Been lots of talk lately around here about picking the right candidates to represent the Democrats in the upcoming mid-term and national elections. DLC versus progressive versus Southern versus Western versus man versus woman etc.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am a far-left, progressive liberal who sits on the fringe of Kosville's mainstream agenda and strategy.
For the sake of this conversation, I am going to mainly focus on the 2008 Presidential election though the points can be easily extrapolated for 2006. This conversation also takes place in a vacuum because it is an ideological discussion without regard to what the GOP does (and personally, I think that Party's omniscience is about to self-destruct.)
More -
When I look around at the suggested Democratic Presidential Candidates, I am appalled at the lack of major talent within the Party. I am talking about Bill Clinton talent. To me, Bill Clinton was a compromising, pragmatic Centrist who did a lot for "Free Trade" and he helped to create an optimistic mood in the people and in the economy. Let me quickly say that probably much of his compromising pragmatism was born out of political reality. The Republican Congress during most of his administration was obstructionist, cynical and mean-spirited. The unfair impeachment of Clinton was a travesty and a sickening brand of partisan politics that makes anything the Democrats do appear as a pillow-fight at a slumber party by comparison.
In my heart of hearts, I believe it is wrong for the Dems to have moved so far to the right chasing swing voters and Reagan Democrats in losing efforts. If this strategy had worked, I'd feel different.
To be honest, this strategy almost worked, but Gore ran a dismal campaign in 2000 and Kerry wasn't much better. Maybe the 2000 election was stolen. Maybe the 2004 election was stolen.
The point is: these elections should not have been close. They were close because Gore and Kerry did not have the talent to overcome a corporate media that prefers gossip to the truth or the money to counter the GOP monolithic infrastructure of propaganda.
Bill Clinton knew how to talk to America. The son-of-a-bitch had a 60% approval rating after he was impeached. The War President sits at 45%.
Instead of running from Clinton like Cheney ran from the draft-board, Gore should have hammered and hammered away at the partisan Republican politics of personal destruction that impeached a President against the Will of the People. Gore should have shouted from the rooftops how it was he, as Vice-President and President of the Senate who cast the tie-breaking vote that passed Clinton's economic package that led America to the longest and most prosperous period of growth in its history. (Okay, some hyperbole here.)
Kerry should have hammered and hammered away at how he and the country were misled into War in Iraq. He should have asked: where are the WMDs? in every speech. Where are the WMDs? We went to war so a mushroom cloud wouldn't further wreck the Manhattan skyline. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell guaranteed us that war in Iraq was just, but it was based upon a lie. We didn't have the Downing Street memos then, but we had forged yellowcake documents, plagiarized ten-year old college papers, bogus aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs and WMD drones. We had the testimony of hand-picked weapons' inspectors that "we were all wrong."
We had enough to raise reasonable doubt if only we had the will to win.
And now where are we?
As far as the eye can see, we have Democratic candidates who still do not get it.
There is no anti-war candidate. What we have are `the-war-is-wrong-but-we-have-to-stay-the-course' candidates. But folks, the war is over, except for the dying. As long as there is not a "bring-our-troops-home-now" candidate then Bush decides.
Bush is prepared to declare victory in the midst of civil war and bring the troops home just in time for the 2006 midterms.
How can the Democrats run on a `he lied; our soldiers died' platform if they have been MIA for three years? There are more than 200 Democrats in the House and Conyers scraped together 88 to sign his DSM inquiry letter (eventually after much hemming and hawing the number grew to 133 or something - after the blogs turned the DSM into mainstream news.)
By 2008, who will care that Bush lied to start a war? What will the issues be?
And who will have the talent to articulate how pro-family, pro-life, pro-business and pro-military adventures really mean decreased freedom, privacy, prosperity and security?
Here is the likely Democratic field in 2008
John Kerry
Wes Clark
Mark Warner
Bill Richardson
Evan Bayh
John Edwards
Hillary Clinton
Joe Biden
Which of these candidates has the talent of Bill Clinton, the soul of Paul Wellstone and the heart of Jimmy Carter?
Who has the authenticity, humility and courage to speak the truth to entrenched power and corrupt bureaucracy?
In terms of the global economy who will care about the working conditions of a child laborer in Malaysia and the rights of workers to organize?
Who has the gravitas to say to America: You can trust me with the lives of your children and the future of this nation?
I honestly don't know, but I deeply, deeply care.
And here is the poll. Which of these likely Democratic candidates has got what it takes in terms of talent, intelligence and gravitas to kick ass in 2008? Not who can squeak by but who can kick ass.