing political machine, humiliated by her husband, then spurned by voters in favor of an inexperienced upstart, who still accepted the call one last time to make a difference. Her nomination as Secretary of State seemed like a miserable consolation prize to many of her devotees. High risk, low reward; a recipe for invisibility, or failure, or both.

Unless you are a Washington insider, you probably don’t know much about the inner workings of the Department of State. Here’s what I knew: the Secretary is the chief diplomat, whatever that actually means. From what I could recall, none of the recent Secretaries had experience in the foreign service. So it’s natural to wonder how a political appointee figures out how to do the job. Is there a training program? Is background as a Senator advantageous or useless? How much autonomy do you have? Is it necessary to fly all over hell and gone to get things done?

The answers: No training program; being a Senator helps and being a former First Lady helps even more; autonomy is negotiable and constantly fluctuates; and yes, you have to fly all over the place. There isn’t much substitute for staring someone in the eye or soothing them with a gentle tone. Unsurprisingly, Hillary mastered it all, and she did it fast. This is her strength: she takes on enormous challenges within complex organizations and just gets it done. It is one of the things I admire about her.

But she is a mediocre writer (I’m being kind). She drones on with details that can numb your brain. She batters you into submission with the sheer volume of it. I have zero tolerance for this kind of thing. I don’t care the specific time an event occurred. The floor and room number of the room everyone met in. The names of all the minor attendees. But sandwiched in between the dull recitation of events, you learn what drives international relationships: the role of energy policy in cementing alliances, the expendability of human rights when the stake is access to air space for mission-critical helicopters, and the maneuvering over trade policy with insufficient regard for the environment (see energy policy). It is all so interwoven that it is excruciating to imagine how to pull a thread for change without unwinding the whole damn cloth, to the detriment of all.

I am not a proponent of small-scale change. In my youth, I verged on being an anarchist. I’m sick to death of all this bullshit in which corporations run everything and the rest of us muddle along, moving slowly downward into the abyss of irrelevance. But short of a large-scale, global uprising, how the hell DO you maneuver? Are tiny victories the best we can do? Are we doomed by our interconnectedness even as some of us believe that is our salvation?

The problem is that wisdom, the ability to reach for a vision, is unevenly distributed in humans and nearly non-existent among politicians. We, all of us, act out our lives and hopes on a global stage over which even the power players have little control. The ability to anticipate the other guy’s moves, let alone to affect the direction they go, is illusion. It reminds me of raising kids — you do your best to influence them but in the end, have very little control over the outcome. That’s frightening and real.

It also confirms how damn difficult it will be to make any of the things happen that have to happen if we are to save humanity from itself. As a group, we avoid hard choices. As individuals, we are no better at it, so why would we expect that to improve when we huddle together trying to position our country for winning the next global game? Even if we make progress with China, Putin has become the wild card that no one anticipated (though Hillary cautioned about him early in the book and she was right, it turns out).

So here’s the thing: I do not like Hillary’s connections to business, to money, to the “elite”. But if you are going to do battle, with any one of them on any scale whatsoever, do you send in a novice or someone who at least knows where they are vulnerable? Do you send a woman who can manipulate with the best of them or someone who is clueless and in constant learning mode?

A lesson: liberals and Democrats chose the novice last time. We got all fired up over a guy in whom I had little to no faith. He hated playing outside the house and getting dirty with the other kids. He thought that intellect mattered most. He was naive and we’ve lost what may have been our only opportunities to get some of the hardest choices made in our favor. His stand-in this time around is Elizabeth Warren. I swear, though I love her, I will beat the crap out of any serious Democrat who supports her in a Presidential run. If we haven’t learned anything in the last eight years, then we are not equipped to face reality as it is instead of as we wish it would be. We are already likely to lose the Senate this time around, making the person who sits in the Presidential chair our only hope of holding back the forces of darkness. And honestly, I don’t want a foreign policy virgin at the helm. Almost all recent Presidents have been sucked into the vortex by unexpected foreign policy crises. We’re oblivious to the possibility that will happen again and believe that if it does, then the military will save us. How’s that worked so far? Exactly. Oh, and if we have to mobilize a global effort to counter Climate Change, it’s critical that we build effective relationships with the other players, none of whom live here.

