According to CBS News, Howard (the Scream) Dean is all but certain to become the chairman of the Democratic Party; and Al Gore is thinking hard about running in 2008. After the State of the Union, the Democrats had Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi deliver their response. Even the Bush-bashing liberal David Corn had to admit that their response was "middling at best, perhaps awful." He even referred to Pelosi as a "Stepford Democrat," proving only that "she can read a TelePrompTer without blinking or changing her facial expression."
As a partisan, these developments might appear encouraging. After all, it's fun to win, and it's even more fun to keep on winning. But there is something that's pre-9/11-ish about that sort of reasoning. In a post-9/11 world, with so much at stake, it serves the entire country well if the Democrats were to put forward the very best candidates. Doing so will make the Republicans better, aznd it will raise the level of public discourse. If the Democrats keep putting forward their Michael-Moore Wing (Dean, Gore, Pelosi, et al), they should continue to get comfortable with being on the losing end of elections. But such would not be best for conservatism--or for the country at large.
