I wish the electability meme would die. If there's one thing the Republican party has demonstrated in the last two elections, it's that the strength of your candidate is not as important as the weaknesses of your opponent.

After all, how "electable" was George W. Bush to neophytes? Before the party started spinning it, the media was about to settle on him as the "stupid" candidate, for Pete's sake.

What won him the election was Al Gore's inability to connect with voters during the race. Sure it was close, but why? Because George Bush was just that gosh-darned electable, or because Gore was that weak?

Kerry was an even easier sell, compounding his own wonky disconnect with an inability or unwillingness to respond to vicious negative campaigning. Again, a close race. Why? Because Bush, frankly, wasn't very "electable." He was just less "unelectable."

The Republicans (well, some of them, anyway) decided who they really wanted in the White House, and got him there by attacking the opponent. With so many places to attack -- the war, the economy, the corruption -- why can't the Democrats do the same?

Here's the dirty truth -- they will. They just happen to want the person who will most effectively bring in money for (re-)election campaigns.

The people in control in the Republican party want to reshape the system; the folks running the Democrats just want to keep cashing their checks. But they don't want you to think of that, because their branding revolves around their purported idealism. So the candidates that would actually propound those ideals are, you know, great people and all, they're just not electable, you know?

Don't let them frame the question that way. It's not about electability. It's about who you really want, and how you get him there. Let's find him -- or her -- and let's get him there.

"So half full or half empty? The early reaction says it's somewhere in between:"

The question of where, exactly, the space between half-full and half-empty is will be a subject of intense debate in topology circles for years to come.

Oop, sorry. I meant "topology toruses." No offense, guys. :)

My personal belief is that the Yankees are a bit like Mars's Olympus Mons. It's a big, big mountain -- so big, in fact, that it is as tall as it's possible to get on Mars. It still adds mass, but it can't get taller, just bigger.

My corresponding theory is that the Yankees have sacrificed their farm system in favor of using MLB as their farm system. So they can buy whatever the free agent market provides them in the offseason, and they can trade with teams that want to sump salary. But they have to take what the offseason gives them -- if they need pitching, and the best pitcher going is Jaret Wright, well, welcome to New York, Jaret. And if the organization with the Right Player at the deadline is looking for a boatload of prospects instead of a lower payroll, the Yankees have to keep looking.

That's my theory, anyway. The Yankees are such a strange, assymetrical team. Over the last few years, they've had the brightest superstars in baseball, and have fielded some of its biggest embarassments. They have nevertheless been stunningly successful, and they can lavish any potential free agent with cash, but as a result of that success, they are actually at a disadvantage in the much less expensive pursuit of player development.

I keep expecting them to fall over from their lack of balance, or implode from the density of their own salary. But they just keep winning.

phil

Mr. Greenwald states: "Given how unpopular the Republicans are, it is just inexcusable that Democrats are not aggressively distinguishing themselves from GOP policies."

I disagree. Based on the binary structure of our electoral system, you can win in two ways -- you can win or your opponent can lose. The GOP has ably demonstrated that it's a winning strategy to win by making your opponent look worse than you are.

What would it accomplish for the Democrats to light a candle instead of cursing the GOP's darkness? The Republicans would have something of their own to attack, and the Democrats would have something they have to defend.

What? You wanted leadership? Sorry. That would be nice, but you're living in the United States in the Golden Age of Marketing. Our system doesn't produce leaders; it produces politicians.

If the Democrats want to win, they will bash the hell out of Republicans and provide the Republicans with no weapons with which to bash back. If you don't like it, then advocate for a non-pluralistic voting system; this wouldn't fly in a multi-horse race.

But when you can inoculate yourself instead by buying insurance, rewriting laws and smearing the other guy, why bother with all of that?

I'm sure you meant this sarcastically, but it may be the final failing of American democracy: once you get a major party nomination, you don't have to convince anyone you're the best man for the job, or even good, or even competent. You just have to convince them the other guy is worse. And you don't have to by right, just convincing.

This is a serious, serious problem, in my opinion, nothing less than a death knell for American democracy. I hope someone notices someday, before it metastasizes too badly.