Allison Stevens writes “To be sure, it’s disappointing that no women have stepped forward, but you can’t just blame women politicians themselves for failing to get into the race.”

Yes I can. True, her point here is that Beltway insiders and that great un-party known as the DNC bear some responsibility too. But primary resonsibility for the Democrats having no women presidential candidates in 2004 will fall upon those women Democrats who could have run but didn’t.

If the likes of Gephardt and Daschle are only posting single digits in polls, how can the likes of Feinstein and Pelosi resign themselves to the sidelines? In their cases in particular, they’d already be ahead by virtue of carrying California. (The conventional wisdom seems to count out any democrat from California because they’d inevitably carry the state, but yet they touted Bush as a winner in 2000 for exactly the same reason.)

And then there’s Hillary. She’s polarizing, to be sure. But if the DNC posted such a bad showing in 2002 because of lackluster turnout, would that be a bad thing? God forbid they should run someone who already mobilizes the base. No, the DNC would much rather nominate someone who is just barely left of bland, thinking that dull, wishy-washy policy will somehow inspire support from swing voters. Never mind that if they’d turn out their natural base–the disenfranchised–they’d easily beat whatever fundamentalists and gun nuts the GOP could turn out.

But the fear of conservative talk radio and Fox News still looms. But how much credibility would they have if Hillary won? And how much credibility would liberal talking heads gain? But the Democrats have yet to learn that without risk there can be no victory. Or as the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart advised the Democrats, “Get nutsack.”