Out of Harm's Way

03/31/2008 11:03 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Okay, so you didn't like my first two scenarios about how this election is going to play out.

Scenario number one said Hillary was going to win with the superdelegates, who were going to be reminded of past indiscretions by Harold Ickes throwing the file on their desks (see HuffPo Feb. 28).

At the same time, Obama supporters were going to be disaffected. The cry of "We wuz robbed" would be the Democratic Party campaign slogan, as all the young idealists will be muttering, "The system is corrupt. We're out of here." (HuffPo March 3)

Still to come in that scenario's final scene is the convention in Denver this summer, when the Democrats will appear to be as unified as the plenary session of the 8th Party Congress of 1919, with the Leninists, Marxists, Trotskyites and Stalinist wings embracing each other before Stalin had them all shot.

Scenario number two (HuffPo March 10) suggested the compromise candidate who could possibly bind the bleeding parts split with the hatchet of the primaries in an unsublimated death wish would be the impartial Al Gore. He is so far above the battle today he's almost like a blimp. Have you seen the all-new, hefty-size Gore lately? The American people might not be ready for a second William Howard Taft.

The premise of scenario number three is that the Democrats should wake up and smell the horseshit. Whoever emerges victorious in Denver is going to lose the election.

Why am I so pessimistic?

The people who vote in primaries are atypical, political wonks compared to the electorate at large. Real folks don't like arguments, personal attacks, the airing of dirty laundry. When push comes to shove they will shove aside the intra-party debate and vote for Gen. McCain.

I realize this is tough to swallow, but, look, you have to agree he is a lot better than George Bush, admittedly praising with faint praise.

Americans like military heroes. Remember Ike? We also liked Grant, Tyler, Jackson and Washington to cite a few who kept us out of harm's way in the past.

McCain is a man who at least sounds honest, no matter how many dishonest things he says and does. We like people who seem honest. That was one of the reasons the people voted for Bush in 2004.

Scenario number three is about to launch a trial balloon about what the Democrats should do about this sad state of affairs. They should realize that losing in 2008 is the best thing that could happen for the future of the party.

Who would want to be president in 2009? This is the scene:

The nation is in the worse depression since 1929. President Bush is the captain of the ship, steering the Titanic straight ahead into the iceberg, and McCain is down in the engine room throwing coals on the fire while cheering the madman on. Both the captain and his presumptive heir are following the navigation charts of the Great Engineer himself, Herbert Hoover, by doing nothing.

And then there is the problem of what to do about Iraq? As Gen. McCain rightly predicted we are going to be in Iraq for 100 years. He is too optimistic.

If the Democrats win in 2008, it won't be as easy bringing the boys home as it sounds in the TV debates. Into the vacuum will come the Turks chasing the Kurds, the Iranians chasing the Turks, while digging up the WMDs Saddam hid in the deserts, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. Iraq today is like Mardi Gras in New Orleans compared to what it will be when we leave.

Then the congressional hearings will begin. "Who lost Iraq," numerous committees will be asking. It will be the "Who Lost China" debate that paralyzed the country in the1950s all over again, with a new Joe McCarthy emerging from that august body. Only worse. Now we have conservative talk radio with Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly. et al, pouring oil on the fires.

A depression and Iraq? The next four years are going to be hell.

I know it's a difficult future to contemplate -- you probably stopped reading by the second paragraph -- but let's face it. It's a minefield out there. The Republicans planted the mines and should have the pleasure of being in harm's way.

What I'm proposing is the Democrats wise up and take a bye in 2008. The political term is "goin' fishin'" until after Election Day.

In the meanwhile, the two wings of the Democratic Party should call a cease-fire in their civil war. The disloyal opposition should be sitting down and thinking of specific plans for a real change. What the country needs is an even Newer Deal than FDR came up with when the Democrats took over the broken pieces in 1932.

Happy days will be here again in 2012.

If I'm wrong about any of these three scenarios, to quote the legendary TV news analyst, Emily Litella, "Never mind."