I think I've mentioned this a few times before, but right now we are living through a unique period in the history of the Democratic Party. For the first time ever, the party is really competitive only in its pursuit of one branch of government: the Presidency. Our nominee has captured a plurality of the vote in 3 of the last 4 elections, and the one time we didn't, we lost to an incumbent President in the middle of a war with an improving economy, by 2.4% of the vote. In the last two elections, the Democratic nominee lost the election by one state.

Down ticket, the Republicans have a mathematical advantage in Congressional races that is disproportionate to their actual vote totals, so even though the Democrats and Republicans are roughly even nationwide, the GOP will still win a larger share of seats even if the vote is divided 50-50. By having only a tiny edge in the party preference, the Republicans gain a significant lead in Congress. And, of course, the federal courts have a partisan slant in favor of the Republicans that will probably continue through the lifetime of most of the people reading this blog.

That's why it is hard to take the DLC seriously when they hold one of their annual corporate junkets, and take turns knifing every liberal in the back. It's not just a counter-productive strategy; obviously, the minority party can never hope to gain its footing if significant players on the political scene insist on violating what should be the Democrats' Eleventh Commandment. More to the point, the DLC brings nothing to the table. Nothing.

Gore and Kerry may have run to the left in their losing efforts the last two elections, but at least they came close enough to get screwed by the other guys. The Deaniacs and Move On may have questionable appeal south of the Mason-Dixon line, but at they find a way to win elections everywhere else. But the "centrist" hacks the DLC consistently put up for the down-ticket races have gotten their asses handed to them the past decade. As blogger Steve Gilliard, in discussing Hillary Clinton's pandering to the DLC, points out:

Her enemies will ALWAYS paint her as a liberal, regardless of her real stands. Her name is a byword for liberalism and corruption among the right. They will fight her to their last breath. The DLC wants to use the same failed playbook it has always used, run down the middle of the road and lose to the GOP.

At the same time, all this does is alienate liberal supporters who are perplexed by her insane and pointless manuvering. Video games, abortion, all these issues do not help her. They just make her look weak and vaciliating.

John Kerry ran to the left and lost by 110K votes. He didn't hide from being a liberal and he came close enough to winning that Bush was sweating out election day. So what lesson does Clinton take from that: run to the middle. Despite every poll, every focus group that wants a strong, active Democratic party, the Democratic Loser Council wants to stay in the middle.

She keeps this up, she'll be watching John Kerry or John Edwards take the oath of office in 2009.

Why does the DLC not get it? Why does the DLC think that they can recreate 1992 when they can't even hold on to Senate seats. All their bright shining boys like Brad Carson got waxed by hard core GOP nutters. Why does she think Vichy can do anything more than appease and lose?

In other words, getting advice from the DLC on winning elections is kind of like listening to Colin Montgomerie give advice on how to win PGA tournaments. As someone who agrees with the DLC on issues like welfare reform, the death penalty, and free trade, and who has a decidedly agnostic position on abortion, it irritates me no end when this influential group wastes so much of its time running down allies who will work their asses off to get Democrats elected, including Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination in '08. Why don't they try to win something, somewhere in 2006 first?