I do not agree with Hillary on everything. But she is a smart, savvy woman who knows her way around Congress, business and the world. She can play hardball. She consistently stands up for women and minorities. She stared Putin in the eye and didn’t see a benign soul looking back. It’s about time we step up and put her where she should have been in 2008. I’ve made my hard choice. Your turn.

Presidential Health-fulness

From the get-go, my gut was on edge. I was not an early adopter of Obamamania. I had no faith in him. He got my vote because I was terrified of the alternative. My take? He was inexperienced, naive, and a capitulator by nature.

Sometimes, it hurts to be right. Bush had an excuse for his performance -- actually, he had many. Stupidity. A fundamentally distorted value system. Evangelical lunacy. Backing from a Republican machine that had him by the short-hairs.

Obama has none of these excuses. I'm left with the conclusion that he is a poser, captive of his Corporate masters, a coward and utterly inept at leading and governing. This is no better than Bush, and you could conclude he is worse. Obama had sufficient backing to lead with vision and he squandered it.

So, he hasn't been health-ful for the country, its people, or the planet. He has made no meaningful progress on bank regulation, job-losses, health security, climate change, clean energy, de-militarization, or delusional empire-building for the sake of "security". He has accomplished nothing on the foreign policy front other than killing Bin Laden. Big whoop. And if the news reports on the "debt ceiling" debacle are accurate, he is selling out Social Security, Medicare, and damn near anything else to get a deal with the devil.

We are all in terrible jeopardy, far more than most of us realize. An election looms and for the first time in my adult life, I'm not sure whether or not I'll sit it out or support a third party at the presidential level while attempting to secure a Democratic Congress ...though I'm no longer convinced that our corporate-owned government can serve anything other than the narrow interests of the global corporate hegemony.

I took my Obama stickers off my car. I'm ashamed to have voted for him. I will not give a dime to his campaign.

Barack Obama. No, he can't.

Economic Blind Faith

Paul Krugman wrote a column today titled, "Financial Policy Despair". Reading it sure didn't cheer me up, though the market was expected to open 'up' today. What does it mean that when my most trusted economist gets depressed, the markets rebound?

Makes sense, when you think about it. Krugman, and some other economists who have zero interest vested in 'the way things are', continue to feel increasing despair over the Obama/Geithner management team. It's clear to me that the market has ceased to reflect anything meaningful regarding the true state of the economy. Translate -- whether or not the majority of Americans are going to hang on through all of this. Instead, it's a barometer of how confident Wall Street is that the Big Boys will recover their gold. And when the Big Boys are happy, a chill starts to trickle through me.

I supported Obama. I had great hope and I'm trying hard to hang on to all those good feelings I had when he won the election. He wasn't my first choice because I believed he didn't have a solid vision nor the requisite personality traits to play hardball. Hillary was my choice, and I'm still convinced she would have provided stronger and more progressive leadership. But I have stood behind Obama because for all our flaws as Democrats, and Obama's flaws in particular, we can't afford Republicans running things any time soon.

But now I'm really, really worried. First, for the economic near- and long-term. Here in Kansas City, local job losses are mounting. It's much worse than I expected -- unemployment at 8.2% and growing. The worst-case scenarios being played out are nearly immobilizing in their implications. Much more stimulus money is going to be needed, but that's at risk as Obama listens to people deeply embedded in the Wall Street mentality.

Secondly, if Obama's policies fail -- and I think the risk of that is growing -- then the Democrats will be in deep difficulty politically at the mid-term elections. That will compromise any other transformative change we need to make in this country. Health care and the environment will be in even greater peril.

I haven't yet figured out how to influence any of this. I feel completely impotent. The best I can do is plan and work towards personal and community-based survival strategies that help us weather the deeper crash that may yet lie ahead. Let's hope our communal creativity won't be tested.

Passion Redux - RFK, Jr. Rocks!

We know I have a thing about passion. I can't help myself. I have it in abundance ..and am profoundly moved by it in another person. Last night, I spent 2 hours in the presence of a deeply commited and passionate man: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I'm still feeling buoyed by the experience.

