Good discussion of the Clenis going on recently. But there’s one thing Clinton demonstrated quite clearly in his 1992 election, and it’s not what’s being highlighted here.

It’s the need to have a credible third party candidate to split the GOP and cause massive infighting amongst the Republicans.

Roy Moore 2008! Who’s with me?

I’m not being facetious about this. Were it not for Nader, Gore would have won clearly in 2000. Had somebody been able to peel off even a tiny fraction of Bush’s support, I’m not talking Ross Perot-sized pie slices, I’m talking 2-3 percent, Kerry would be nearing his sixth month as our president.

When are Democrats going to wake up and smell the hazelnut-flavored cream substitute here? We don’t need Clinton redux, we don’t need a candidate who can appeal to his or that faction better, we don’t even need better packaging so much as we need somebody to peel off the fundie or the fiscal base and make them believe that the mainstream GOP candidate just doesn’t get it. It’s not about finding our perfect candidate. It’s doing everything we can to make sure it looks like their candidate sucks.

It’s why I’m giving up my flirtation with agnosticism, so I can pray to God it’s Giuliani in ’08. A divorced, philandering, pro-choice Republican would open the door to exactly the kind of interfraternity squabble that would convince somebody like Moore to jump in. And then we can sit back, pop the popcorn, and watch whatever moderate sunshiny boy or girl we choose waltz into the Oval no matter what the Wurlitzer cranks out.


One thought on “Clenisism

Comments are closed.