residence in Mexico or forgets his name, Democrats can check the doors and turn out the lights because the Republicans are going to take the White House again in 2008.

Senator Barack Obama - barring a huge blow-out win by HRC in Pennsylvania and a second  Clinton victory in a state seen likely to go for BO such as North Carolina or Oregon - will be the Democratic nominee for President.  In the general election those devious 527 folks who made former Georgia Senator  - and forever true American hero and patriot - Max Cleland into a buddy of bin Laden will run another lower than dirt ad campaign making Senator Obama and Reverend Dr. Wright into siamese twins.  As if that won't be enough, large segments of Senator Clinton's base will either sit this one out or - depending upon McCain's running mate - see red. 

By writing this I am not, as a Hillary Clinton supporter, trying to make a case for her nomination.  Should she by some miracle mix of super delegate support and an overwhelming sea change in the popular vote be the nominee Obama-ites wouldn't vote Republican, they just wouldn't vote at all.  The most fun the Democrats are going to have from 2008 to the off year elections in 2010 is examing the exit polls for the amazing stories they will tell. 

Even the Dream Team boat has sailed, although it was never much more than an emergency life raft.   Unless Senator Clinton yearns to throw away her Senate career for a party that is increasingly disrespectful of her contributions to its last Presidential victories, there is no reason for her to consider a VP slot.  Senator Obama as VP would bring along the Obama-ites but would also leave the ticket vulnerable to the aforementioned slime attacks of the far right.  Yessiree, in that most time honored of Democratic traditions, the party has once again found a way to have the most talent and the right stand on the issues and still go home empty handed.  What then is a health care loving, Iraq war hating voter to do?

The party must find a way to break through on the state level and go from majority to majority plus the strength to override a veto.  Democrats must also find a cohesive voice with which to invigorate its base.  Two-thirds of the American public wants out of Iraq.  The Dems became the majority party in 2006 largely because of opposition to the war. Yet here we are 18 months past reclaiming Congress and not only are we still in Iraq, W is still firmly in control of the war strategy.  Why?  Democratic congressional leadership would say it's because of the slim, overrideable majority; that for me is only half of the answer.  

Ending the war in Iraq ("cutting and running") has become just like the fight for universal health care ("socialized medicine") and the struggle to continue the estate tax ("the death tax") - all of those issues are being played by rules the Republicans devised.  Donkeys can't win because the elephants brought the ball.  Democrats have to find a way to retake the field and remake the rules.  There should have been thousands of people in the streets on the fifth anniversay of "shock and awe' and there were only hundreds.  Just like when it was time to override W's vetoes people were calling in their American Idol votes, not their elected representatives.

Much to the consternation of my friends, I do not think that a McCain presidency would be Bush III; Senator McCain knows how to pronounce "nuclear" and he is neither stupid nor delusional.  Still, the Democratic Party does not want to cede any more of its majority will than it already has but to do that it must find the voice and the votes to override the veto.