Trying Their Hardest to Lose

If you've been following the "action" over at the Democratic Party today, do you feel the same wave of nausea that I do? It's actually no longer about Hillary for me. As I've said recently, it's become a litmus test. If you think what she's been up to is OK, that's as much an intellectual problem as a political one. Math, just one of the intellectual guests invited to this bash, used to be lingering outside the room, tapping its foot, but now it's stormed in and is staring you in the face from across the punch bowl. When it's done staring, it asks: If you're trying to cheat your way (while claiming to be cheated) into a scenario in which you still lose, what does that say? I now consider this woman emblematic of what it means to be on Clinton's team. I'm happy -- no, relieved and proud -- to be standing on the other sideline.

(OK, maybe it's also about Hillary.)

But really it's this: Barack Obama has made me care about the Democrats, and it may be the one thing for which I can never forgive him. I've always believed the major parties were equally ridiculous, but I held out hope that it wasn't always going to be for stereotypical reasons, that they might find some fresh way of degrading themselves. But if the Republicans have been living up to their caricature of fat-cat-helping, fake-God-fearing warmongers, aren't the Democrats at least holding up their end of the bargain by behaving as illogical, limp, fractious children? I mean, sweet heaven, they're trying to convince us to allow them to lead us, are they not? I wouldn't let them walk my dog.

Right now, my only question about defining the party as a whole is whether to add "spineless" in front of "raving lunatics."