Gee, thanks for all the comments, and to Instapundit for the shout out. Just responding to a few of the commenters:

It's not, in my opinion, a question of tailoring your ideology to whatever will get you elected, so much as it is choosing the candidate whose ideology connects with the maximum number of voters. The two concepts are radically different. Also, it's not just ideology anymore; it's also electability, i.e., that certain something that causes a voter to want to vote for a particular candidate. Bill Clinton had that quality; Hillary does not. I still don't believe Obama has it, at least enough to both win a nomination and a general election.

I apparently misspoke when I said that McGovern won his home state -- it was Massachusetts. My point is even more strongly made, though. McGovern stood for deeply felt left wing ideology in favor of withdrawal from Vietnam under any circumstances. As a result, he didn't even carry his home state. It was one of the most lopsided victories in recent memory.

I agree that Edwards is being ignored to a certain extent. Whether he is OK with being under the radar screen, only his campaign can say for sure. I just think that, whether its deliberate or a by-product of the MSM hysteria over Hillary v. Obama, it's smart for him to lay low. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Whether Edwards is more vulnerable to attack than Hillary is highly debatable. Of all the candidates in the field, he's got that certain something I alluded to earlier. People LIKE him, just like they LIKED Bill Clinton. That could carry him very far. He's also the most "populist" of the candidates, which bodes well in a general election campaign, should he get the nomination.

Whether this race is "fun" is in the eye of the beholder. Some people like to watch train wrecks, too.

Dudley Smith is right that Edwards is just as subject to "inexperience" criticism as the other candidates, except maybe Richardson. It's mostly a wash; the only ones who have presidential experience are, uh, ex-presidents. Perhaps being a governor helps in the public mind, inasmuch as the past two presidents were state governors. I disagree that Edwards is a Jimmy Carter clone, for no other reason than I just don't see it.

As to charges that Edwards is an unserious "huckster," again, I just don't see it that way. He's smart, educated, and his positions on the issues are mostly where I like them. He made a successful career helping those who needed help against the unlimited resources of Big Insurance. I love those perople who deride trial lawyers; they're always the ones who run to lawyers when they need 'em. By the way, what makes a candidate a huckster, anyway? Is ANY candidate exempt from such a characterization?

Hillary/Obama on the ticket? Matching primary adversaries is certainly not new, but if that happens, then the Republicans will take the general in a 1972-like landslide. For any Democratic strategists out there, that ticket is the fervent dream of any die-hard Republican out there. For God's sake, don't give them what they want.

As to Bill Clinton not being the focus of right wing hatred, I disagree strongly. For years, I would see bumper stickers around town that said, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush." The right wing-funded litigation was going after Bill, not Hillary. Ken Starr persecuted [literally] Bill, not Hillary. And, the Republican Congress impeached and tried the President -- not the First Lady -- for no other reason than he was unfaithful to his wife, and in the face of a 65% approval rating. No, they were after Bill, because they just couldn't bear to have been beaten by a Democrat. Especially a Democrat that they had targeted, on which they had attempted political homicide, and who just wouldn't go away when a lesser man would have quit. Clinton's perserverence, and the continuing efforts by the Right to downplay his two Administrations, simply reinforce my theory that the Republicans will do anything -- anything -- to win.

And finally, the Catholics and Jews issues are red herrings. He didn't piss the Catholics off, a blogger associated with the campaign irked a virulently pro-Catholic pundit. Edwards was reported in a Peter Bart op-ed in Variety [that bastion of journalistic accuracy] to have said that "Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace. . .was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities." I disagree with that assessment [that's not the greatest short-term threat to world peace, whatever "world peace" is], but it's not an anit-Israel comment, and it's not an anti-semitic remark, either. Assuming he even said it.

Does anybody else think that it’s ridiculous for presidential candidates to be going at it hammer and tongs a full year before the first primary? The real and implicit vitriol between the Clinton and Obama camps this early in the process is nothing short of idiotic. At this rate, those two candidates will have dropped out from exhaustion long before the voting actually begins.

Is that why John Edwards is waiting, and watching, and generally keeping his mouth shut? If so, I would call that good strategy, and urge him to keep a low – and statesman-like – profile, for as long as possible.

