That is what next year’s election should boil down to. Plain and simple.
It doesn’t matter who the Democratic Presidential nominee is – all of them are quite capable and more or less on “our side”. Granted, there are no heroes, and some candidates would be more (or less) vindication for politics as usual or the progressive movement. But all of them (yes, certainly including Clinton) are no brainers as compared to whatever (or whomever) the republicans put up.
In pretty much every race.
So let’s fast forward past the primaries – to a time when we know who our candidates are. When we have the candidates we have (as opposed to the candidates we wish we have). It doesn’t matter if the Democrats are running Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Dennis Kucinich. There will be smears, there will be attacks, there will be lies.
What needs to be done – and what hasn’t been done in many prior election cycles is that the Democrats need to set the narrative and set it early on. We all know that once the narrative is set, it is very difficult to change that narrative or change the terms of the discussion. The difference here is that nearly all of the republican-established narratives have been disingenuous at best, and outright lies, and we have facts, American sentiment and reality on our side.
Even with the missteps of the Democratic Congressional leadership (willful or not…), there is no way that the continuing occupation of Iraq and many of the other excesses, crimes and corrupt behavior of the republicans, Bush administration and its supporters will be hung on the Democratic Party, at least not by many in the general public. And if we are successful in setting the narrative early and forcefully, this will be something that no republican candidate can run or hide from.
Which goes back to the title of this diary. Reagan was able to use a variation of this when he asked the country if they were better off then they were four years ago. This worked well because he was running against an incumbent, however that doesn’t disqualify it from working now. Especially since pretty much every republican marched in lockstep with what Mister Bush wanted, even if they were not in Congress. Of course, each of the Presidential contenders have their own baggage (Rudy has bad judgment and can’t be trusted, for example), but every issue, every position, every argument can be wrapped around this theme.
And the best part is that this is not only universal and simple to understand and explain – it meshes with the “change of direction” that the Democrats will no doubt be pushing for over the upcoming year (even if it is somewhat disingenuous as well…).
What republican wants to get us out of Iraq? What republican is concerned with the dire healthcare situation in this country? What republican wants to do much about the environment or global warming? What republican wants to roll back the outrageous powers of the Executive Branch? What republican wants to speak out against torture (not even McCain does)? What republican wants to do something about the economy that will HELP, not hurt the middle class?
And so on and so on.
Senator Kerry said recently that he wishes that he set the tone in 2002 or 2003 about his faith and his lifelong approach to religion. He wanted to establish himself before the republicans did it for him. While that is very noble and he should be commended for recognizing that he could have set the frame for who he actually was and what he actually stood for before the smear machine did it to for him, it is a lesson that should be learned sooner rather than later.
It is less than one year from the election. And while we may not be happy with our choices, they could be worse. And the opponents are MUCH worse. As much as this may be a “hold your nose and vote for the bad option over the worse option” election, the worse option is actually a disastrous option and a complete continuation of the oppressive erosion of our rights here in the US, a foreign policy where the nicest word that can be used is “reckless”, an arrogant dismissal of torture as no real big deal, a “bury your head in the sand” approach to healthcare and an economic policy that will only speed up the complete ruin of the middle class (especially if the AMT isn’t resolved).
The previous paragraph is where the country is headed. Which makes the question simple for anyone that asks what the difference is between Clinton or Obama or Edwards and Giuliani or Romney or McCain. The current situation is directly related to policies of the republican party. And a republican Congress/President/administration will only continue speeding this country down the wrong track into a brick wall.
The Democratic candidates and Congressional officials won’t do nearly enough from our perspective to change all of this. But they will do something, and something in the right direction. The only response to any question as to why someone should vote for the Democrat (or should vote at all) is that one party is totally committed to continuing the disastrous {INSERT PARTICULAR PET POLICY HERE} policies of the past 10 years, and one will not.
Its time to go on the attack and set the narrative – the media won’t, that is for sure. But we can.
And we must. Otherwise, this country will continue to head in the wrong direction, but faster.
also in orange
How the hell would I know? Stalin and Hitler were both dead before I was born.
From time spent in other banana republics, I kind of don’t think I like what I’m seeing, but opposing that kind of government when you’ve no money gets you tortured into submission (or into the grave, or out of a helicopter, or …) so….
Great points, and exactly why I wish we could focus on the real battle and not Clinton v. Obama v. Edwards etc. A lot of energy is being used up among the progressive blogosphere attacking other Dem candidates, not to mention creating fodder for the Republican smear machine next year.
I’m pretty sure that the Republicans can come up with plenty of material for their smear machine even if we only ever said nice things about the Dem candidates.
Anyway, I’d argue that the primaries are the real value. The general election determines whether we win or not, but the primaries determine to a large degree what we win, and how much.
