Susan Estrich is making sense:
"...in the midst of debates about such issues as Social Security and the deficits..."

Bill, you're following in the footsteps of your former mayor - you gotta be smoking crack. WHAT DEBATES??????? In order to debate, both sides must first take a position. The last position the Democrats took on Social Security was in the 1940's. They have no plan, other than to say "NO!!" but that's not a legitimate debating point. They aren't saying anything about deficits other than "raise taxes", but that's a tax comment not a deficit comment.

Could you please cite one instance of a real position taken on anything by the Democratic Party?

I thought not...

Well, just because you're being semantical and overlaying your scorn for the D's on that excerpt doesn't mean that I'm "smoking crack."

The Democrats want to "win," on certain issues, in fact are "winning" on Social Security. The issue of whether their positions are substantive or any good sits outside of the point that Estrich is making a lot of sense by pointing out that Howard Dean "turning himself into the issue by engaging in class and religious warfare" is pretty stupid and undermines their effort. How? By overwhelming disdain for or fear of certain Republican positions with revulsion at his wacky rhetoric.

Now if you'll pardon me, I have to take another hit. All this explaining things to you has totally killed my buzz, man.

'I'm hard-pressed to think of anybody who'll tell you privately that in the midst of debates about such issues as Social Security and the deficits, it's a good idea for the party leader to be turning himself into the issue by engaging in class and religious warfare.'

I'm sorry but what else do they have to sell? Oh except over half the country is evil and stupid. When yoy have no solutions you tend to do a lot of bitching.