I wrote Rosalind Kurita in on my Democratic primary ballot yesterday, but I watched the streamed video from Harold Ford's victory celebration. It was the first time I've seen him speak for any length of time, and I was rather impressed with his political skill. He introduced Bill Clinton with high praise, and Bill took the stage.
Clinton's speech, as so many of his do, had me nodding my head and wishing the rest of us could articulate so clearly the difference between the worst of the Republicans and the best of the Democrats.
He nailed the 2000 & 2004 GOP election theme without an effort. Where they had campaigned on a "different philosophy", from the Democrats, Clinton illustrated the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. He drove home the distinction in several ways, but particularly with the difference between a philosophy challenged - which results in debate and review of evidence - and an ideology challenged, which provokes an attack. He reminded his audience, many of whom were watching live all across Tennessee, that the last 6 years of Republican ideology hasn't
worked; that the Democratic philosophy did work during the '90s, not because the philosophy has all the answers, but because it was approached with common sense, and care for getting the right answer.
The larger points shone through, with plenty of wonkish, real world examples (to the point that the news anchors complained of not enough red meat, and too much policy):
1) The Iraq War has been mismanaged and requires a change of course. That the failure came from Republican marriage to ideology.
2) That securing our country against terrorism required, above all else, securing the ports - that the port protection bill, which would have provided for the scanning of containers at all ports was too expensive for the Congress, but that the much more expensive estate tax repeal was a number one priority. IOW a large sum spent to protect 300,000 million Americans was a budget-buster under Republican ideology, while a much larger sum spent to enrich the top 1% was an overriding priority.
3) That the economy could only begin to grow wages and lift all boats if Americans, like the Britains, found the new job source for the 21st century: clean energy. That a clean energy industry would produce millions of new high paying jobs, and protect us from possibly catastrophic environmental changes at the same time. This is where he got really wonky, talking about how much money Texas Instruments, Wal*Mart, and others were making by making environmentally responsible changes to their way of doing business.
Clinton praised Al Gore lavishly for the movie. And, of course, he praised Harold Ford aplenty, too. He said that Ford would make a great addition to the U.S. Senate, not just because he would be a strong Democrat (after all - we all have to admit that he's a little too red for our tastes), but because he would be a hard thinker. I do believe that about Ford. And, though I would have preferred a stronger progressive on the ticket, I'm encouraged to support Ford's candidacy over that of Bob Corker, my own former Mayor.
By the way, Bob Corker won handily last night, too. That's encouraging to me as well. Corker is no Snowe or Chaffee, but he is far more moderate than the neo-theo-shills who ran against him in the primary: Van Hilleary & Ed Bryant. And he was a fine mayor for Chattanooga. He really did get results and bring our town into the 21st century. If the worst happens, and Bill Frist's seat remains in Republican hands, at least it will be one who is capable of moderation (whether or not he will exercise it), and who has governed successfully at some point in his life (whether or not he will do so in the future). He's the best possible Republican candidate for a southern Red State, and I think Harold Ford may just be the best possible Democratic candidate for a southern Red State. If Corker wins, it will be a big step upward for Tennessee from Frist, and if Ford wins, it will be a very big step upward for us.