What nobody seems to be looking at is the substantive qualifications of either Clinton or Obama to be president. The former has completed one term in the Senate, and is the wife of a former president. The latter is still in his first term in national office. Aside from name recognition [Clinton] and perceived charisma [Obama], what do these candidates bring to the table?

Of course, one could have asked the same questions about Bill Clinton in 1992, or George W. Bush in 2000, as well. Well, at least they had experience governing. So, maybe it’s unfair for me to question these candidates’ qualifications on such a basis. On the other hand, and as a middle-of-the-road Democrat, neither one excites me much, either as to presentation of their positions, or more importantly, their ability to be elected in a general election.

Because that’s what it’s all about, folks. Who stands the best chance of winning a general election in an electorate that clearly is in the middle of the road? If you don’t care about winning, it’s all well and good for the far left [or far right] candidates to stake out a marginal position, and then go down gloriously and virtuously in flames, because their message did not sell to the electorate. George McGovern did just that, and look how well he did in the general election – against a wartime president and during a war that was perceived as widely unpopular [McGovern won just one state, his own, and D.C.]. The comparisons between 1972 and 2008 are illuminating, to say the least. You cannot lead your party’s voters where they don’t want to go, and the majority of Democrats don’t support the position of getting back at Bush at the expense of our troops. The Republican anti-Clinton sentiment fed the impeachment proceedings; in the same vein, the anti-Bush feeling fans the fires of this "withdraw from Iraq under any circumstances" position.

To govern, you’ve got to get elected, and the Democratic candidates seem to have forgotten that small point. They seem to be marginalizing themselves by making a litmus test over the vote for war in 2003, or support for the troops on the ground. Thus, the perception is that to get the Democratic nomination, you’ve got to be vocally and vociferously anti-Bush [read anti-war, anti-war funding]. Anti-Bush is fine, but a candidate who commits to cutting support for troops on the ground is doomed to failure in the general election. After all, that candidate can’t take that position back once the nomination is secured.

The Republicans love this in-fighting between Clinton and Obama. They don’t really care which one takes the nomination, because they can cut either candidate off at the knees. And they particularly love that the Democratic candidates collectively are painting themselves into an un-winnable position, by moving farther to the left on the war issue than the electorate can tolerate.

Have the Republicans, who appear to have a better grasp of the long-term picture than the Democrats, maneuvered the Democrats into this corner? It makes some sense:

* Push Hillary, who they can beat under almost any circumstances, given her negatives.
* At the same time, get Hillary to punch herself out with Obama, who is aggressively anti-war, African-American, and inexperienced in national/foreign affairs and governance generally.
* Ignore and thus minimize the candidates who pose the biggest general election threat – Edwards, Richardson – and flog Clinton and Obama.
* MSM, the beast who must be fed, and the bloggers [son of the beast?] will go [and are going] to town just for the splashiest story.
* Chiefly because of the far-left anti-war stances the candidates are being forced into, the perception is created that Democrats are all wild-eyed lunatics who want to cut and run, and don’t support our troops [see Vietnam].
* Following the internecine primary carnage, whoever gets the nomination is already bloodied and exhausted.
* The nominee also has major baggage picked up with the positions they had to take just to win the nomination, as well as the underlying negatives [in Clinton’s case]. If Hilary is the nominee, then they pound her negatives, as well as the northeastern liberal mantle she inevitably carries. With Obama, they grind him down on his inexperience, and, subtly his color [see Harold Ford campaign
in Tennessee].

Either way, the Republicans dance to victory in November ‘08. As icing on the cake, they finally “get” a Clinton, even if Hillary isn’t really the one they wanted to “get.”

It really doesn’t matter whether the Republicans are sly enough to maneuver the Democrats into this position, or whether the Democrats are dumb enough to do it to themselves. The result would be the same: Democratic sacrifice of the presidency on the alter of the far left’s “principles.”

The Democratic leadership wants to believe the mid-term elections were a mandate for the far left. Not so. The mid-terms were a rejection of the far right in favor of centrist populism. If the far left holds sway over the Democratic presidential contest, the electorate will reject that nominee just as handily as it did the far right. Which is OK by the Republicans.