This man epitomizes what it means to be an engaged citizen. His intellectual range is enormous -- environmental pollution, voter fraud, children's health, constitutional law, to name a few. He can articulate fact-based positions on each and every one of these, with humor and depth. I was mesmerized as he described entrepreneurial initiatives that could significantly alter the way we use energy. He deftly walked through the true cost of faux "free-market" capitalism as practiced by Republicans since Reagan. He argued cogently for why true partriotism and democracy are dependent on an informed citizenry, and how at-risk we are with a toadying Beltway press. He described the machinations of K Street lobbyists who occupy posts in key government regulatory agencies, where they work tirelessly against the public interest.

It was enough to make me give up on Democracy. Let's be honest: the Democrats embrace the culture of D.C. influence peddlers as much as their Republican cohorts. Liberals like me, count on the influencers having values and an agenda that meshes with mine. Somehow, that seems like a naive mindset to hold, given the peril we find ourselves in today. While it was immensely reassuring to know that people like Bobby are out there working tirelessly on our behalf, we have an individual obligation to hold our elected representatives' feet to the fire. To make them live up to their promises. This is not a time for incremental change -- that will be lethal. Our problems require substantive and transformative change. Whether or not our new President has the cojones to proceed fearlessly and boldly, remains in question. But I know where I stand. And where Bobby stands. And where the grassroots stands that helped elect the current administration. Much like the '60s, when activists brought down a president and ended a war, we will only get the change we need if we mobilize the people, put pressure on Congress and the President, and insist that they work in the public interest.

We cannot rely on the press to keep us well-informed. We must do the work ourselves. Think critically. Dig up the facts. Read relentlessly. Be a patriot. Be inspired.

Then, we will get the country we truly deserve.

Thanks to Kevin McCarrison, from UMKC, for the great photo!

Hope Is In the Air

OK, the stats are out this morning and the economy is contracting like a sponge in Death Valley. Bad, bad stuff. Worst numbers in over 25 years. This is not a sign of hope. And yes, I'm scared to death when I think about the next 3-5 years. So, why a post about "hope" for crying out loud? Have I lost my marbles?

No, I'm thinking about President Obama's joint congressional speech. He was quick to point people to the other side of this calamity -- growing opportunities to change things. I'm big on change, especially radical or transformative changes. Rarely are those kinds of changes considered, let alone attempted, in stable times. The New Deal is a prime example.

Of course, those kinds of big changes can also have substantial negative impact, depending on who's at the helm. Prime examples are the radical policy changes of Reagan and Dubya. They utterly transformed our country -- eroding the Middle Class, nurturing the wealthy, fostering corporate greed, limiting people's access to the American Dream, despoiling the environment, compromising civil rights -- I could go on, but it gets too depressing and enraging. I'm not naive. Change can be a force for evil as well as good.

But there are signs that after this misery is over, transformative, progressive change will come. Here are some:

1- A story in this morning's New York Times describes the public's response to the cadre of Republican governors who are refusing to expand unemployment benefits because it would "hurt business". The stimulus money comes with some strings attached -- and those strings are designed to provide benefits to workers who, for technical reasons, are being denied state benefits. Guess who's pissed off? Might it be workers? People in deep Red states who are seeing just what those Republican governors really value? You know, the ones who fight for the lives of the "unborn" but who are more than happy to screw the living if it protects business interests. C'mon guys. Keep it up. That is the best way I know to turn your state Blue the next time around.

2- Yesterday's news was the release of the President's budget. Word is that the budget will attempt to rapidly dismantle programs reflecting President Reagan's cynical view of government and his me-first, screw-the-commons policy positions. Rachel Maddow listed very effectively last night (don't you just love her??), ways in which the new budget will support efforts to limit climate change, promote reform of health care and education, encourage energy and transportation innovation, place limits on gas and oil companies, bring reduced subsidies to large agribusinesses, and overhaul the tax code to bring more economic balance to society.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

You gotta give the Republicans credit: They consistently put their money where there values are. Well, it's our turn. President Obama is about to insert Democratic values into his budget process. Any and all of his proposed changes will significantly alter American life and policy for the next generation and perhaps beyond. Hey Gipper? You spinning in your grave yet?

