Now that Clinton has formally ended her bid for the presidential nomination, hopefully Democrats will start focusing more aggressively on the larger picture.
Back in early November, I suggested:
It is time for Democrats, instead of simply uttering conclusions, to use examples and the power of suggestion to make the case against their Republican counterparts.
Maybe this is why there was so much animosity towards Clinton. The belief that somehow, she required us to refrain from doing this; that is, she required us to focus on, and discuss, ad nauseum, her campaign. And perhaps the communication below to one such prognosticator, with Hillary planning to bow out of the race, is now outdated.
But I don't think so. It is an email sent to Harold Meyerson, with respect to his May 28 editorial: an editorial calling Clinton largely responsible for what he terms an "absurdity;" calling her convoluted arguments regarding Florida and Michigan "outrageous;" and concluding that those who disagree with his premise that planned convention protestors (as of May 28) is anything more than situational ethics (a premise I do agree with him on) turns feminism into the "last refuge of scoundrels."
Does this reflect the best focus?
Let's take a quick look at the big picture:
Presumptive Nominee Barack Obama is almost a rock star to many; the Republican Party is in what many describe as almost complete disarray; several Conservatives can't help but admit that they actuallly like Obama; barely a quarter of Americans even identify themselves as Republicans right now in polls (please correct me if I am wrong here, I recall reading that somewhere); we have had only 8 years of Democratic leadership, and 20 years of Republican leadership in the past 28 (the last eight of which was dismal, some would say dreadful); far more Americans identify themselves as Democrat than Republican; a significantly larger percentage of Americans favor Democratic Party positions; and we are coming off of what many Americans consider to be the worst Administration in U.S. History -- and certainly in modern history -- and one which even several leading conservatives, as noted below, have called "tryannical." Yet the two parties' respective nominees, amazingly (or not), are running fairly close in the polls. And an op-ed in Friday's NY Times, using statistical analysis, even concludes that if the election were held today, McCain would win.
Gore should have won by a large margin in 2000. Kerry's victory in 2004 should have been even easier. And, while the political future can not be predicted beyond speculation, whoever the Democratic nominee is today should be far ahead.
There are a lot of reasons offered as to why this is not the case; and, more relevantly, why Gore, and then Kerry, failed to resoundingly win elections where they should have been big favorites. Almost all of them, valid or not, are also distractions from the big picture; Democrats -- despite the apparent beliefs of many active Democrats quick to find fault with their own nominees -- ran far better candidates, who also held much more sensible (and more popular) positions, and lost. And, to a certain extent in 2000, and particularly in 2004, lost to an extreme candidate and then administration. Yet the Democratic Party had the same opportunity to make the case that (what has become the right to far right wing of the Republican Party) did; and if, as many claim, Republicans lied and/or deceived, that simply became part of the much stronger case to make.
A big part of the challenge is the focus of Democrats, which the email to Meyerson addresses.
It also appears that a bigger part of the problem is the apparent unwillingness of Democrats to consider this possibility, and our apparent reluctance to consider that perhaps there is some correlation between what and how we as Democrats focus on, and how we do in big elections.
A big impediment to recognizing the need to reevalute the level and committment of our focus, is the tendency, instead, to suggest "rationales" (although I would term them "excuses") as to why these aforementioned results occurred; that is, to explain away results by saying what the far right did (when we are perfectly capable of not just illustrating this, but using it to effectively define them), or what the media did (rather than focusing intently upon taking steps to correct it), or what "voters" did (which is sillly; voters act upon the information that they receive; they always have, and they always will; the key is being able to reach them, and not neccessarily other active Democrats, with the right messages and facts), or even, counter-productively, to avoid the issue altogether by claiming that we technically did not not lose.