The Democratic leadership ignores these realities at its peril. We’re talking realpoltik here. To govern, you’ve got to win. To win, you’ve got to appeal to the broadest base. Given popular dissatisfaction with Republicans in general, the Democrats, as in 2004, would have to work real hard to lose this election.

Oops.

This is what law students [and lawyers, regardless of age] have to go through. And for anyone who went to school in the D.C area, the punch line at the end of the piece really rings true.

Jimmy Carter -- No Friend of Israel:

Carter was also a vocal critic of Israeli policies and “view[ed] the unarmed young Palestinians who stood up against thousands of Israel soldiers as ‘instant heroes,’” wrote Brinkley. “Buoyed by the intifada, Carter passed on to the Palestinians, through Arafat, his congratulations.”

Carter's anti-Israel penchant was apparent to me at the time. I voted Republican for the only time in my life in 1980, because I could not bear to vote for Carter. The final straw was when Andy Young at the UN "accidentally" failed to veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israel. At that level, one doesn't make mistakes like that. The linked commentary places that vote in the appropriate historical light.

THE THREE CIRCLES OF EVIL:

An Israeli physicist's 2004 analysis of the nature of the conflict between the Muslim world and the West. Interesting and compelling. The only reservation I have is relative to Iraq. To what extent prior to 2003 was Iraq actually sponsoring international terrorism? Let us assume it was. Nevertheless, the stated reasons for invading Iraq were to prevent it from using WMDs against the West. If this argument is another effort to recast the rationale for military action in Iraq to simply fighting terrorism, I don't buy it.

The other comment is the writer's spot-on analysis of "democratic" elections leading to fanatic regimes. He failed to mention, however, the abject failure of elections in Gaza, that led to Hamas being elevated to power. His theory is correct; he just failed to mention the most obvious example of his theory in action.

Aside from those comments, a cogent and worthwhile analysis.

EMAIL FROM THE TENNESSEE REPUBLICAN PARTY [from Nashville City Paper editorial]:

Certainly, Americans are at their wit’s end with the oil industry. Rising gasoline prices are changing how people run their businesses, take their vacations and lead their lives.

We are an oil-addicted nation, and it is beginning to impact our lives in ways we had never thought imaginable until gas prices at the pump began to soar and soar.

The national Democratic Party, though, has gone too far in their bid to win Tennessee’s U.S. Senate seat in accusing a Tennessee company of being “big oil” and part of the country’s gas crisis.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) launched attack television advertisements last week against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Corker’s supposed ties to “big oil.”

The target of the attacks was Tennessee’s largest privately held company, Pilot Oil, based in East Tennessee, and its CEO, Jimmy Haslam. Haslam is also Corker’s campaign chair and a long-time supporter of the GOP in solidly Republican East Tennessee.

Branding Pilot Oil as “big oil” is a disingenuous political ploy that hopefully Tennesseans will see through as they make their way to the November general election.

The DSCC is the arm of the Democratic Party in charge of electing Democrats to the U.S. Senate. Their attacks on this Tennessee company are in tandem with Democratic Senate nominee Congressman Harold Ford Jr.’s own set of attacks on the Corker and Haslam connection.

Ford and national Democrats are glibly obscuring a few facts about Pilot Oil as well as their own ties to the oil industry.

As Haslam has explained to the state’s media, Pilot Oil is a gas retailer and has no control over the per-barrel price of crude oil or the world energy market.

Yet Pilot Oil is the largest seller of biodiesel fuel in the country and the largest seller of ethanol in Tennessee — both gasoline alternatives that national Democrats and Republicans have held out as possible solutions to our nation’s energy crisis.

In addition, the Corker campaign maintains the DSCC itself has taken six figures in campaign contributions from the oil and energy industry.

National Democrats and Ford should tell the whole story about Tennessee companies if they are going to make them part of the debate about who should lead the U.S. Senate. Yes, the Haslam family and Pilot Oil have done very well over the years. Haslam is also as politically active as a citizen can be without being a candidate himself.

But suggesting Pilot Oil in some way is partly responsible for the nation’s energy crisis and a “big oil” player on the world stage is simply unfair and inaccurate.

