A reader writes:
The Democrats' attitudes remind me of 1984, when it was assumed that Mondale had a lock on the election, since the people would reject Reagan (recession being fresh in their minds) and return to the "natural governing party," the Democrats. So, they pandered to their core constituencies, especially Big Labor, promised big social programs and higher taxes, and had their heads handed to them in November. Fast-forward 24 years, and things look very much the same. The only real difference is a) we're at war; b) their core constituency is dominated by Big Anti-War; and c) to pander to them the Democrats have to work for a US defeat in Iraq. All while promising big social programs and higher taxes. Hmm . . . Mondale with a big shot of McGovern thrown in. That's a powerful mix, and the Democrats may well wake up with a helluva hangover on November 5th, 2008.
Goot point! I'd disagree with two things, however. One, the war is unpopular (for now), so if the Democrats continue to criticize it without lurching toward McGovernism, it probably won't hurt them. Two, presidential contests are, in the end, between two individuals, so if the Democrats have a strong candidate versus a weak Republican, they'd be helped. As respected as Mondale may have been in 1984, Reagan was certainly the better politician.