def Sparse(Matrix):

Start with the top shelf, if you want the breakdown of events. Best part of the post, and most telling:

Update (Ian): 9:33. Chris Matthews called Lamont very “calm”, “casual”, and not “that bad”. On the other hand, Lieberman is a “schmaltzy ethnic guy”. Geez, Chris, could you make it any clear?

Schmaltzy ethnic guy? What the heck is a “schmaltzy ethnic guy” anyway? Definition, via Dictionary.com, of schmaltzy:

schmaltz·y also schmalz·y (shmält’sē)
adj. Informal., -i·er also -i·er, -i·est also -i·est.

Of, relating to, or marked by excessive or maudlin sentimentality.

How exactly is Matthews’ darling, Bill Clinton, not schmaltzy? Well, I guess Clinton isn’t ethnic. Oh wait.

In her now-famous defense of a scandal-plagued Bill Clinton, Nobel prizewinner Toni Morrison, went so far as to call him “our first black president. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime.”

I should think ethnic schmaltz would be right up Matthews’ alley. Then again, ethnic is probably a code-word for zionist pig jooo now, anyway. In any event, anti-war and hard-left Lamont was Matthews’ man, so we can’t expect too much even-handedness.

Teh funny aside, this is a watershed moment for both the Democratic party and the United States of America. A number of folks think that this will have some serious negative consequences for the Democratic party, possibly even disastrous, but I don’t think so. Like it or not, the Democratic party has been steadily moving to the hard left since the late 1960s. The only difference now is that they aren’t trying to do it stealthily. The sane moderates in the Democratic party put their feet forward during the civil rights and early environmental era and did some good things. After accomplishing these things, by motivating through rational argument the conscientious center of the United States, they began leaving behind the center in a dust cloud of self-sufficient arrogance. When they had reason on their side, they gained the center, and power. Once they had the power, they left both reason, and the center.

The American middle-class and their bourgeois values were a pitstop in flyover country between academic speculation and the promised land of collectivist utopia. It wasn’t until 1995 that the entrenched socialist pilgrims realized they were wandering in the desert, sans provisions, sans direction and sans litter bearers. The plebes had run off after another god back in the 1980s, a golden, Brillcreamed bovine in the form of Ronald Reagan, and now his priests were taking away the pilgrims’ place as the arbiters of progress.

This little brouhaha in Connecticut isn’t a guerilla war by a rabid minority to capture the soul of the Democratic party. It’s Daily Moses storming down Mount Sinai, eyes ablaze, glorious Freshmaking radiance in his countenance, ready to cast the tablets of the law upon heads of the adulterous generation that dared to betray its right and proper masters. Whether or not those tablets will actually open up the earth and swallow anyone other than Joe Lieberman (if it’s even swallowing him), time will tell, but it’s a mistake to think of this as some kind of new breed of Democrat. The netroots are the true roots of the Democratic party and have been for decades. The church mice have just awoken.

Why then is this a watershed moment if the socialists’ influence has waned so much through inattention to the public discourse?

Forty years of near-complete power might dull the senses through complacency, but like a 500-pound couch-ridden man whose flesh has long sense begun to mingle with the fabric of his sagging throne, the inertia of influence does not turn on a dime. All those decades of building a culture in Washington D.C., New York, et al. centered around the necessity of collectivism, a culture that existed long before its zenith of influence in the 1960s, will not, cannot come to a screeching halt just because a few yahoos in 1994 from Middle America thought it was loony toons. It’s this culture that is driving the netroots, and it’s this culture that’s feeding and watering the netroots via gardeners like Soros and Peter Lewis.

What is so distinctive and startling about this race is that a party which only a few years ago nominated Joe Lieberman to be their Vice-Presidential candidate, is now so thoroughly under the thumb of men like George Soros and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, that they would throw him overboard to appease their funding sources. To see Hillary Clinton, of late one of the most hawkish members of the Senate Democrats, duck and cover in the presense of the Kossacks just makes their assumption of mastery over the party that much more breathtaking. Like their ideological forebears, the Kidz are purging the party of all its un-persons.

Why is this so important that a decidedly minority party whose ideology is clearly to the left of the mainstream would undergo such a politically violent upheaval? Because the majority status of the congressional Republican party has historically been tied to positive economic health. Heck, this Republican party only maintains a tenuous hold on the Congress, even with a vibrant economy. It’s a fairly defensible contention that democratic peoples tend to use the ballot box as punishment for poor performance, either through active participation or purposeful passivity, regardless of their ideological similarities with the party in power.

If the economy goes south, the Democrats are in like Flynn, and thanks to the Kidz and their Daddy Warbucks Soros, the Democrats that will assume power won’t be the go-along-get-along, finger-in-the-wind Clinton types. They’ll be the slavering purge and jack-boot brand with vodka in their veins and trigger fingers itching for political dissidents. If today’s Democratic party assumes power, our country’s government will plunge head-long into the socialism and moral indeterminacy of Europe, or worse, be pushed towards the edge of proto-soviet marxism à la the netroots’ darling, Hugo Chavez.

~ by spmat on August 9, 2006.