Someone is being puckish at the Journal’s editorial page. In the “Divided for Obama” piece today, highlighting putative nominee Obama’s weaknesses, the writer closes by admonishing Democrat superdelegates that they have a serious choice to make:

One habit of modern Democrats is that they tend to fall in love with candidates who are both unknown and untested. The superdelegates will now have to decide if Mr. Obama is more like the Jimmy Carter of 1976 – or Michael Dukakis.

Carter or Dukakis? What a choice! Who did more harm to the party, (forget the nation)? One merely lost an election. The other destroyed the party’s grip on the nation’s political apparatus for a generation. He destroyed the credibility of liberalism. While we are crediting Carter, I’d speculate that he converted vast numbers of Americans to conservatism. And the Carter model is the positive outcome here? It should only be so…