are the dems in more trouble than they think?

This debate has crystallized a couple of things I've been wondering about...

First, as the excellent David Brooks observes, there's a whole lotta pledging going on. Everyone's talking about how the acrimony and attacks between the candidates will hurt the eventual nominee (vs McCain). But the bigger problem might be that they're forcing each other into making pledges that will create problems for them in the general and, even worse, make it difficult to govern successfully should they win.

Second, perhaps all these attacks have done is reveal how, despite all the excitement around this race, the Dems have ended up with two very flawed candidates, in what should be their year. On the one hand a candidate who reminds everyone of the past, in a year when the country is screaming for a new start. On the other a candidate whose face signifies change but whose policies and demeanour fit the mould of election-losing liberals - and one who, if last night is anything to go by, isn't very good at taking the heat.

I'm exaggerating to make a point. I still think the underlying issues (the war, the economy, the desire for change) favour the eventual Democratic nominee. But the Democrats may be making it very tough for themselves...

Comments

[Katherine]

Maybe the DNC will relent and nominate Al Gore in the end. He's all about changing the world -- it could work out brilliantly.