I disagree with Michael Barone:

The same people who directed the campaign that defeated Hillary Clinton and routed John McCain, a campaign that raised far more money and attracted far more volunteers than any before it, have within a year come up with a legislative program that is crashing in ruins and that, to judge from recent polls, has left the Democratic party weaker than I have seen it in almost 50 years of closely following politics.

The 2008 campaign was an impressive achievement. So, in a negative way, is the 2009 legislative program that has left the Democrats in such woeful shape in 2010.

My disagreement is that I don’t think they were ever smart. They beat Hillary because there was a lot of antagonism toward her in her own party, and because her campaign was complacent, and “inevitable.” They beat McCain because people were angry at Republicans, he ran a lousy campaign, the economy melted down, the media were cheerleaders and refused to cover or vet him, and people wanted to feel good about voting for the black guy. And even with all that, he only got 53%. I don’t now, and never have subscribed to the notion that he “ran a brilliant campaign.” He was just the right guy in the right place at the right time. And now that the campaign is over (though you’d never know it from his rhetoric) and has to actually govern, something that he’s never had to do before, the shortcomings are apparent. Unfortunately for them, they believed too much in their own press releases, and the fawning media coverage. Fortunately for the country, he’s inoculated us against leftists for another generation.

…that isn’t happening. Actually, I think that the Democrats have a lot bigger problem on this score, as they continue to abandon ship, and eat their own.

Related thoughts from Rich Lowry.

The Tea Parties are not just a fringe movement, according to John Zogby, who’s no Republican. As he shows, they’re particularly vulnerable on the war.

Well, in any event, I’m sure that the Democrats are revolted by them.

A few days ago I asked whether North Korea was right-wing or left-wing, and whether racism is intrinsic to either “wing.”

This sort of thing is what spurred the questions.

Tom Maguire explains why I delinked Andrew Sullivan years ago:

His big finish:

I want to apologize to my readers for dropping this ball. And congratulate the National Enquirer for following the facts where they eventually led.

There’s courage in that. Pulitzer-level courage.

Oh, there was Pulitzer-level courage in sticking with the “Trig spawned by space aliens” angle too. National Enquirer level courage.

For myself, I am stuck on the simpler theory that Andrew wants to bash what he sees as homophobic Republicans, not seemingly sympathetic Dems.

That plus (perhaps — dare I say it?) AIDS-induced dementia? In which case one can only pity. But still not link.

And actually, in Sullivan’s case, it’s more like Weekly World News courage.

Let alone stay there…

Let’s ignore the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution about the president as “financial-advisor-in-chief.” His moronic and repeated bashing of Vegas is not only digging a deeper hole for his water-carrier in the Senate, but almost guaranteeing that he himself won’t be winning Nevada in 2012.

I need to write a longer post on this, but the notion that this man or his advisors are political genii is pretty laughable at this point. The only reason he won is that a) the Dems weren’t that thrilled about Hillary, b) he has charisma for people susceptible to such emotional nonsense, c) McCain was a lousy candidate and ran a lousy campaign and d) the media was totally in the tank for him and refused to run anything negative and e) almost any Dem was going to win in 2008.

His luck has run out.