So many losers, so much time

Howard Dean just made a big speech on the future of the Democrat Party. Guess what: he believes Democrats have to become more liberal to win. I'm more offended by the lack of originality than the bad thinking.

I hate to break it to all the fired-up Dems out there, but moving toward the center is a good idea. In the last 36 years, the only Democrats to be President were centrists (and only once did one barely get over the 50% mark), while anyone who seemed too liberal was decisively turned away. I'm not saying a liberal can't ever win--timing is everything. I'm merely claiming if you want to win, the best strategy by far is to run a center-left candidate.

Meanwhile, the front-runner for 2008 (really too far in the future--I try to avoid such pointless speculation) appears to be Hillary Clinton. She's been trying to reposition herself, but she's still the perfect candidate for a party with a death wish.

The Clinton's man, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, is bragging 2004 was a success since the Dems raised more money than the Repubs. But I thought the Dems were trying to get money out of politics. Maybe I misheard that.

And the group that got so much of that money, the hilariously named MoveOn.Org, is a picture of fecklessness. They got millions from "grass-root contributors" (like George Soros) and now claim they're going to run the party for a while. This is good news if your bumper sticker reads "Bush=Hitler" but otherwise the Dems could use better standard-bearers. It won't matter because they'll be out of money by 2008--they plan to blow it investigating the Ohio vote over and over.