I don't quite know where to begin. This is a rather
unfocused news story to begin with, so it'd be difficult to find any one aspect to deal with. Or so I thought, until I read this quote:
"Although unity is important it is not the most important value. It is, I think, a tribute to the Democratic Party at this moment in time that we are honestly and openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues facing our country," Clinton, D-N.Y., told the New Democrat Network.
And it was there, swirling in the hazy mists of Clinton's pseudo-philosophical ramblings, that I found myself.
I like disagreement. I like debate, arguments, discussions. I like hearing all sorts of differing viewpoints, because if I'm wrong about something--well, fuck. I want to know.
But this sort of nonsense that Clinton's talking about is not all roses and wine like she implies.
An unfocused party does not impress the average voter. A party that struggles with what should be very simple issues does not foster a sense of pride or confidence in said party's ability to govern.
I'm dangerously approaching the "soft on terror, tax-and-spend, indecisive" Republican puke-words, but the point remains. If all the Democrats can show is struggles with issues and disagreement, it's not going to be smooth sailing.
We need a focus, we need ACTUAL unity; not the sort of unity that somehow springs from the ashes of disagreement and struggles like some sort of idiotic Phoenix of Illogical Results, nor the sort of rank-and-file, rubberstamp, "let's all hug and kiss King George because right now he's the big dog of the party" unity displayed by the Republicans.
Democrats need to show the people, the voters, the Americans, that they have the will and the ideas to change our country for the better.
Real unity is necessary for that sort of display.
Bullshit like this:
On the issue of Iraq, Clinton has been buffeted by competing forces within her party. Many elements of the party's liberal base want an immediate or timed withdrawal of troops from Iraq, while others feel such a position may weaken the party's electoral chances this year and in 2008.
does not help the Democratic image. When we see candidates more concerned with elections than results, more worried about keeping their asses molded into their seats of power than about our dying troops and our decaying world image... I don't know, it just seems really fucking pathetic.
I certainly won't support someone who's more concerned with themselves than with the welfare of the people he or she is supposed to represent unless I have no choice. It appears that many Democrats are counting on that. Instead of running on issues, instead of running on a platform of change for the better, on ethics and hard work and civil rights and values, they've chosen a "Vote for me because I'm a Democrat" slogan.
The words "sloppy" and "lazy" and even "breathtakingly insipid" spring to mind.
On Thursday, four of the six Democrats flirting with a possible White House bid in 2008, including Clinton, chose a middle-of-the-road approach, voting for a nonbinding resolution that would have urged the administration to start withdrawing troops by year's end.
But they opposed a rival proposal that would have carried the force of law and set a firm date by which all combat forces must be out of Iraq.
Are they afraid of the "cut and run" meme? Are they so afraid and unsure of their actions that they can't stand tall, stand proud, and say "No more lies, no more death; the time has come to think of our soldiers"?
It certainly fucking appears that way.
Maybe I'm over-simplifying, and it's certainly not going to be as easy as "bring the troops home, cure all society's problems," but America is tired of this war. Interviews with families of soldiers killed in Iraq overwhelmingly blame the military and Bushco for foul-ups, lies, and half-baked plans that would do a stoner proud.
A winning strategy is tapping the Democrats on the shoulder, but they're gazes are firmly rooted in their own desires for election. Jesus, winning strategies could piss on Democrats' shoes and they wouldn't think anything of that "strange, warm and yellow rain that seems concentrated on my loafers."
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said while Clinton "is right in admitting her party has no clear plan for the central front in the war on terror, the bottom line is that the Democrats' different approaches all mean the same thing, a surrender to the terrorists."
See, now that's just stupid. Different approaches mean several things, some good and some bad, but it doesn't equate to a surrender to the terrorists. "We surrender to the terrorists" is probably what Schmitt was thinking, although I don't quite remember which Democrat said that.
Oh, I remember now. It was none of them.
Dumbass.
In her speech Friday, Clinton accused the Republican-controlled Congress of being "supine" to the goals of the Bush administration, foregoing their oversight role.
After the speech, she told reporters that the Democrats' public disagreements were a better alternative than the GOP's unified front.
I've already covered this in a round-about way, but it deserves another peek.
If Democrats want to attract voters, wouldn't it make sense to have a party that is FIRLMY united in a number of important issues? Like abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and--oh, I don't know--THE FUCKING WAR?
I know I'd nearly wet myself in glee if the Democrats all stood up and said "This is what we want" instead of their customary "The following is our 'Top 17 Things That Varying Numbers of Us Desire.'"
By all means, discuss, argue, debate your little fucking heads off! But at the end of the day, the Democrats need to understand that they MUST have some sort of consensus to bring to the table.
The one ray of light? The one bright and burning flash of majesty in all of this, that makes me want to fall to my knees, weeping and crying aloud "Holy sweet fucking JESUS it's MAGICAL!!"?
A Governor I had never heard of.
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, another potential White House candidate, told the meeting of party progressives that Democrats should ignore the consultants and pundits and focus on Americans outside Washington.
"Listening to people out and around the country is how we should craft our message," said Vilsack, who stressed the importance of an upbeat outlook, an emphasis on shared sacrifice and the need for competent government in a post-Katrina environment.
Send this man some love.
And contact your Senators and Reps, please. Send the Democrats a message. Let them know that they need to stand together on something, that we crave a strong representation from our leaders. That we want them to stand strong on the issues.
And we want them unified while they fucking do it.