Actually, I argue we lost it about fourteen months ago, not two.
I also continue to argue for the mass firing of DC consultants with losing records. And I strongly argue for the mass hiring of aggressive and energetic PR firms to help sell our candidates and philosophy.
While last time we hired a consultant that was 0-for-7, they hired PR firms that helped them microtarget voters based on consumer information, not based on strategies that weren't working in the 80's, didn't work in the 90's and will not work now.
You make a great point about us just defending our institutions we put in place long ago. That's not good enough for me. Not today and not in 2008.
Where are the attractive Democratic cadidates who propose an aggressive, long-term attack on republican institutions of power? The onyl one I ever heard talk about taking the battle to the republicans in a long-term way was John Edwards.
I saw him speak once with a fire in his eyes about how he wanted to shine a spotlight on the K Street power structure and he went on to relate how reforming the lobbying will help progressive causes and help take power from the republicans. That's what I want to hear. A progressive agenda that takes it to 'em.
It's not good enough to defend social security, to merely fund education, to merely get back to how things used to be before Bush took office.
If the pendulum is destined to swing back our direction, and recent polls suggest the air is ripe for it....It isn't good enough for the pendulum to be stopped at the center. Not by a long shot.
This speech bridges the gap between regular walkin-around Democrats and their comfortable leaders in DC. HE really didn't say anything too radical for a regular politican to say and it was a very libertarian-tinged speech. A winner.
I have had mixed feelings about this man in the past, and he was a piss poor candidate in 2000, but this man really did give the "conscience" speech today.
In Against All Enemies, Clarke detailed how close they were to going at it with Iran. The part I remember distincly is that they looked at several military invasion and attack options and he concluded there was no desirable military option. Also, he seemed to jump on the bandwagon of the viewpoint that if you really wanna unite Iran and kill off what scraps of a refrom movement still exist there, just start attacking them.
This is a complicated situation, because as Bush II repeats the same lines from his Iraq buildup, some of them you have to admit are actually true about Iran. Best to use diplomacy to solve this one. The fact that many people who refused to help with Iraq are on board for now with Iran displays how serious this is. And their new president is a nutjob, but it's really the Mullahs who run shit there.
If the republicans (as usual) quickly pick up on "Talking Points" Ken's theme and begin repeating it well into February, but we still don't hear the specific words reform and change coming from Democrats?
You'd think this is a no-brainer, but if there is one political theater area where the GOP still defeats us by HUGE margins, it's the repeated talking point. The GOP takes marching orders and clues from the top very well. The Democrats ignore them, for the most part. That's why it has taken them over two years to still try and come up with a consistent message/brand for the party, though they were publicly complaining about not having one as soon as Kerry got nominated. Whereas they complain about it not happening (when THEY are the ones supposed to be doing it), the GOP just does it. And quickly.
I'm optimistic about most things, but man, if I were a Democratic leader, I would make sure anyone that came within three miles of a reporter or media outlet would be shouting to the heavens that the Democratic Party is the party of reform and change. And I'd make sure each person repeated those two words at least ten times during the interview, or else they'd get a good hard flogging.
Doesn't sound so hard to do, does it?
His new article kind of repeats something he worte a while back, about REPUBLICAN McCain's only real chance is to run 3rd party, cause he might not win the primaries. Fineman also said the only way Hillary will win the election is if he goes 3rd party, though lost of liberals think he's just swell and would flip over backwards to vote for him.
I'd prefer he run as a wingnut and get shot down and go back to the senate, defeated again.
Interesting, but I can imagine the reasons he won't win the nomination are the same for Hillary not wining the general election. I think that, just or unjust, when voters walk into that quiet, reflective place called the voting booth, depite their vocal support for Hillary, I think they'd chicken out at the end.
I can definitely see that.
Likewise, I think that Allen and others will work real hard to sow doubt into the republicans who might be looking at McCain. Enough that when they get to those Iowa caucuses, he'd lose.
And then there's the south problem, no matter how hard he tries to court it.