Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

How committed are you for 2008? w/poll

By

Given the recent discussions about 2008, particularly Obama, Richardson, and Hillary (where are the Edwards people?), I wondered where the community was in their own considerations.

I’ve found that few things deepen my attachment to a candidate more than talking about or defending him/her with others, whether it be canvassing or here.  There’s nothing like telling 2000 Iowans or New Hampshirites why you like the one you do to really make you a firm supporter.  And that process begins on this site for many of us.  So, regardless of candidate — how committed are you?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I have some concerns about Democrats like Hillary Clinton denigrating the Democratic brand by triangulating on various issues, but generally, I’m not sure whether there are significant policy issues yet on which to differentiate them.

    <

    p>
    The other side of the coin is what kind of campaign they will run and whether it will help or hurt Democrats in the future. As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m reading Schaller’s book, Whistling Past Dixie. I’m increasingly convinced that the goal has to be winning the Southwest and Mountain states (turning Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada blue, consolidating in Montana, and making inroads in Arizona). A happy part of that winning those states requires much less equivocating on social issues than trying to win say North Carolina does.

    • I can’t imagine picking off anywhere in the South, really.  There’s an outside shot at Virginia, maybe, but if we’re at the point that Virginia is in play, then we’ve got our votes already.  One big reason VA was in play in 2006 was because other battle states (like RI and PA) were largely forgone.

      <

      p>
      I’d ask for illumination on the traingulation/denigrating the brand strategy.  There are many, many moderates who are still proud Democrats (and here I don’t mean Joe Lieberman).  Do you believe that Hillary’s platform is not truly of the Democratic Party?  For that matter, would you argue that Hillary’s platform and campaign do less damage to the Democratic brand than Dennis Kucinich’s?

      • Fair question.

        <

        p>
        Suppose you’re a senator who thinks that Democrats should be stronger on defense. You can do one of two things.

        • Like Hillary Clinton, you can actually propose things that look like strong defense proposals and work to get them passed.
        • Like Senator Bayh, you can complain that Democrats are not strong on defense.

        (I think I got that right.) The first approach changes what the Democratic Party stands for by leading; the second undermines the the Democratic Party by complaining. That’s one kind of triangulation: making yourself look good by making the party look bad.

        <

        p>
        The other kind of triangulation is striking a middle ground somehow. I believe that Democrats have nearly destroyed the economic populist message of the party by highly misguided policy choices. I’m thinking about globalization treaties without worker protections, giveaways to credit card companies, and a reticence to engage in “class warfare”. The Democratic Party is supposed to be able to say that “we may be liberal on social issues, but we stand up for the little guy.” (I’ve heard more than one person vote for Senator Kennedy on such grounds.) If national Democrats triangulate and compromise with Republicans too much on this stuff, rural voters have no reason not to vote the values that derive from their piety.

  2. But I don’t think choosing a candidate based on where they’re from is a winning strategy. Of the announced candidates, I prefer Edwards based on policy positions, not because I think he’ll win NC (though I wouldn’t cross it off, either). I don’t buy either the gotta-have-a-southernor or the screw-the-south POV.

Archives