It turns out that there were large demonstrations in the US in support of Iraq's election. I missed that somehow. I thought that I watched the news on Saturday and I know I checked news sites.

Hmm.

Conspicuously absent were the anti-war groups. Even though this was a step towards peace, they skipped it. One might conclude that these people were more interested in being anti-Bush than anti-war.

A quick check on International Answer's web site shows press releases about protests at the inauguration and the State of the Union but nothing in between.

The same is true for MoveOn.org. They have links to their opposition to Social Security reform, Tsunami relief (finally), anti-Sinclair Broadcasting, and election fraud. As far as they are concerned, the Iraqi election did not happen.

On Monday's Daily Show, Jon Stuart admitted that, if it turned out that Bush's policies were right, Stuart's head would implode. I wonder if Dan Rather's will, too?

On Tuesday, Stuart showed a clip from John Kerry's weekend interview on "Meet the Press". Kerry was so nuanced left Stuart speechless.

A year ago Democrats showed that they were willing to do what it takes to defeat Bush. They thought that this meant nominating a candidate that they didn't believe in because they thought that his war record would give him credibility against Bush. After all, anyone would be better than Bush, right?

Kerry still thinks that he has a chance in 2008. He doesn't. He got 48% of the vote in an election that was a referendum on Bush. A lot of those votes would have gone to a sock puppet had it run against Bush.

Few Democrats actually liked Kerry and fewer like him now. Many think that it was his mistakes during the campaign that cost him the election. Others are sure that he won an electoral victory but didn't follow through by demanding a hand recount. These are the hard-core activists and they will not support Kerry again. He can go back to being a back-bencher.

The real question for 2008 is how far the Democrats will go to win the election? Will they nominate a moderate? Can a moderate make it through Iowa and New Hampshire?

Many pizza places have a policy known as redlining. They draw a red line on a map showing where the delivery boys are most likely to be attacked and they refuse to cross the line. The lines are drawn according to crime statistics but they usually include ethnic districts. Black activists hate red lining because is makes it difficult for most blacks to get pizza delivery.

This brings us to Social Security. The retirement age is 67. The life expectancy for a black man is 68.8. If the retirement age is raised then most black men will never get a cent from Social Security.

This is the sort of issue that Democrats usually raise. What happens when a Republican raises it? Bill Thomas (R-CA) did and this is the Democrats response:

Do you believe that the amount of a person's Social Security check should be tied to the color of that person's skin? Of course not. But the Republican Party's point man on Social Security in the House is strongly recommending consideration of just such a step. On Meet the Press yesterday, Representative Bill Thomas (R-CA) raised the possibility of linking Social Security benefits to a person's race -- or even gender.

Ill-conceived, dangerous ideas about Social Security are nothing new to the Republican Party. But no idea is more dangerous or patently unfair than linking Social Security benefits to a person's race and gender.

We can disagree about which ideas should be on or off the table when it comes to the Bush plan to overhaul Social Security. But surely every American can agree that there is no place in the Social Security debate for linking the amount of a Social Security benefit check to the race or gender of the person receiving it.

Because Thomas mentioned race they deliberately misrepresented what he said. There's lies, damned lies, statistics, and Democrat fund-raising letters.