There is a very interesting post at Dadahead - More on "Fighting Dems" that is worth reading. After losing numerous elections, the Democrats are at their wit's end. They desperately want to figure out how to connect with voters, especially on foreign policy and national security matters. While most polls show that Republicans and the President have taken a beating in the credibility /competence /honesty departments, the Democrats are not showing a corresponding gain. That is troubling because if the voters go to the polls with an attitude of "pox on both houses" and choose the devil they know, Republicans might win again in 2006 and 2008.
For reasons that elude me, Democrats are perceived by Americans as weak on defence and foreign policy and anti-military, although as I pointed out in one of my previous posts, "Masculinity, War & SUV's", the Democratic side of the US Congress is populated by more combat hardy veterans than the leadership of the Republican Party, consisting largely of strutting chicken hawks. Some have suggested that the Dems should field Iraqi war veterans in congressional races of 2006 in order to neutralize the Republican advantage on security and war matters. I don't buy into this strategy and agree with Dadahead's analysis of why this is unnecessary and even futile. A uniform alone, does not a winning candidate make. You have to have a coherent message on domestic and foreign issues and if that comes packaged in a shiny uniform, all the better. But let us remember what non-warrior Bush managed to do to decorated vets like John McCain and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004. Dadahead says that one of his (her? I am a new reader, who is Dadahead?) fears is that fielding soldiers on Democratic tickets will keep the focus on Iraq and national security (a strong point for the GOP) and not on domestic issues like health care, education and social security - areas where the Dems are more trusted. I believe it doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or choice. The Democrats should focus on bread and butter issues but must not become evasive or defensive on Iraq. They should hammer home how wrong headed, wasteful and criminal this misadventure was and how much it has set back domestic progress and reconstruction efforts (for example, Katrina, FEMA, Homeland Security). In fact the Democrats should not let the voters forget about Iraq for a minute and we don't need soldiers to drive home the point. We need articulate and fearless truth tellers on Democratic tickets. Military credentials are ancillary to the ability of candidates to focus unflinchingly on the Republicans' hypocrisy, cowardice and corruption in Iraq and at home.
I think it's "his." But now I'm not sure if I think that because Leiter's genderedly referred to Dadahead, if I've seen it on Dadahead's blog, or if I just assumed in a gender-biased way that I was reading the blogging of a "he." And I'm more or less new to the blogosphere altogether--my first experience with politically or similarly bent blogs came when I started reading the Leiter Reports a few months back--so all I know about said blogger is [1] blogs/thinks/writes (?) well and [2] fan of dadaism.
Posted by: Joe | January 01, 2006 at 11:37 PM
You wrote, "we need articulate and fearless truth tellers on Democratic tickets". I agree. However, the problem in my view is not that we don't have such candidates - we had Howard Dean and we had John Edwards.
The problem, according to me, is that Democratic leadership did not have faith in the positions espoused by the grassroots. They torpedoed Dean's campaign and went for a milquetoast like Kerry.
And, worse, they were aided and abetted by the media talking heads who delight in poking fun at the passionately presented, well thought through positions of the likes of Dean.
I for one am tired and disillusioned by the Democratic Party. If Hilary ends up on the ticket, I am sitting out the '08 election. I would rather let things get worse under another Repug administration, because that seems to be the only way that things have a chance of eventually turning around.
Posted by: Progressive Indian-American Woman | January 02, 2006 at 10:27 AM
PIAW: we seem to agree on our politics too. My feelings about Dean is exactly the same as yours. It was sickening to see how the establishment Dems ran away from him in 2004. (With friends like these, who needs enemies?) And he spoke the truth about everything. I don't think Dr. Dean will run again for the presidential nomination. Too bad.
The Dems are in disarray. Individual members speak up but I have not heard a coherent, unified message. As for Hillary, she does not care for the party and is following her own ambitious agenda, even if it means selling out on ideas and the ideological front. I don't intend voting for her either. Edwards might run if his wife's health is good by 2008. I would like to see an Edwards - Rahm Emmanuel ticket. But the fuddy duddies of the party are sure to promote Hillary and another losing ticket. You are right. Perhaps things will have to get much worse before it gets better with the Dems.
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | January 02, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Barack Obama, maybe?
Posted by: Joe | January 02, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Obama looks good on paper. So far I have seen a lot of star power, not much substance. Rahm Emmanuel(also from Illinois) is less well known but sharp as a tack and great on innovative policies. He was one of the Young Turks of the Clinton campaign before he ran for congress. He is campaign savvy, cool headed, witty and has all the facts at his fingertips. AND, he will not let the Republicans get away with their lies.
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | January 02, 2006 at 12:40 PM
I'm a he.
Posted by: Dadahead | January 02, 2006 at 01:17 PM
Dadahead:
Thanks for the clarification. Being a woman myself, I don't automatically presume that all bloggers are male.
And that blog of yours - really nice!
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | January 02, 2006 at 02:31 PM