In the ashes of Harold Ford Jr.'s narrow loss on Tuesday, it is important for Kossacks - especially those from outside of Tennessee - to understand the
real reason why Ford was unable to win a seat to the U.S. Senate.
The reason? Ford lost his left flank.
More on the flip--
Having been fairly active in Tennessee politics, I have been following Ford's Senate bid since he'd announced. I've even been volunteering on his campaign since he won the primary and am familiar with both his field and press operations. I would categorize myself as a liberal Democrat, though one that understands the ideological obstacles that Southern Democrats have to negotiate to get elected. I've also witnessed firsthand successful Tennessee Democrats like Phil Bredesen thread the needle of pleasing the liberal Democratic base while simultaneously appearing conservative on key issues that matter to Tennesseans.
Let me cut to the chase and lay out some of what happened to the Ford campaign as it unfolded. For a long time, liberals like myself all over the state had to force themselves to stomach Harold Ford. Not necessarily because of his conservative stance on the issues that matter to us, but because he - like Joe Lieberman - was the Democrat of choice for Fox News and other right wing pundits when they wanted to attack the left. Ford, like Lieberman, helped provide legitimacy to the Cons' attacks on progressives and constantly undercut the Democratic message, whether it was on the War or domestic policy issues. But after the Senate primary race, when it was obvious that it was "Ford's turn" and that Bob Corker might be beatable, even liberal Democrats sucked it in, held their nose, and took one for the team to help elect Junior (apologies for the mixed metaphor). Kossacks who live in the South know the drill - it happens nearly every election cycle. For Tennessee progressives, having to deal with Ford's conservatism, his corrupt family, his arrogance, and even his public attacks on what I would consider the Democratic Party base, was nothing unusual. We were used to being hit by Ford - not just on television and radio, but here at home, including at a DFA Meetup, a Music Row Democrats gathering in 2004, and even at College Democrat meetings across the state. But we took it. We had to get the Senate.
Then, there came a turning point. It started with the "Memphis Meltdown" where every progressive (and independent) I know stared in revulsion at Ford's petulance as he crashed Bob Corker's press conference. It got worse as Ford continued to bash Corker for "attacking my family" - even though Corker hadn't. And Ford's ads got worse. Each one proclaimed even LOUDER than the last one that he was anti-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigrant, anti-abortion. Ford was overcompensating, once again trying the famous (failed) tactic of DLC Democrats - to out-Republican the Republican. After weeks of these ads, progressives felt weary.
It didn't help, either, that Junior refused to support liberal firebrand Steve Cohen, who was running to fill Ford's vacated seat. Ford put his pathetic family over the greater good of keeping the seat in the Party's hands and many of us wondered if Ford was holding back on supporting Cohen because his brother Jake wanted the seat or because Cohen was liberal. We still don't really know, though in any case, Cohen trounced Jake with over 60% of the vote - the one good thing that happened in Tennessee on Election Night.
As Election Day drew nearer, the repeated gay- and immigrant-bashing ads, the Cohen snub, and the Memphis Meltdown had finally taken a toll on many liberals that I am good friends with. These good soldiers, self-described "yellow dogs" who had taken one for team had finally been worn down by Ford's arrogance. I personally talked to over a dozen people who said they would not - could not - vote for Ford because of his disrespect for liberal values. Not disagreement with our values, but an outright disrespect bordering on hostility.
It was this combination of hostility, immaturity, and poor character that I believe cost Ford a significant amount of votes from liberals - and therefore the election. Considering that Corker only won with a margin of less than 50,000 votes, that breaks down to about 21 votes per precinct.
Now I know there are naysayers out there who would have you believe that all of Ford's conservative positions and his attacks on liberals and progressive values helped him more than it hurt him in a "red state" like Tennessee. To those people I have two things to say. First, don't confuse having a conservative position with leading the charge against progressive positions. Being a pro-life Democrat is quite different from being the Democrat that leads the charge against choice. Second, why is it that Bob Casey, who is also anti-choice and against gay marriage, was able to pound the snot out of Rick Santorum. Do you believe that Pennsylvania is more liberal than Tennessee on those issues? Trust me, it's not. Casey (and Jim Webb for that matter) knew how to "thread the needle" of being conservative on several key issues while still maintaining support from the liberal wing of the Party. Harold Ford Jr. not only couldn't do that, he wouldn't. And hence the loss.
In a 50/50 divided nation, when elections are won or lost within two to four points, a candidate has to know how to stitch together a broad coalition of interests and ideologies to make up a winning majority. All of the other Senate candidates who won on Tuesday were able to do that - even in "red" states like Montana, Ohio, and Virginia. But not Junior. By overemphasizing his conservative credentials, Harold Ford Jr. lost his left flank - and therefore the election.
So as James Carville, Rahm Emmanuel, and the rest of the impotent DC establishment try to say (with a straight face, nonetheless) that Howard Dean should be replaced as Chairman of the DNC with the likes of Harold Ford Jr., ask yourself this: If Ford has such a disdain for the grassroots and isn't even willing to tolerate liberals when it comes to winning his own campaign, how can we expect him to run herd over a coalition as vast and ideologically diverse as the national Democratic Party? And where exactly will Harold Ford Jr. go to raise money for the DNC? The grassroots or corporate America?
I will say this: Harold Ford Jr. will be a better fit in Washington DC than he ever was in Tennessee. But can we afford to have a person running the DNC who actually shuns key Democratic Party values and - even worse - treats the advocates of those values as inferiors?
It was a sad day when Tennessee missed its chance to ride a Democratic wave and capture a Senate seat because of a flawed candidate who won't respect different points of view. It will be an even worse day if that same man takes the reins of a political party that is supposed to be dedicated to diversity of ideas, respect, and new ways of thinking.