Hillary Humphrey Clinton

This is what the Democratic Party needs to come to terms with.

This is what is wrong with the American Left.

The year was 1968.
America was choosing a candidate to change the direction of the country and deal with the increasingly unpopular war. The nation was psychically pummeled by the string of assassinations, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, and others. The Democratic party was torn between its moderate left/conciliatory roots (conciliation with the Dixiecrats) due to the civil rights movement and the passage of the civil rights bill. Its greatest hope - to unite the party, end the war, and return to responsible government was snuffed out by the same faceless cabal that killed his brother 5 years earlier.

What did the party do?

It nominated a timid, pandering 'my turn' candidate by the name of Hubert Humphrey.

The rest is history. Richard Nixon began a dynasty of Republican presidents that shut the door on the Kennedy dream forever.

The Democratic party ran from its ideals and has been running ever since.

Hillary Clinton would be a wonderful addition to this string of pandering, calculating, establishment placating politicians.

How long will the string of defeats continue? How long can a country starving for a leader resort out of fear to the compromise language of failure? A lot longer, I fear.

I am also positive that if it continues, this country of great enlightened founders will cease to be a beacon of hope or an origin of dreams for this planet.

But who is really to blame for this? The cabal that executed a successful coop in 1963? or a naive and irresponsible left who refused to continue pushing the ideas that would inspire hope in successive generations. An American left that went home or started wasting their vote because they no longer had a movie star leader to inspire them.

Humphrey failed, not in small part, due to the failure of the anti-war idealists to support him, despite his lack of conviction on the greatest moral failure of that generation.

Al Gore lost, not in small part, due to the record number of Democratic voters that abandoned him for a former consumer advocate.

Jimmy Carter lost, not in small part, due to the rebellion of the left of his party - embodied by the last vestigial Kennedy mounting a selfish attempt to live up to his name.

The American Left is the problem. Having failed to take over the Democratic party, despite the reforms and primary systems initiated in the 1970s, they have selfishly eaten their young and handed that party a historic string of defeats. This has turned them into a bitter, paranoid defeatist group of complainers that no one takes seriously.

Now, in this modern age where reform, openness, and responsive government are now a matter of life and death - not just for American Troops but for the planet as a whole - the supposed beacon of this pathetic movement, The Nation Magazine chooses to endorse Dennis Kucinich.

Why don't you just endorse Rudy Giuliani, or Romney, or Huckabee?

Katrina Vanden Heuval - WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

I have one more addition to this post, and then I will calm down and relax.

When Obama started his run, everyone in the press was building him up so they could tear him down.

Is he the new Kennedy? Bobby or John F.?
Is he Martin Luther King? Is he as great as we need him to be?

This was the fundamentally wrong question. This is same question that has destroyed the Democratic party as a force for idealogical change.

The question everyone should be asking, and should have been asking was "Is the Democratic party the same as it was? Will they self destruct using the same basic play that they've been executing since 1968?"

Will they, as before, demand perfection as an excuse for abandoning hope?