The democratic party Must learn to appeal to the american People again.

And .. dont you love that the DLCers believe what the party theyve led to loss after loss needs most is... to protect their home state interests. Ugh

The democrats message was lost in long winded speeches of Kerry. I can recite almost the entire Bush stump speech (gag), but none of Kerry's.

Why is that? Why do I know my opponent's speech and not my own guy's? Marketing. Pure and simple marketing.

If Democrats want to win anything back it can only be done with old fashioned marketing. simple messsages that can have some of your 'ole fashioned straight-talk' but it has to be targeted,concise and understandable.

Remember Edwards 'Two Americas' stump speech? there is the perfect example of where the Democrats need to be.

Let me rephrase my argument in the way that it was originally meant.  After Iowa and New Hampshire, you have basically a front-runner, one trailing (but not hopelessly so) rival, and one or two longshots.  And that's after two nearly all-white states with basically no suburbs have their say.

These candidates have not ben battle tested among the real core audiences of the Democratic Party which is fundamentally urban and diverse.  You speak of the idealism of caucusing but then you want to leave the system in place where the actual caucusers are pretty homogeneous - how exactly does "common ground" emerge from these caucuses when the overwhelming majority of Democrats aren't even at the table?  

Here's merely one example.  Some Jewish voters care a hell of a lot about US-Israel policy.  Not all, some.  Those that do REALLY care about it.  And these voters want to hear the candidates articulate how they would approach this aspect of foreign policy if elected.  But if there are no Jewish voters in the mix to really worry about, where is the early months-and-months pressure to articulate this policy for the candidates?  Where is the proving ground to weed out inauthenticity?  

That is just one example.  You can argue that issues like these should not supercede larger, more global issues about a candidate's vision, the ones that affect all of us.  And you would be right.  But there also should be world peace, because every citizen has an interest in peace between nations.

So you wake up in the middle of the GE with a candidate who never had to go through a testing by fire on a number of issues that may rank highly within traditional Democratic consituencies.  Instead of having a candidate that you KNOW will connect with Jewish voters in Florida, for example, you have a candidate that you KNOW did well among Iowa non-Jewish Democrats and you HOPE will do well with Florida voters who do care a lot about this issue.  

And there is a cost to the Democratic nominee because of this absence of early pressure.  These aren't fringe issues, they are issues important to many in your base.  

So you try making up for lost ground by focus grouping.  Then you become dependent on focus grouping - you KNOW for a fact what worked in Iowa, you're GUESSING what will play in Florida and Nevada.  And now you come off like a panderer, because all of a sudden people are hearing your messages for the first time in the middle of the GE.

Candidates tend to overplay in the GE their arguments that they know worked the primaries.  It's only human.  When they do speak to the newer, untested issues, they don't feel as comfortable, so they get far less emphasis and voters who DO care about those issues come away feeling like they're unsure of the candidate's position.

Isn't it better to have candidates who won't have the perception of pandering because they never make it to the nomination in the first place unless they had it within them all along?