the party of high school wallflowers and inexperienced poker players

I hate to cite the N.Y. Times for the second time in one day, but there's an article by Jim Rutenberg and Adam Nagourney about how the GOP has decided to face the war issue head on.

I was so frustrated that I couldn't even read the whole thing. But I did read this:

...there was little sign of such nervousness on Wednesday as Republican after Republican took to the Senate floor to offer an unambiguous embrace of the Iraq war and to portray Democrats as advocates of an overly hasty withdrawal that would have grave consequences for the security of the United States.

That's the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Even when the Repubs have what seems like a losing hand--defending an unpopular war that was their idea—they face the issue head on with the cock-sure composure of an expert poker player trying to bluff out a rookie. They're unified and on the offense, and that confidence sways voters. Meanwhile the Democrats (who, in my poker analogy at least, would be the intimidated newbie), argue amongst themselves about unrealistic plans and will, if recent history is any guide at all, end up coming up with a half-assed plan that be sort of against the war but not so strongly against it that someone in favor of the war wouldn't think the Democrats are their party, too.

In other words, they won't end up standing for anything. And, just as in every other aspect of life, in the end confidence—even misplaced—will win out over thoughtful indecision. Ask any shy high school kid who ever lost a girl to an arrogant bully. (Sigh.)

Is it too much to ask that the Democratic Party get it's shit together to the point that the "shy high school kid" comparisons can stop? It's frustrating to support a party that needs a growth spurt.

But hey, at least we have the Hilary Clinton candidacy to look forward to. She'll play in the South and Midwest, right? Right?

Sigh.