3- None of the changes that Liberals want can come unless the ranks of Republicans holding power are thinned (see #1). So public outcry against the Neanderthal economic policies of Republican governors and Congressmen/women is essential. But we also need Democrats to stand up and push for Democratic programs that reflect what President Obama constantly calls "American Values". For most of our history, the call to live up to the better part of ourselves, was both American and Progressive. Those values are what made us Reagan's shining city on the hill ...not the policies he promoted. To that end, a group of activists, Accountability Now PAC, intends on targeting Congressional Democrats who don't support Progressive values with their votes. While this initiative runs the risk of generating counter-productive infighting and compromising the ability of Democrats to pass legislation in the near-term, it's about time that Democratic voters start to hold wishy-washy Democratic incumbents accountable.

As an unabashed Liberal, someone who believes that the foundation of the word "progressive" is progress, I'm hopeful. If we're smart and aggressive, real change might finally come. We are in for very tough times, no question. Many of my fellow citizens, including me and my family, are going to suffer in ways we hadn't anticipated and may not be prepared for. But if out of that suffering comes the change we need to ensure a better future for my grandchildren and children everywhere, then I'm prepared to sacrifice for the long haul.

That's why I will continue to look for hope amidst the rubble of our economy and communities. Our generation's legacy is on the line.

Rational Passion

This weekend, Glen Greenwald wrote a series of posts here on Salon.com that got my attention. I read his columns intermittently but have been a philosophical fan of his since his book How Would a Patriot Act?. That book examined the constitutional assault by key provisions of the Patriot Act and the attempts to marginalize anyone as unpatriotic if they opposed some of the draconian measures enacted under it. Glen is about as liberal/progressive as they come, and is one of the few within my political base who has been willing to lead a public charge against some of Obama’s policies. One of the others in that league is Paul Krugman, a hero of mine.

But on to Glen and some thoughts he triggered in me today. In his post yesterday, Greenwald called the media to account (specifically, David Brooks) over their agenda to preserve the status quo and their special place of influence. A New York Times columnist quickly accused Glen of “shrillness”. In a response to the label, Greenwald wrote:

One is guilty of the sin of "shrillness" if one: (a) argues that there is something fundamentally -- rather than marginally -- wrong with our political and media establishment and/or (b) fails to use suitably restrained, muted and respectful language when expressing those critiques. Thus, one is "shrill" if one says that George Bush committed felonies by spying on Americans without warrants and torturing people and should be treated like any other accused criminal (rather than saying: "Bush might have circumvented some legal constraints and gone a little too far in trying to keep us safe"). One is "shrill" if one says that establishment journalism, at its core and by design, is principally devoted to serving the interests and amplifying the claims of the Washington establishment (rather than saying: "Journalists could do a better job of reporting some stories"), etc. etc.

"Shrillness" – the first cousin of "Unseriousness" – is the conceptual instrument used to deter and (when that fails) demonize those who view the political and media establishment as corrupt at its core. It's a way of
demanding that everyone just calm down, avoid impetuous and inflammatory language, and stop acting as though there's anything seriously wrong with our political and media elites:

Sure, they've made some mistakes; nobody's perfect. But it's not as though there's anything to get excited or angry about. And fine: there are some narrow disagreements among people of good faith and some small problems here and there that require some modifications -- little things like torture, chronic high-level lawbreaking, immunity for the political class (juxtaposed with the sprawling prison industry for ordinary Americans), rampant domestic spying, sky-high walls of government secrecy, full-scale economic meltdown, massive and growing inequities in wealth, endless wars, sleaze and corruption oozing from every Beltway pore, complete media complicity with all of it -- but there's no reason to get all indignant or agitated by it or act as though crimes are being committed or radical changes are needed or anything.

By definition, only people who are "shrill" would do that.

Here’s what hit me when I read this: those are the same tactics that are consistently used against women who take any position against the establishment. Men aren’t shrill unless you are trying to feminize them, which instantly discredits them. For still, in 21st century America, one of the quickest ways to discredit someone is to feminize (in a negative way) their opposition to policies or ideas, as “shrill” and irrational. And isn’t this another way of attacking the passionate, the forces for substantive change?

