Outreach doesn't just happen within the party. It happens within the various organizations and social networks that people in communities belong to. The fact that you were able to represent the views of progressives in an atmosphere where they may not have been so represented is a very good step. The fact that you were elected to do this again shows that you did it in a respectful and thoughtful manner that people appreciated. Congratulations and good work!
I'm not ready to accept Hillary as inevitable (you know what I'm like). Her inevitability is part of their strategy, so I refuse to play that game. One "gaffe" or slip or who knows what can change things at this point. However, I agree with you that I don't think Edwards or Obama are going to catch her the way things stand currently. Edwards, IMO is saying all the right things. His poll numbers and lack of being higher in his own state is genuinely troubling. Obama is IMO just playing it way too tentatively. He seems like he's running for VP more than going after Hillary as the front runner. Things can change of course, but as it now sits I don't think either will catch her. If Edwards holds on to Iowa, maybe that will give him a bump? But Iowa is a long way away still.
I'm holding my breath for Gore. He's the only one right now that I think has the possibility to shake the race up. His entry would garner one hell of a media frenzy and at least a month of free media. But he's got liabilities too, and the right isn't so fond of him either. But I think he would go straight at the right and use their attacks effectively to frame their policies, candidates, and views negatively. I'm not convinced he'll run however. If he does, he's got my support in an instant.
There's no more of a liability from Hillary as far as Conservative opinions go which, by and large, are now the fringe than for any other candidate.
Are you seriously going to claim that Hillary is no different in the eyes of Conservatives than our other candidates? Seriously? Were you polically aware in the 1990's? Did you ever watch Fox news? Remember, Iraq was Clinton's fault, 9/11 was Clinton's fault, even Katrina was Clinton's fault. And her name is Clinton too. Do you remember her battle for her health care plan and how they came unglued?
Advocate for you candidate and support her. But be realistic as well. What you are claiming is really outside of reality.
Just to respond directly, you IMO miss the point. I could care less if you don't give credit to their hate speech or their down and dirty kind of politics. It works. It mobilizes their base. And believe it or not, they are still more organized, especially in red states, than we are.
She can be as competent as she can be (and that is pretty competent), but they have a 10+ year head start. It's already over. She's been defined by the right for the right. Every GOP voter out there "knows" all about Hillary. Case closed.
"Nice try?" What kind of gradeschool BS is that? Answer the question as respectfully as I put it to you:
How is Hillary not going to be a liability for down ticket Democrats when she has been defined by the right for over a decade and will mobilize the Conservative base like no other candidate, especially in red states?
You did? Seems to me you only restated the point I openly question, with a little more emphasis. She's been defined by the right. She'll energize the right in a way no other candidate on our side will. She will mobilize the Conservative base in waves. How exactly is this not a liability, especially to down ticket Democrats?
I don't give a rat's ass who the candidate is where comment is leveled. Critisism is Democratic. Especially legit critisism. Burrying one's head in the sand is not a winning strategy. Calling out weak points of a candidate should never be answered with "circular firing squad" or "tearing down Democrats" comments. That's just BS no matter who the commenter supports.
So are you are saying that even though the GOP has had 10+ years to successfully define Hillary, entrenching her in a stereotypical image that is well rehearsed by the Republican noise machine and entrenched in the media narrative, giving the GOP a decade of practice and hone their attacks toward her, yet despite this she wouldn't excite the GOP base in a way no other Democrat running would, making her a liability for Democrats downticket?
This is reality. We need to consider what our nominee does to the other side's base as well as our base just as much as we need to look at how much money they can raise. Saying "stop picking on Democrats" during a primary is nonsense. That's what the primary is for.
If her campaign can't answer this charge now, what do you think will happen with her as the nominee. And quite frankly, I think Clinton as the nomine would not be like giving us Newt - it would be like giving us GW again. The GOP base would turn out in droves to vote for a ham sandwich rather than Hillary.
What makes this place is the nuts and bolts, the practical with a capital "P" aspect of this site. The information is immediately useful. It's not filled with rants or "breaking" news. It is filled with reflection, action, and information useful on the ground, in my district, in my life.
Chris set a tone for this place. To give props to Jerome, he carried on the insightful, even keel, reflective tone, that Jerome often had that attracted me to this blog in the first place. When he did rant, it was still lighthearted and not shrill even when deeply insightful. This tone is important to keep going.
MyDD has been about action, not personality. That were Chris shined. It wasn't about him ever. Maybe this was just a reflection of Chris' personality. Whatever it was, I hope that this aspect can continue to be. I like this community, even if I'm less active than I used to be. I like that it is largely reflective and respectful.
I'll miss Chris' posts, but I don't see myself reading the site any less. I hope the personality extension Chris brought to the blog can continue on at the least out of respect for what his writing and tone have created here. This goes for any front pagers, weekend or otherwise, as well as community members who post here.
I'll never forget your advice on how to become a full time blogger. That was priceless. You're my favorite full time blogger Chris. I'm going to miss you greatly. You and MyDD are truly one and the same in my mind.
I'm looking forward to your new project. I'm sure you will do well and I'm equally sure there are plenty out there who will be certain to help make sure that you are sucessful. You are a credit to the blogosphere and an inspiration to many. All the best to you and thank you so much for the past three years of your life as expressed through this blog.
This one surprised me: Quinnipiac University Poll. June 5-11, 2007 shows Al Gore with just as good or better head to head numbers as Clinton. Their latest has Clinton/Guiliani with Clinton +1. It shows Gore/Guiliani as Gore +2.
Your Pollster link actually shows Edwards with a consistently bigger lead in the head to head with Thompson. Even in NY, her "home" state, she only has a 4 point advantage in the spread over Edwards, and both she and Edwards are up +30 points in that matchup.
It's the appearance of caring that bothers me. It seems to me her positions are taken to appear correct, not to lead. She may appear to care, but she hasn't closed that sale yet IMO. Just look at the head to head matchups with the lackluster GOP field. She hasn't made the sale. I believe she will enliven the GOP base in a way few on this side really appreciate.