LOST IN TRANSLATION

Quietly, without fanfare, Republicans stopped using the term, "Stay the course." US generals in Baghdad announced that their commander in chief will do what it takes, but that he is "flexible." Translated, "flexible" means the president will adopt the Democrat's plan until the midterm elections, then revert back to "stay the course."

In a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bush reminded everyone that he's the one responsible for the Iraqi debacle, and that the buck stops with him. Translated, this means that Americans should not hold his loyal party hacks responsible for ham-headed decisions he made.

Then, in a mixed message, Bush reminded Americans that they voted for his plan when they re-elected him in 2004. Translated, the Iraqi disaster is not all his fault. After all, "misery deserves company."

What happened to the good old days? Father Knows Best actress, Jane Wyatt died recently, but Republicans wish they could revive her legacy by channeling the times when, as she put it, there were good wives of good men.

Republicans would like nothing more than for Hillary or Obama to win the Democratic nomination. With their party in a shambles, Republicans need a polarizing figure to reinvigorate their base: having a woman or black opponent plays right into their playbook.

Republican party strategists are quite sure their racist, sexist base would not condescend to having a strong woman, nor cotton to an uppity black -- no matter how compelling they may be.

The not-too-subtle Rove battle plan then is to help either candidate Hillary or Obama win the Democratic nomination.

I met Hillary at a local school benefit and it's impossible not to like her warm demeanor. Though I've never met Obama, he has that instantly likeable ease about him and his winning smile seems infectious. Both politicians are brilliant, but neither one has any more of a chance with the Republican base in 2008 than they would have had in 1955, before the time, as Ronald Reagan put it, there was any sexism or racism in this country.

In Rove's eyes, Osama has a greater chance than Obama of winning the White House. And Hillary has been the conservative talk show hosts' lightning rod ever since she started talking about universal health care and acquired power as a New York senator.

Democrats, of course, love to lose by being progressive. Mondale's female veep and Gore's Jewish running mate would never fly with white bread Christian males, and Republicans knew it. To be on the cutting edge of enlightenment in this country, is to be on the losing end of elections. Sadly, the Republicans have used this cynical strategy since Richard Nixon was booted out of office.

So what do Democrats do with their exciting, brilliant, charismatic -- and doomed candidates? That's the question that needs to be answered.

Therein lies the conundrum. To deny the party's greatest talents out of expediency and political pragmatism would be racist and sexist. To not do so, may usher in a new era of trickle up wealth, while putting social progress on hold.

Perhaps the tragic failures in Iraq and the ballooning national debt will be catalyst enough for change in the mind set of the Republican base. Perhaps ignoramuses will become the new untouchables in the Post-Bush American politic. If that's the case, maybe this is the time to gold for the gold.

Or maybe, despite all the policy failures of the current administration, something will get lost in translation, and Americans will vote once again for the time when Jane Wyatt was the midwife of good, white, male, power-mongering.