So it got me thinking, are rationality and passion — which is often intense and insistent — opposite forces? Is more accomplished with cool rationality that doesn’t directly take on the issue, or passionate arguments that make it abundantly clear what is wrong and what should be done about it?

My take? Passion is essential to moving humanity forward. Yes, there can be a dark side to passion (Hitler is a prime example), but to negate passion, to label it as “shrill” and female, ensures that society stays stuck in its dysfunctionality. Passion can be rational when the ideas and positions undergirding it are well thought out and logical. A well-honed argument in support of an ideal that is expressed dispassionately may appeal to the intellectual elite, but it won’t do much to mobilize the masses or bring about transformative change. Martin Luther King, Jr. was passionate in holding America accountable for how it lived its ideal of “equality”. As LBJ was said to have told him, enacting legislation to right the wrongs of racism, required a mass revolt against the status quo. You don’t get that kind of movement from a dispassionate argument at a debate lectern.

I’m frankly tired of the bad wrap that passion gets when it is expressed on the Left (interestingly, I don’t hear that epithet hurled at Rush, or Boehner, or Palin). I’m really pissed that it is disloyal and “shrill” to hold Obama or the Democratic leadership accountable for enacting a progressive agenda. If progressives abandon their passion for accountability to progressive ideals, then we are no better than the cult of personality that surrounded the last president. We must develop rational, progressive, supportable positions and then we need to passionately mobilize large blocks of the American people to speak out, to hold their elected officials’ feet to the fire. If we Liberals abandon passionate, outspoken support for our ideals, we are doomed.

Lusty Capitulation

Nope, it's not a post about kinky sex. You'll see. Be patient. Read on.

You haven't heard from me in a while. You can count that as a blessing or a loss -- you choose. I've been out here digesting political reality, mourning the dream of President Hillary, seething over the Palin pick, grasping the siderails as our disintegrating economic battleship rams into a Perfect Storm. Amidst it all, I've also been practicing at being sixty -- no small feat in more settled times. I might be getting the hang of it. Or at least enough of it to unleash my opinionated self again.

It's been noted that I've gone from being really pissed off at Obama to having two of his signs in my yard and a car that is covered with Obama stickers. Yes, I still get a tear in my eye whenever I see Hillary campaigning on his behalf, but I'm unabashedly committed to BHO. What changed? Simple answer: Nothing and Everything.

First for the 'nothing'. I'm a Democrat down to my DNA. I always said that I would support our nominee, despite my conviction that he was not the best person for the job. Any Democrat -- and I mean ANY -- is a superior choice as compared to even the very best Republican. I cannot, with any conscience, vote Republican. I'm a partisan, through and through. I do not believe the Republican party represents my values nor do I think their value system and policies are good for the country and the world. Period. No exceptions. So it was ordained from the get-go that if Hillary lost, I'd vote for our candidate. I'm not now, and never have been a PUMA (Party Unity My Ass --- the acronym for Hillary supporters who were hell-bent on punishing the party for mistreating Hillary and giving the nomination to Barack). But I seriously doubted that I would/could be enthusiastic for the man himself and there was no way I could imagine donating money. I capitulated -- accepted the party's choice. Fell in line. OK, I also cried during his acceptance speech. I'm a wuss...what can I say?

Much to my surprise, I've given him money. Today I will give him more. I'm enthusiastic. Even rabid. What the hell is that about?

Seasoning. It's about seasoning. Not mine, his. Hillary may have lost the primary season, but she put him through hell on his way to the nom. And thank God for it. I wasn't always sure that she was pursuing the best strategy and I wanted to beat the crap out of Big Dog, but it forced Barack to get his shit together and develop a strategy in the general that could respond to whatever the Right has lobbed at him. She brought up Rezko, Ayers, Rev. Wright. She and her surrogates never let him off the hook. That paid off... for Obama.

