Wretched (Belmont Club) on the divisions within the Democrat Party and on a fascinating Dick Morris observation. And this,

But the more fascinating historical question is why the two parties should have evolved so differently. One possible reason is that the Democrats are more a coalition than a consistent point of view, the proverbial 'Big Tent' defined by nonmembership in the the other party. At first glance, this would appear refute the conventional wisdom that the Democrats are the party of the Left but on closer examination better explains how the Left came to thrive in this ecology. The characteristic of coalitions, or 'national united fronts' as they are known abroad, is that they can be more easily manipulated by a minority cadre of activists. That was historically true of Bolshevik-led movements and may be why the Islamic extremists can dominate the agenda of Islam, which unlike Roman Catholicism has no hierarchical clerical structure. If ideological extremism has a natural home, it will be in the midst of the lost.

[BOLDING mine]
This is why we inherently recognize the incoherence of the Democrat party without being to identify the reason for our feeling. There is no single philosphy. This is why, too, the protesters in New York are, similarly, unconnected by any theme. It's why even the protesters are unable to respond lucidly in interviews. Coalitions, after a while, dilute the individual interests until even the adherents become lost.

It is easy enough to understand why the Democrat party has come to this. The cadre of activists has driven away anyone rational. Makes sense when you look at Howard Dean as a candidate. Who in their right mind would think he was viable? Who in their right might would think he was in his right mind? But there is also a parallel in what is happening in the Newsroom with the "diversity" journalists and on the University campuses -- a desperation to keep a coalition together, no matter who makes it up. Hence, the inclusion of gay rights and more and more fringe groups. It's a big tent idea, but increasingly it's looking like a circus, like a gay parade where grown men dress in tutus and carry giant plastic penises to shake in the face of two-year-olds in strollers, oblivious to their responsibilities as adults.

My overwhelming sense is that Kerry candidacy is something of a Big Tent - but more like a termite tent - in which the Democrats have allowed their "activist minority" to stand on their own, hoping for their defeat. Because they sure as heck don't stand a chance allowing these people to dominate the party. But, then, I strongly suspected the same thing with Bill Clinton. Only then, the mainstream media was the dominant information force in the two elections. It's different this time.