Many of these rationales of course are issue related. Yet sometimes the key points -- again, from a public awareness and perception perspective, not an active Democrat perspective -- have not always been correctly identifed. And much of the time we have not made them -- once again, to America, not to other active Democrats, sufficiently clear and predominant. Nor have we effectively saturated America sufficiently, and constantly enough (and through various means), to rise above all of the conflicting chatter, claims, and "supposed information," in order for them to become part of the national pysche or common knowledge, as the Far Right has done; and, which, to boot, it has often done with respect to extremely distorted or misleading messages and claims. (In itself another key point to saturate the country with, by effectively illustrating and showing it.)
It was back in early November that I wrote: "It is time that Democrats, instead of simply uttering conclusions, used examples and the power of suggestion, to make the case against their Republican counterparts." (As well as use Republicans own statements; but true to the tendency to believe that people already see things the way active Democrats do, there is an apparent lack of realization of just how many more times powerful a case is against one's opponents when you can make it with their own words.)
In late November, I wrote on here:
Why are Republicans and Democrats spending most of their time ripping into Democratic candidates?
In November. And with the excuse that "Hillary is still running," we continued to do it. For Six more months.
My letter to Meyerson:
In Wednesday, May 28's "Clinton's Two-State Two-Step," you write; "and it's certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment, just as Barack Obama has been on the receiving end of bigoted treatment."
Do you really believe the implication here with respect to the objectivity, balance, and attitude applied to both candidates? I'm a supporter of Obama, but in all fairness, Clinton has received a level of disrespect and treatment (much of which has come from Democrats -- WHO HAVE BEEN AND ARE WAY TOO FOCUSED ON THIS HILLARY/OBAMA THING AND NOT McCAIN -- which is not Clinton's fault but Democrats' choice)... that is fairly unique.
Relating this to the McCain thing, yes, on the one hand, Clinton's hyped up metaphors can be characterized by some as "outrageous," as you do. But on the other hand, big deal. She is trying to become President, which she believes she is best qualified to do and most likely to win. (Whether one agrees or disagrees is beside the point, she has won an unusually large number of votes for a losing nominee, and she is entitled to these views and to try to promote them, even if, like you, I don't buy or even like the analogies she is making. I also agree that a few of them seem pretty specious and potentially inflammatory, but this is a woman who, as their constant target and focus, has been constantly and often horrendously villainized and very deceptively portrayed by the Far Right for years now, and has also not been treated with the same standards by the press afforded other candidates. )
It is, largely, only "destructive" to the Democratic party because Democrats have chosen to make a big deal about it; instead of, once again, simply focusing on making the case against a continuation of Bush light, foreign mistakes, warmongering, and exacerbation, large, imperial, intrusive government (use a phrase that Republicans like but actually applies in more important ways to its own party now -- backed up by several prominent Republicans themselves), sound bites and emotionally based attacks in lieu of sound policy, and saturating the country with it now before McCain otherwise gets too well defined in the minds of voters otherwise.
While I don't necessarily support the protest you refer to either, and without getting into an analysis of possible alternative points of view, your closing line is also exceedingly harsh. It at least mildly reminds me of the type of harshness the Far Right pummels everyone else (calling them all "the Left"), including the media, with. Again, why the focus upon this instead of the legacy of Far Right rule (some leading conservatives, including Bruce Fein and Mickey Edwards, have called it tyrannical -- again the importance credibility wise of using this in the mainstream seems to be largely lost on Democrats) by the Bush Administration, several elements of which McCain has evolved into a big supporter of.
I have not had a chance to catch up with the editorial page much, but the last time I looked, was also reflective of this [as on other occasions], in some small way. There on the editorial page were you and Dionne, both writing about the Hillary thing -- which is your prerogative to do -- while Krauthammer, true to form, and in stark contrast, was once again hammering away at Obama. Mercilessly. And, I could make the case and others need to start doing it, doing so in quite a manipulative, mischaracterized, distorted, illogical and skewed way.
As suggested in November, Democrats need to expend more effort focusing on showing and communicating, not telling and concluding, the points that need to be made, and on effectively saturating the country, and not just the Democratic base, with these points.