I hear you, and I am not suggesting we just say nice things about the Dem candidates. It’s just getting so damn predictable. Even if you’re already amped up against a Clinton nomination, like me, does another anti-Clinton post (or similarly with Obama or Edwards) really do anything for you? The readers of these sites know where the candidates stand, who they are. I’ve totally stopped reading some sites because of their constant Dem v Dem focus. Different strokes, I guess.
Senator Kerry said recently that he wishes that he set the tone in 2002 or 2003 about his faith and his lifelong approach to religion.
Had Kerry done that, I probably wouldn’t have voted for him. I had to hold my nose to vote for him to begin with, but that would have been the last straw.
What we need are not candidates who will whore out their religious views for votes, but instead candidates who will take that first loaded question from the FOX reporter at the very first news conference and say, “My religious views are none of your damn business,” and repeat it as many times as necessary.
“It doesn’t matter who the Democratic Presidential nominee is – all of them are quite capable and more or less on ‘our side’.”
Very misleady, clammyc. The crucial words are “more or less” — because some are a lot more on our side and some a lot less. Personally, I think Hillary is much less…
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010771.php
To say that voting for any Democrat is a no-brainer against anyone the Republicans put up is a truism… one has to agree, but you almost make it sound as if it doesn’t matter who the Democratic nominee is.
The two issues sound deceptively similar but are in reality very different. Confusion between the two may indeed be the reason why Hillary has as much support as she does. Resoning: “The odds are on her… any Democrat is better than any Republican… so I might as well be for Hillary. What the hell.” It cuts out the entire question of whether you would rather have somebody else. Which is supposed to be the purpose of the primary process. We have some pretty good candidates. I’d take almost any of them over Hillary.
I am writing this as thought the primaries are already over and we have our candidates.
And even still, the choices on the Democratic side may not be great, and may even be bad in a number of instances, think about who is the republican candidate or incumbent.
And BTW, I am an independent, so I am no “vote D all the time” kinda guy…
I didn’t want to put multiple URLs in the same comment, but after you’ve read about how Scaife and the Clintons are playing coochy coo, I’m sure you’ll want to know about how fond Rupert Murdoch now is of them. What a coincidence.
http://www.dailyreckoning.us/blog/?p=445
You still think Hillary is very much on “our side”? If so, I have a very nice bridge you might want to take a look at …
read that one today. And no, I am no fan by any stretch of Hillary (and not much of one for Bill either).
But unfortunately when you have 2 choices after the primaries are over, that is who you are stuck with. And not voting may feel satisfying with 2 bad choices, but even with 2 bad choices, one is clearly worse in this instance.
To make this point at this stage of the election cycle is to declare that you are ready to fall into line and play dead if and when the Dem Party shafts us once again by nominating a Dem Lite candidate. I for one have had enough of this. There is no way I will ever vote for Hillary.
And that is what the Blogosphere must be signaling at this point: that the vast majority of people under fifty find Hillary unacceptable.
Saying now that the right thing to if Hillary gets nominated is to vote for her is to do with respect to the Democratic Right what the Dems repeatedly do with respect to the Republicans: signal preemptive surrender.
Gone are the days when people wanted to serve their country. They are all in it to serve themselves.
wrong, wrong, wrong… all of them are “no-brainers…?” i gave you more credit, clammyc, mistakenly, i see… hillary is dick cheney in drag, barack is hillary-lite, and i don’t honestly know about edwards… i think kucinich is the real deal but i don’t see how he can survive the withering ridicule and sustained unprincipled attacks… dodd says the right stuff – occasionally – but doesn’t seem to have the huevos to hold steady…
should all the mechanisms of unfettered executive power still be on the books as of 20 january 2009, the thought of hillary’s hand on the bible as she takes the oath of office positively gives me the creeps, particularly when i see mark penn and burson-marsteller lined up for a cabinet post… obama, with citibank, goldman sachs and morgan stanley all drooling over his shoulder, isn’t a more inviting prospect, i can assure you…
the democrats are every bit as complicit in the slow-motion united states constitutional train wreck as the republicans, and to think that a democratic president in 2009 will fix that is a dangerous degree of naivete… accepting the fact that our dear democratic party isn’t going to save our bacon isn’t an easy pill to swallow, i will be the first to admit, but, the sooner we get around to facing that reality, the sooner we can start pulling together to make the REAL changes that so desperately need to be made…
Dr. Marcus-
Read Bowers.
For what it is worth, it should make you feel slightly better.
Alexander,
Right, that’s basically my point too. Well put.
Professor Marcus,
True, none of the other Democratic candidates are perfection itself, and I have grave doubts about Biden, but I believe all the others are easily preferable enough to Hillary to be worth voting in the primaries, at the very least.
As to whether Dodd has the huevos, we may soon find out, because he has vowed to filibuster any bill giving the telecoms retroactive immunity, and it may come to that …