DSCC PRESS RELEASE:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued the following statement on Bob Corker's efforts to cover up his relationship with the oil industry and divert attention from the fact that he is big oil's favorite senate candidate:

"Every time you pull up to a gas station in Tennessee, you see two signs: One says gas is $3 a gallon and the other says Bob Corker for Senate," DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said.

"Bob Corker has taken more money from the oil and gas industry than any other Senate challenger running this year. His campaign finance chairman is the CEO of Pilot Oil Company – a company that has given him nearly $35,000 in contributions.

"So who do you trust more to lower gas prices? Harold Ford, Jr. who has put out a plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, or Bob Corker who is bought and paid for by big oil?"

Well, Pilot and the Haslams may not be in control of crude oil prices, but they nevertheless are reaping the benefits of high oil prices. It seems apparent that Pilot's health is directly proportional to the health of the oil industry itself. The oil industry looks mighty healthy these days. Because Corker accepts big money from Pilot, and because Pilot's honcho is his finance chair, it would appear that "oil money" is front and center behind Corker.

While I am not in favor of going negative so quickly [and wonder whether the ad was cleared by the Ford campaign first], and while the spot itself is somewhat lurid, there is some truth to it.

I also wonder why Corker won't release his tax records. He only released a one page summary of income from 1976 through 2005. You gotta ask what he doesn't want us to see.

He did report almost $5 million in 2005. Yeah, I'm sure he can empathize with the average working person. Is this the case of another rich guy looking to buy public office?

JUDGE SENTENCED AND FINED FOR MASTURBATING DURING TRIALS:

Donald Thompson, who retired from the Oklahoma trial bench in 2004, was just convicted of using a penis pump to masturbate while presiding over several trials between 2001 and 2003. He was sentenced to four years in prison, and ordered to pay a $40,000 fine. Here's more, including the probable cause afidavit that spells out the allegations in, er, gory detail. I also wonder, along with the blogger: how did the Court come up with the amount of the $40,000 fine for these acts?

Yuck. One may only hope that this guy isn't representative of our, uh, fine jurists across the country. Oh, God, I hope not.

ATLA has released an indictment of the insurance industry's questionable tactics post-Katrina as well as following other natural disasters. The report focuses on Big Insurance's spinning the hurricane from the outset, as "the Great New Orleans Flood." The report also notes that Big Insurance showed a whopping $44.8 billion profit in 2005, and raised its surplus more than 7% to $427 billion. Reference to previous natrual disasters demonstrates that Big Insurance has a long track record in such potentially fraudulent, bad faith tactics.

Here's a neat web site, which shows the power of the Internet when used by motivated private individuals. This Israeli couple put together various informational presentations, among which is "Pipeline of Hatred."

This nifty Powerpoint-type presentation graphically illustrates how classic anti-semitism [hatred of Jews as a religious group] is being morphed by Islamic radicalism into a contemporary form of anti-semitism [hatred of the Jewish State of Israel]. The presentation also shows graphically how geographically insignificant Israel is, compared to Islamic staes throughout Africa and the Middle East. The other slide that got to me was the graphic illustration of the number of violent conflicts involving radical Islam currently ongoing in the world. It strikes me that this surge of violent Islamic fundamentalism is much more dangerous to our western way of life than was communism in its heyday.

Well worth a few minutes of your time.

MORE ON JOHN EDWARDS:

The New Republic Online has an [unscientific] poll on Edwards'spotential as Democratic standard-bearer in 2008. Its conclusion: "A shoo-in for 2008, perhaps? TNR readers have answered that question with a resounding, Eh, maybe. How about Al Gore?"

Some of the comments cited were kind of ridiculous. One commenter thought he was too young [he's in his 50s, for God's sake], and some were turned off because he used to represent injured victims of negligence. Others were suspicious of a "thin resume."

But consider this: Edwards made a [very good] living representing people, as opposed to the insurance industry, big business or faceless corporations. He is plenty old enough, in fact older, I believe than JFK or Bill Clinton were when they first entered the presidency. And, in terms of resume, Edwards is not a professional politician. He actually was out in the real world working for a living; he came to public service in his middle age. Given the no-substance platitudes we are accustomed to hearing from the professional pols, I think it's refreshing to have someone want the job bcause he wants to serve.

