Well, I had a lengthy post reflecting on the election and speculating who the Democrats should pick in 2008, BUT I clicked the wrong window and lost it. Crap!
I don't have time to retype right now, but let me summarize.
As this article suggests, there are lots of voters in swing states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, West Virginia, etc. who will likely be able to relate to an experienced, articulate, relatively attractive Senator from a "solid" mid-west state like Wisconsin who has proven:
Who do you think the Dems should nominate? The Republicans? Let me know in the comment section.
As for me, right now I'm endorsing: Russ Feingold for President!
I don't have time to retype right now, but let me summarize.
- I don't think the Democrats are as "out of touch" as many are claiming.
- I don't think the Democrats should be "Republican-lite".
- I don't think Hillary (or unfortunately any woman) can be elected President in the near future.
- As much as I like Howard Dean, I do think "electability" has to be considered and that was the main reason Kerry was nominated this year.
- I don't think "electability" means you have to be from the southern conservative side of the Democratic party.
As this article suggests, there are lots of voters in swing states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, West Virginia, etc. who will likely be able to relate to an experienced, articulate, relatively attractive Senator from a "solid" mid-west state like Wisconsin who has proven: - he can pass significant legislation (McCain-Feingold),
- he takes his service as a Senator seriously (2 missed votes in 12 years),
- he is a deficit hawk (trust me ALOT of fiscal conservatives are NOT happy with GWB on this issue), and
- he is the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, and the War in Iraq (these positions will become even MORE popular in the next four years, plus those who differ will at least appreciate consistency).
From the article:Take a look at these commercials (especially Level Playing Field) and see if you don't agree that they would have been more effective in the swing states than the ones that the DNC ran for Kerry.
The DLC is now trying to blame Kerry's disastrous loss of the 2004 election on everything from Karl Rove's success in making gay marriage a key issue in swing states to American's having succumbed to Bush's scare tactics.
Feingold's strong win (55%-44% while Kerry narrowly won) suggests another possibility: Kerry wasn't progressive enough.
If Feingold, in the heartland state of Wisconsin, could make opposition to the war and the PATRIOT Act a campaign asset, if he could attract working class votes by condemning the trade pacts that allow American companies to shift not white collar jobs but entire plants overseas and then import the goods they use to make in America back in tax free, then Kerry could have done the same thing in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and the other swing states he lost by running a timid Republican-lite campaign.
The lesson is clear. As long as the Democratic Party remains in the hands of the DLC party hacks, as long as Democratic primary voters allow themselves to fall for the argument that progressive politics are a losing proposition, the Republicans will keep winning more and more elections.
Who do you think the Dems should nominate? The Republicans? Let me know in the comment section.
As for me, right now I'm endorsing: Russ Feingold for President!
Comments