In the end, all but the most liberal Democrats will form a consensus around Hillary despite her votes to this point on the war on Iraq and the anti-terror funding, with those alligned against the DNC receiving some sort of back channel assurances between now and then that she really doesn't mean a lot of the votes she's cast, but is doing it to build up her bonafieds on national security among enough Red State reswidents to peel off the electoral votes needed to win in 2008.

The true believers on the far left will know not to trust the Clintons, just the way Republicans do; the others will crave a return to power enough to convince themselves that whatever she says to them is what she really believes, just the way they convinced themselves for eight years that whatever Bill said to them was the truth, even if he was saying different things to different people in a matter of minutes.

At some point the Democrats need to decide what kind of party they will be, whom they will represent. They lack any core ideas around which to unite, in stark contrast to the GOP. The Democratic primary season resembles a scavenger hunt or a woman looking for fabric, rather than a party looking to present a coherent world view to the voters. The main reason it has been so easy for Karl Rove or Lee Atwater to caricature the Democrats has been that the Democrats have refused to say what they are for beyond the merely rhetorical.

When mere opportunism is confronted by a combination of some honesty and some competence, mere opportunism gets squashed. The Democrats should have seen this coming after 2000 and 2002 but have either been blind or willfully obtuse.

It's not so much that they lack core ideas, but that abortion, affirmative action and pacifism are the policies that dare not speak their name.

But outside of legalized abortion(as distinguished from state-subsidized abortion), those ideas don't even appeal to majority of their own rank and file. Most ordinary Democrats are as patriotic as you and I are. Most understand why reverse discrimination is morally wrong and economically disastrous.

The GOP has a theme which resonates. Virtually all the elected officials of the party believe in smaller government, greater decentralization, and fewer restraints on the individual. If you seek the Democrat nomination, you have to go before a women's group and advocate XYZ. Then, before the NAACP and advocate ABC and if ABC and XYZ conflict, you try to smudge the difference and avoid at all costs doing a Ralph Kramden 'Hummina, hummina, hummina.' Because you are dependent on gay money, you have to talk to Middle America as if they are homo oeconomicus, even though every single American election since 1968 shows how incorrect a perception that is.

Apropos perhaps of nothing, the other night I had dinner at my boss' house. His wife is Orthodox and he tries to be but his eating habits are as bad as mine. Judy was sympathetic to the idea of letting people sing Christmas carols(Maplewood is the next town over from theirs) but she was concerned about Bible readings in school. I looked at my boss and asked him if he ever noticed what I keep at my desk between my printer and where I put the laptop, and Norman laughed and said 'Your King James Bible.' I explained that it is part of our culture as Americans and we should not be afraid of it but should be conversant with at least the basics of Christian theology, even if we don't agree. She mentioned her concerns about being intimidated and I told her that both my parents went to schools where the KJV was read every day in class, and my mother was the only Jew in her rural school, and that they weren't intimidated, that we are made of sterner stuff. She knows my parents as we always make a point of going out together when they are in town. So she realized the utter silliness of her objection.

I think a lot of the problem that organized Judaism has with Christian expression in the public square comes from ignorance. We have lived in places where there was a significant Jewish presence so we often haven't had to deal with Christians on their own terms, and we have brought the lessons of history, and our family stories, with us. The sense is that if we let Christians be Christians, they'll fire up the ovens in no time. Nothing could be further from the truth, insofar as the American experience is concerned.

It's something I never learned in Hebrew School, where a lot of the liberal indoctrination occurs. I was fortunate enough to know from my maternal grandparents' experience in the frozen tundra of Wisconsin, and my own experiences in visiting there as a kid, to realize how bogus much of the paranoia in the States is. My experiences in France where I've seen 'the real thing' were also instructive. Finally, the smartest thing I ever did was spend the last year of my doctoral studies in Hattiesburg, MS rather than the Boston Metro area. I was in the reddest areas of Red America and I felt not the slightest discomfort.

Excellent comments, all.

Interesting that Brownstein calls Beinart a 'centrist commentator'. Somebody should tell Hugh Hewitt so that he can bring it up in their next radio colloquy (!).

RE: "On one front, a liberal operative at a top think tank has accused the Democratic Leadership Council... of pushing the party toward a pro-corporate agenda "that sells out America's working class — the demographic that used to be the party's base."

They are going to need a new base. That one has moved to the exurbs.

"Ralph Kramden 'Hummina, hummina, hummina"

Democrats are also like Ralph Kramden.."one of these days Alice POW right in the kisser"

Bart: I think I agree with all of that, except that a majority of the country wants legalized abortion, as the Democrats define it.

In particular, I agree that familiarity with the KJV is necessary to consider oneself educated, and that Jews who have spent time outside of the eastern and western ghettos tend to be less concerned about being intimidated by Santa or a creche.

--Bart: I think I agree with all of that, except that a majority of the country wants legalized abortion, as the Democrats define it.--

And how do they define it?

Keep in mind an old Byron York article pointing out that some one to three percent of Democratic primary voters -- the figures depend on which state the poll is conducted in -- placed terrorism or national security at the top of a list of 12 concerns presented by the pollster. Most Democrats ranked those issues near the bottom.

It's true enough that the American people want to fight terrorism, but the pacifist nature of the Democratic party has penetrated far too deeply to be erased.

The Democrats are dead -- administer last rites and pull the life support.

I chanced to watch a C-Span forum the last night presented by a group of Southern Democrats, including the brain-dead Donna Brazile. Not once did they bring up economics in any serious way. They all agreed that you have to link the GOP to 'Big Business' but they completely failed to understand that the average voter sees them as linked inexorably to Wall Street too. One of their concerns was how to keep Soros and Lewis and the rest giving them money while they keep losing. I'm sure that resonated with working-class Americans. (sarcasm intended)

They look like they're going the way of the Whigs and the Anti-Masonic Party.

Sandy: First, I think I was unclear. I was saying that I disagreed with Bart's comment that "But outside of legalized abortion (as distinguished from state-subsidized abortion), those ideas don't even appeal to majority of their own rank and file".

What I meant was that nobody, outside a very small clique that happens to control the Democratic party, thinks that abortion should be legal under any circumstance, including right up to the moment of birth.