In any event, who else on the Democratic side is centrist enough to actually have a chance of winning in 2008. I mean, I hate to be a spoilsport, but it is about winning. I think I've said it before: I'm sick of goint down with the ship of "rightness." I'd rather find the candidate that really represents the political center, and give myself the best chance of prevailing. Appropos of the lottery, you can't serve if you don't win.

The New Republic bemoans the Connecticut result, somewhat echoing my earlier post that the results will be felt significantly in the 2008 presidential. One kind of inaccurate point in the piece, though. The article says, "The news that Wesley Clark and John Edwards will stump for Lamont. . . ." Well, the link as to Edwards simply says that he called Lamont to congratulate him: "John Edwards called Lamont to congratulate him last night--which presumably means he'll find his way to Connecticut to offer his congratulations and support in person."

There's a big difference between a phone call and stumping in the state. That the blogger speculates that he'll campaign for Lamont is unsupported, as far as I know. Edwards would be smart to steer clear of Connecticut for the next three months.

Let's see if I've got this right. Conventional wisdom says that the country has gone progressively to the center/right. The last two Democratic presidents were centrists. The Democrats desparately want to regain control of Congress in 2006, and the White House in 2008. Joe Lieberman was the Democratic standard-bearer just six years ago, along with Al Gore. the DSCC and the Democratic establishment [aside from President Clinton] provided little or no help to Lieberman in his campaign, which is the same as opposing him. And many left-leaning Democrats are now gleeful over his defeat by a "trust fund baby" in the Connecticut primary, which makes the party as a whole look like total freaking disloyal idiots to the rest of the country.

What's wrong with this picture?

Not for nothing, but it does strike me that this deepening division in the Democratic party benefits -- wait for it -- the Republicans. Why? When push comes to shove the Repubs can hold their base, as they did in the last two presidentials, as well as in the mid-terms. The Dems, however, are so divided that only chaos will result. Result [and prediction]: Repubs will hold onto their congrssional majorities in 2006. If the Dems continue this exercise in mass denial, we'll have another "northeastern liberal" [or some such] running in 2008, and the White House will be lost again. The Republicans couldn't have done better if they had planned it. Hmmm, did they plan it?

Who knows, but I, for one, am sick to death of going down in flames, but feeling good about myself in the process. If I don't win, I can't govern. I can't win unless I am a centrist candidate. Polarizing the party plays directly into Repub hands.

The left wing of the Democratic party better get its collective head out of, er, the clouds, or they'll have it handed to them come election day.

By the way, I wouldn't be the least surprised if Lieberman runs as an Independent, kicks Lamont's ass in the general, and then sticks it to the Democratic party forever. I wouldn't blame him. And I say that as a loyal Democrat.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION: Presidential bill-signing statements expressing reservations about signed legislation violate Constitution:

If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries.

ABA's point is well-taken. If the President really believes a bill he is signing is unconstitutional, then why doesn't he veto it?

The first photo in this post, by the way, proves conclusively that Glenn does NOT have a "comb-over." My opinion on his tendencies toward being the Anti-Christ vary, based on my daily level of psychosis.

The dog in the second photo is Mojo, who has her own photo on the board with the "other" DiveTech staff. her job description is listed, I believe, as "dive master summoner."

I was lucky enough to take the rebreather course along with Glenn -- I think I took that shot he put up on his blog, in fact -- so many thanks to him for letting me tag along as well to the great folks at DiveTech for making the rebreather experience such a memorable one.

Mel Gibson: drunk AND anti-semitic. AND, the L.A. Sheriff's Department apparently tried to cover it up.

That's why we must have freedom of the press: to expose governmental misconduct, whether to protect the privileged, or otherwise.

UPDATE: The L.A. Times wonders whether Gibson got preferential treatment. And, Mel apologizes to the cops, but NOT to anyone offended by the anti-semitism, like, uh, Jews.

I got interested [courtesy of Instapundit] in Eugene Volokh's criticism of Slate's "Bushism" transcript quote, mainly because I deal all the time with stenographic transcripts. You know, depositions and such.

