Having said that, McCarthy's insurgent campaign against the D establishment eventually sparked formal changes in the nomination process which gave regular voters (as opposed to party insiders) more power. The result: Unknowns like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton came to the fore—and for a second there, Howard Dean!

Could it be said, then, that McCarthy is responsible for the sorry state of the Democratic party, circa 2005?

Just asking.

Well, the joke has always been that McCarthy's unsuccessful insurgency against the D establishment led directly to George McGovern's successful insurgency against the D establishment... which, obviously, ended up costing the Dems big, even well beyond the '72 election.

But you know: You really can't blame McCarthy for all of this. The real problem is a fundamental one, and he just brought it to the surface. "The whole world is watching!"

The 60s—Kennedy and LBJ's embrace of the civil rights movement...and then the party's opposition to the war... fused two strains— government as social engineers w/ a dovish activist base—and then the party started to have its problems with the blue collar crowd that it used to rely on.

I'm glad LBJ signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and I'm glad McGovern ran on an anti-war ticket (it's props for the D party), but I can't deny that the Dems have been hobbled ever since, Clinton non-withstanding. I mean, geez, despite Bush's incompetence in Iraq, the Republicans are still seen as the warriors and the Ds are still seen as the wimps.

I mean, geez, despite Bush's incompetence in Iraq, the Republicans are still seen as the warriors and the Ds are still seen as the wimps.

Y'all really do have an image problem. I was pretty sure, after nominating Kerry, that he could not win. Nominating Leiberman would have put the contest on a more even footing, given us a genuine choice.

From an outsider's perspective one problem with the Democratic party (and the Republicans suffer from this as well) allowing the people to stampede a candidate in the primary is that you get people who are voting for an issue not who can be elected.

This makes you feel good about casting your vote for, say, an underdog with good sound bites who appeals to you but doesn't do much to actually win the election.

The good news for the D party is that the Republicans (thank you far Right) can fall into this trap as well.

In the end we're all loosers; the concept of the loyal opposition has gone out the window, the 'people choice' thing is only partly to blame.