Will Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again?

It's a Democratic year!  It's in the bag!  All over but the shoutin'!

So, since we thought victory was automatic, we didn't think we'd actually have to devise a strategy to win the dang thing.  Sen. Obama's strategy--hope, change, unity, bipartisanship--worked, after a fashion, in winning the nomination, but will not be a particularly effective strategy in the general election.

The reason it won't work is because it gives up the biggest advantage we have, which is being Democrats.  Sure, Bush is unpopular and you can try to pin McCain to Bush--"McSame," and all that.  The problem with that is that even McCain represents "change."  He's not George Bush.

No, we should be running against the Republican Party.  Bill Clinton laid out the argument in his convention speech:

And it is, to be fair to all the Americans who aren't as hard- core Democrats as we, it's a philosophy the American people never actually had a chance to see in action fully until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and the Congress.

Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades actually were implemented. And look what happened.

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding debt; from over 22 million new jobs to just 5 million; from increasing working families' incomes to nearly $7,500 a year to a decline of more than $2,000 a year; from almost 8 million Americans lifted out of poverty to more than 5.5 million driven into poverty; and millions more losing their health insurance.

We should be running on that, and not against George Bush alone.  He's barely even relevant.  He hasn't had much of an impact on either foreign or domestic policy for over a year.  He's yesterday's news.  We should be running against the whole dang cabal, but no, we can't do that, because we're all about bipartisanship now.  Both Republicans and Democrats, we've been told, are responsible for the mess we're in.

It is said that Generals always want to fight the last war.  We're still fighting 2004.  In 2008, there should have been no escaping.  The Republicans had had their way for six straight years and they should be held accountable.  Good night, that's what the 2006 election was all about!

We don't seem to have the stomach for that fight.  We haven't for years, and still don't.  But don't worry.  It's a Democratic year no matter what we do.  Don't the polls say that it's automatic? 

 

   

Comments

[Chris]

I don't agree with you much, John, but on this score I'm with you 100%. We can't be running against George Bush, we have to run against the GOP and against McCain. The GOP has been running congress 12 out of the last 14 years, and the White House for the last 8 years - and see where it got us! The GOP has been a disaster, and THAT is what we need to be saying.

[John Petty]

Actually Chris, you and I agree on just about everything, except for one.

[gormenghast]

And the two years of a Democrat held congress has rendered what? A lower approval rating than the worst President in history.

Disrespecting Bill Clinton's record in favour of Reagan's, his cowardly FISA vote, his VP pick, his disdain for 52% of the electorate, his failure to rein in his supporters (too late now), brown shirt tactics at the caucuses and the convention have already lost this election for Obama. McCain has him boxed in on all sides, he has nowhere to go and the republicans haven't even started. My guess October 10th - when Obama becomes so yesterday.

Sound bitter, you bet, and I've never even seen a gun.

[John Petty]

Right now, I'd say "advantage McCain."

[Joel]

I admit that I would have been excited with either Obama or Hillary - both I think represent well... and I also admit that I am not a party insider, but from one who has watched the campaign closely I think neither campagin did a "clean" campaign and as much as it might be true that Obama's camp did
"Disrespecting Bill Clinton's record in favour of Reagan's, his cowardly FISA vote, his VP pick, his disdain for 52% of the electorate, his failure to rein in his supporters (too late now), brown shirt tactics at the caucuses..."

Couldn't you also say that the Clinton camp "Disrespected Obama in favour of McCain, her "cowardly" perhaps, refusal at least during the early part of the campaign to make a stand on the war, her loyalists insistence that she had to be the VP, her disdain for 48% of Democrats" etc....

And while I think one could easily make an arguement of whether Obama would have won the nomination if he was caucasian - I think the truth is that the fact that he is not at least 15 points ahead in any poll has more to due with the color of his skin than any strife within the Democratic party. I think it is the elephant in the room, even within the room of this blog. As a small point of reference I bring offer my father in law who lives in Ohio - life long member of the carpenter union, life long Democrat. His comment on Friday, "The aint no g#[email protected] way I am voting for a black man!"

Joel

[John Petty]

Correction: Hillary voters did not "insist" on anything, and couldn't even if they wanted to. My view is that that is the winning ticket. Frankly, as a Hillary supporter, I'm not sure I'd have favored her taking it, even if offered. I continue to think, however, that picking Hillary would have wrapped the thing up.

As to the racial issue, my next door neighbor, who is black, said the same thing just yesterday. It's a factor, no question, but I hope it doesn't afflict a large portion of the electorate. I'd guess 5-10% if I had to guess.

[lillianjane]

No, Joel, I couldn't say that, and still be accurate.
I don't think that many die-hard racists would vote for a white Democrat, either.

[Hypatia]

***** her loyalists insistence that she had to be the VP, her disdain for 48% of Democrats" etc....*****

If Clinton had won the nomination, what do you think would have been the reaction of the Obama supporters if her campaign had blown him off as a VP candidate, failed to reach out to his fundraisers, and told his voters, in effect, that they had nowhere else to go?

This wouldn't have happened, of course, because Hillary Clinton would have known better. Barring some awful dark secret in his past, Obama would have been the VP and the party united.

[gormenghast]

What Hypatia and lillianjane said. I did not, like many Clinton supporters want her to accept the VP slot.

However that said, since everything else was a sham, why not have a sham vetting process. The clumsy statement from camp Obama that "we looked at Hillary, but felt it was not a comfortable fit" Throw some crumbs why don't you? RoeRoeRoe crumbs are getting really stale and cheesy.