So I called a friend who is a court reporter/stenographer, and asked for an opinion of the "offending" transcription. My friend's response: stenographers often use their judgment when there is a misstatement or "space marker" in a particular bit of testimony. Thus, if a word is cut off, or if the speaker says "uh," the stenographer often will cut the blip, if it does not appear to be substantively significant. I can say that such non-substantive cuts are done routinely, in almost every deposition transcript I have ever read.

My review of the president's statement suggests -- to me -- that cutting the following: "the c--" changes the substance of his statement not one whit. My friend agrees, and concludes with the comment that whoever is wasting their time criticizing the corrected transcript should "get a job, because he needs to be doing something important."

I agree, especially because I have just spent 45 minutes thinking about this, talking to my friend, and posting this comment. I guess I'm one of those people to whom my friend was referring.

UPDATE: I fixed the two grammatical errors correctly identified by the commenter. I'm embarassed by them, especially because I hate it when writers wrongly switch off "there" and "their." My only explanation is that I was posting in a hurry, and Blogger is not the easiest interface for proofing. Apologies to all, and thanks to the commenter for pointing out the goofs.

Tom Hayden tries to sound like a statesman, but ends up looking like a dupe:

But the roots of this virulent spiral of vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of Palestinian territories by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in 1982, Israel now admits that the war is not about prisoner exchanges or cease-fires; it is about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas altogether, if necessary by an escalation against Syria or even Iran. It should be clear by now that the present Israeli government will never accept an independent Palestinian state, but rather harbors a colonial ambition to decide which Palestinian leaders are acceptable.

"Palestinean territories"? Define, please. What idiots like Hayden continually fail to understand is that to the Arabs, "Palestinean" or "occupied" territories means all of Israel. Their complete rejection of the 2000 Camp David proposal, resulting Intifada, rockets from Gaza, killings and hostages from Gaza, rockets from Lebanon, and killings and hostages from Lebanon all prove to anyone actually paying attention that the Arabs don't want peaceful co-existence; they want Israel GONE.

All they've got to do is leave Israel alone, and all would be hunky-dory. Israel is no more imperialistic that WE are.

This blogger just got fired as a lawyer from the big firm of Reed Smith. While she denies that her blogging was contributory to her termination, she does say: "But there's more to talk about here than just the easy answer. Kevin O'Keefe's client base and several thousand others notwithstanding, Evan Schaeffer is probably correct when he says that 'outsiders' (including most of the legal profession) 'remain skeptical'" about blogging.

As a small firm lawyer/administrator, I'm always interested in new and different ways to market. The continuing question for years has been whether Internet usage has reached such a critical mass as to make it a potent marketing tool, i.e., driving cases to the Internet advertiser/marketer. Here's a fascinating new tool for marketing, and a young criminal defense lawyer who apparently is using it to her advantage.

She's also got a blog, apparently, and has been positively reviewed by Professor Bainbridge.

Some responses to the news that Bill Clinton will campaign for Joe Lieberman:

Remember that Clinton is part of the DLC movement, which believes that the country has moved right and that a centrist Democratic thrust is necessary to achieve electoral success. That meant compromise with the right. And who else has been more willing to compromise with the right: Lieberman.

And:

It's On Days Like This That [sic] I really think we have to consider a new political party and let the Democratic Party destroy itself.

As for President Clinton, "He questioned why antiwar Democrats are seeking to oust a fellow Democrat, saying that instead of seeking to retire Republicans they were pursuing 'the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life.' "

I agree with President Clinton. The two quotes above highlight the tremendous divide between the disproportionately vocal far left wing of the Democratic Party and the rest of us, who are more or less centrists. Let's face it: the reason the Democratic ticket won in 1992 and 1996 was that the candidates were centrist Democrats. History proves that a "centrist Democratic thrust" is essential to winning the presidency.

The commenter who says that "We have to demonstrate that we can beat the Republicans our way, not the Clinton way. We can rant and rail against the Clintons, the DLC, Lieberman, and the lot, but unless we win elections, it's all academic." demonstrates the essential psychosis of the left wing: They want to win their way or not at all. If the Democratic party follows "their way," it'll be not at all. Again.

Dukakis lost in 1988 by moving left. Kerry lost in 2004 by going [or being] left. Benjamin Franklin said long ago that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." If true, then these left wingers are nuttier than a fruitcake. They don't speak for me or, I believe, for the majority of the Democratic Party.