To Dean or not to Dean

It seems that the Democrat party has painted itself into a corner.

On the one hand, the ones who are somewhat rational (i.e. the ones who are just a bit left of Karl Marx), have to know that Howard Dean's vicious attacks on religious people (people of religion?) and Conservatives aren't going to attract any new voters.

On the other hand, the Democrat party's really big donors (i.e. George Soros, Hollywood, etc.) aren't going to contribute a dime to anyone who might possibly mouth the words, "while the Republicans may have a point...".

Howard the Duck's job as DNC Chairnut is to raise money. Unlike President Bush, most of the Democrat party's money came in large chunks from a few very rich people. People who viewed Bush as...well, I was going to say the "anti-Christ" but they'd have to believe in Christ for that to be true. So let's say that Bush was the epitome of evil to these people.

Huh. That doesn't work either. Moral relativism says that nobody is evil except America. Sawing off heads isn't nearly as bad as an infidel touching a Koran without gloves.

So the Democrat party is now stuck between kissing the asses of their small donors, who have been conditioned to believe that they should never have to write out a check in the name of the government (or party), or kissing the asses of the utter left-wing radicals who have tons of money and want to hear nothing other than "Bush is Evil".

They've obviously gone for the latter. Good for them. Good for us.