But this crack about Herman having "lots of free time" is pretty strange. Sure, maybe he does. What bearing does this have on the content of his arguments? And maybe he _enjoys_ arguing these issues as well-- hey, it's easier on the spine than gardening or woodworking.
Okay, another topic. There's a decentish piece at _Salon_ about the way the Dean campaign's caused a lot of tsuris among the Democratic Leadership Council. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/25/dean/index.html) The DLC's finding that Leiberman s not as viable a candidate as they'd hoped-- and now, amazingly, they are denouncing Howard Dean because they believe him to be another George McGovern, a peace-loving miscreant whose appeal to the radical fringe will sentence the Democrats to an era the DLC calls "the 1970s."
Not such a bad decade for Democrats, actually: at least they had a Democrat as President for four of those ten years. Unlike the _1980s_, during which the DLC began exerting its influence in the party, and when the party generally rolled over for Reagan. As for the comparisons with McGovern, they really seem to miss the point: wasn't the man who beat McGovern chased out of office after a profound Constitutional crisis? Didn't that guy prolong the Vietnam War for four years? Shouldn't the Democrats be more than a little _proud_ of having nominated McGovern?
Get the feeling that the DLC really and truly _welcomes_ the failure of the Democratic Party?