Ron Brownstein had a great column with constructive advice for Democrats in the LaTimes today.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-outlook8nov08,1,3777375.column?coll=la-news-p
olitics-national
Some highlights:
But the answer, and the lesson, appears about as clear as these things ever get: The Democrats need to widen the electoral battlefield.
A nominee with more appeal in the red states might also create a climate that enables the party to seriously contest more House and Senate seats.
That imperative seems certain to raise the 2008 profile of Democrats who have won elections in regions the party needs to put back into play -- such as governors Tom Vilsack of Iowa (the rural Midwest), Bill Richardson of New Mexico (the desert Southwest) and especially Mark R. Warner of Virginia (the South).
He also notes that Bush doesnt have a broad majority. Th 29 states Bush won the past two times equal 274 EVs. The 18 Gore states that Kerry won equals 248.
I agree with him that a candidate(more specifically a governor) from one these regions can better address "moral values." I dont think we have a problem with values, we just need to address them better. Example: I read an article from a few weeks ago about an evangelical voter, a woman who should have been firmly in Bush's camp but didnt like his policies yet was uncomfortable with Kerry's stand on issues like partial-birth abortion. She said that Kerry actually came to her office one time on a campaign stop and she asked him why did he vote against the ban on PB abortion. According to her, he had no answer and she was dismayed.
Another example: My mom, a PHD in biology and an ardent Kerry supporter, was disappointed in the way he explained stem cell research(in all the gay marriage stuff, no one has mentioned this) in the second debate. According to her, he seemed to make it ethics v. science, and that science was better. She loved the way Ron Reagan explained it at the DNC, saying that ethics and science can co-exist.
I think someone like Mark Warner, who is pro-choice, can explain sensitive issues like abortion well. From what I've read he has a view like Obama's, in that, nobody is pro-abortion. It is a difficult choice, but a choice that a woman should make, and we need to make sure she has all the resources and info to make the right decision, whatever it is.
Finally, Brownstein points out Kerry ran a pretty good campaign overall. What people seem to forget: a liberal senator from MA got the second most votes ever against an incumbent war-time president. We have something here! Let's develop it like the GOP did with conservatism after Goldwater's defeat in 64. Like them, it needs to be done from the bottom up, in congress and senate and at the state level. In 1968, the GOP nominated Nixon, who wasnt a conservative, in fact I think Goldwater hated him. In less than two decades, they were rewarded with Ronald Reagan. We need to do the same. Hilary or Dean arent going to work in 2008. We need a centrist. But if we are patient and work at, in less than two decades we may very well be rewarded with President Barack Obama.
