The Way Things Really Are... Usually

He's new... he's young... he's charismatic... he's hip... he's with it... he's hot... the Democrats adore him... the lefties adore him... the peaceniks adore him... the socialists adore him... and no, he's not going to get nominated. Hillary's campaign, figuring this "democracy" thing within the "Democratic" Party has gone far enough, has finally switched tactics in a definitive manner. It doesn't matter any more how many delegate votes Obama has, 'cause we're not talking about just the Democratic Party here; in fact, we never were. It was _always_ about who was more electable, not who was more popular _within_ Democratic ranks. I mean, yeah, when that turns out to be the same person, that's OK, but when it doesn't, electability should carry the day. Now of course, one cannot, in all of this, detect the slightest hint of self-interest on Hillary's part, oh no. It's all about the good of the country, and of "the children", and of... whatever other BS she can dream up on any particular occasion. But as an example of political smarts, it does, after all, have something to recommend it. Every time the Democrats nominate someone who represents their real point of view on things, they lose. Take George McGovern, for example. No, really -- you take him, I don't want him. Well, but he represented, faithfully, the "sense" of the Democratic party back in 1972, and since very few normal people share that sense, he lost -- to none other than "Tricky Dick". But beating McGovern in '72 was no trick; it was a no-brainer. And beating Carter in 1980 was likewise a no-brainer; of course he had aleady had four years to drive our economy and our military into the toilet, so all people had to do on that occasion is look at the record. What is starting to dawn on the Democrats now, however, is that if they nominate according to their emotions -- according to the fad of the moment -- they are going to suffer another "McGovern Moment". Yeah, they'll have retained some sort of left-wing "purity", but at the price of an election. On the other hand, if they nominate the candidate who represents the same tired, old, failed liberal crap, they might have a chance -- thus, the paradoxes of American elections. The "dull normal" is preferable to the "radical" and "extreme". It seems that the American electorate is actually quite conservative in this sense -- they don't want anyone rocking the boat from either direction. What Americans consider "radical" or "extreme" in politics is, in Europe, just considered "politics". Over there, you can get people who actually _call_ themselves fascists, or communists, or nationalists, or socialists, running for office. Over here's that's impossible. Our candidates all have to be about as dynamic and challenging as Wonder Bread -- except less nutritious. Could it be that Americans, at heart, have an actual distaste for politics? It seems that might be the case -- certainly compared to our neighbors to the south, who revel in the to-and-fro of politics on pretty much a 24-7 basis, we seem to be willing to tolerate it, up to a point, every four years or so, after which time it becomes a plaything of the rich and idle once again. And I guess that's a good thing. But you won't have heard anything like the hue and cry coming from the Obama camp when the proverbial smoke-filled room grants Hillary the nomination, for the good of... whatever. Once again -- as in 1968, e.g. -- the radical left will have been given the straight arm, and the back of the hand, and they will be hurt, offended, and puzzled. "Isn't this a democracy?" they will ask. And the answer is, yes, sort of, "but". So they will go home in tears, after having burned a few tires on the streets of Denver and vowed to... do something, not sure what, later on. They are the equivalent of the true conservatives who remain in the Republican Party -- hope springs eternal, and a fool and their vote are soon parted. Both parties know how to exploit true believers. They can even make them think they still respect them in the morning... but we know better.