The man has earned his place in the polls and in my Democratic heart. For me, everything changed as I watched him over the last few months. He's solid. He picked an outstanding running mate. He's connected to a web of advisors of exceptional talent and experience. He projects a strong, intelligent, steady leadership style. But perhaps what I admire most is his organizing skill. I know ...I dismissed that early on ...but the man knows how to build an organization and lead it. He has a ground game unlike any that has ever existed before ...except when the unions dominated Democratic politics. He has legions of workers in nearly every single state. They are young, and tireless, and they are zealots. They are exceptionally well-informed. They have dreamed up strategies like The Great Schlep, and are winning converts the old-fashioned way -- one at a time. He is competitive in swing states. I'm in awe of the campaign he has run ...he has been more professional, creative, and focused than Hillary. It hurts to say that, but it is true nonetheless.

None of us can anticipate the future and its challenges. We do know -- unless we are delusional -- that very tough times and choices lie ahead. For us as individuals. For the country. For our government. For our president. We need thoughtful leadership. A willingness to see the world clearly and still not be trapped by old mental models. This country could be falling into a death spiral. The old model says that only the pilot can right the plane. The new model says that while the pilot pulls on the stick, the passengers need to haul their ass to the back of the plane, throw unneeded shit out the windows to lighten the load, and lean backward, aiming for the heavens above.

Barack, when you seize the controls on November 4th, I'll be leanin' and throwin'.

Our Democratic Future

If you're conscious and a Democrat, you're battling either within, or without, or both. We have some really important issues rending the party faithful and there is much blood on the floor. I think that floor is going to get slippery and nasty beyond our wildest imaginings.

Three big struggles divide the party and create schizophrenic Democrats:

1. What is the role of Superdelegates? Should they support the 'popular vote' (whatever that means) or should they ensure a viable candidate based using their long-standing political experience as a factor in decision-making?
2. Is Hillary creating or sustaining an internal civil war? Should she drop out now to save us from ourselves?
3. Is Obama a viable candidate for the GE or a vanity candidate for Democrats? Will he really capture enough Americans to win the White House?

Here are my thoughts:

1. Superdelegates: They were put in place to provide balance when a primary candidate won the nomination with an agenda that appealed emotionally to Democrats (especially the far left) but that risked yielding a losing ticket in the General. In other words, it was instituted to provide pragmatic political balance to unbridled fervor. Yes, that feels anti-democratic (small 'd'). On the other hand, there is something to be said about balancing the Democrat's historical ability to shoot themselves in the foot when activists -- especially anti-war activist -- rule the primaries.
2. Hillary's persistence as a candidate: Let her stay. We may yet need her, even if we don't prefer her. More on that in a moment.
3. Obama's GE prospects: He's becoming a liability, at least for any Democrats who have their eyes open. Most Obama supporters travel in a closed social network, self-reinforcing and liberal. They dismiss the hullabaloo over BHO's association with unsavory people like Rezko and Rev. Wright. They are delusional. If Obama gets the nom, I do not believe he can win. He was NOT vetted and his rhetoric swept all those touchy-feely types totally off their feet. The rest of the country is going to open their eyes and ears come September and completely reject this man. If you think Kerry's swiftboating was inflammatory, you just have no idea what's ahead.

Obama may have more elected delegates right now and Hillary may not be able to capture sufficient numbers to outpace him. But as the furor over Obama's judgement grows -- and recall that this man repeatedly touts his superior judgement -- the Superdelegates may yet discover why they exist -- to save the party from itself. If they look clear-eyed at the GE prospects and less at the emotional fervor of a bunch of 20-somethings, they may wake up and stand up. Maybe they'll pick a dark horse who hasn't even run in the primaries (Al Gore anyone?). Or maybe they will be glad to have Hillary available and the deeply commited individuals who support her candidacy. Maybe.

This much is becoming obvious, the Democrats are risking a loss...perhaps a devastating one.. in the General Election. The leading candidate, the one who has disturbed many of us with his emotional appeals and shaky policies, may be about to burst into flames. Here we are, in March of a crucial election year, tethered to a guy who can be easily accused of supporting un-American and racially biased religious views, whose wife doesn't demonstrate much pride in her country, who is an elitist, and who has won primarily by leveraging the African-American vote and the support of extremely left-liberal academics and intellectuals. This is not a 'mainstream' candidacy, despite the rhetoric.

If he wins, we're gonna lose our ass. And we will deserve it.