BOSTON. After switching their allegiance from anarcho-communist Howard Dean to ultra-liberal John Kerry, and then to liberal John Edwards, on the final day of their convention Democrats switched one last time to extreme moderate Adolf Hitler, convinced that he's the man who has the best chance of beating Bush.
"This election has never been about issues," said Democratic Party spokesman Heinrich Himmler. "It's not about whether we go to war, about military spending, or taxes, or the federal budget, or the environment, or civil liberties, or even abortion. That's the kind of starry-eyed idealism that killed us in '72. This election is about one thing -- getting that bastard Bush out of there, that lying, draft-dodging, coke-snorting, beady-eyed, stupid, bad, bad person. Hate him! Hate him! Hate him!"
General Hermann Goering, an early supporter of Hitler's campaign, agreed. "Clearly, for the Democratic Party to be relevant, they have to capture the presidency, and the way to do it is by moving farther and farther to the center. John Kerry is a war veteran, and voted for the Iraq war, but he's haunted by his anti-war background. After September 11, that's just not going to play in the heartland, or in the South. Hitler, on the other hand, has always been pro-war. He's called for the liberation of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Canada, even Europe. On national defense and the war on terror, he's even more moderate than Bush!"
Moderation, says columnist Joseph Goebbels, is the key. "On so many issues, such as his proposals to clear-cut the national forests, to put all dissidents into detention facilities, to double defense spending, to abolish all corporate taxes, to prohibit labor unions, and to conquer the world in a thousand year American homeland, Hitler makes the other Democrats, and even Bush, look like raving Green Party radicals, tree-hugging, granola-eating, flower-sniffing hippie-anarchists. If moderate means making your opponents look liberal in comparison, and clearly that's exactly what it means, then Hitler is as moderate as they come."
Senator Joseph Lieberman has enthusiastically endorsed Hitler's campaign. "At last," Lieberman said, "we have a candidate who will do something about degenerate culture, about all the filth coming out of Hollywood, someone who will clean up those stinking subhumans who have defiled the purity of American culture. I think this will be a final solution."
Although Democrats rank Hitler consistently low (roughly 0%) in terms of personal agreement with his policies, most of them are happily falling behind him. Says Cedar Rapids activist Wendy Pipkin, "I mean, if I could pick anyone I wanted, it would be Dennis Kucinich, but the people can't just pick anyone they want. This is a democracy, which means you have to pick someone who people believe other people will vote for, and nobody will vote for Kucinich because, you know, nobody will vote for him. Hitler gives us a real chance to get a Democrat back in the White House."
But not everyone agrees. Some Democrats are nervous about Hitler's candidacy, like Seattle precinct committee officer Richard Shodley. "Hitler's a vegetarian," he says, wringing his hands, "and he's made statements that could be construed as sympathetic to animal rights activists. We can't afford to give Republicans that much ammunition. What I really fear is, Bush could still win."
