As I expose some of you to the middle where we must go to win, let me introduce someone who is not one of us. A Yankee no less, but a smart Yankee.
I have a limited purpose in posting the column that is the subject of this post. It is to introduce you to someone I enjoy reading, Joan Vennochi, a Boston Globe columnist.
I want to introduce you to her so that you will appreciate a column that she wrote this past Friday about an entirely different matter from the subject of her column.
I had previously done a post reflecting my feelings about Hillary Clinton as our Party's nominee in 2008, and for this reason did not post the following column by Ms. Vennochi.
My earlier post was done soon right after the election on 11-06-04 and was entitled "Democrats Map Out a Different Strategy -- The 2008 nominee must appeal to red states, analysts say. Hillary Clinton may not (read WILL NOT) qualify."
This earlier post began as follows:
"Other than my Nov. 3 post discussed below, I have refrained from commenting on the presidential race. Why? When folks are down and out, it is usually not the best time to provide a reality check. Even if they might agree with the message, they resent it, and especially the timing.
"Having been through denial, anger, depression, and while understandably not quite ready to accept what happened, let's at least begin trying to reach a consensus on accepting why it happened. This way we can begin to prepare to avoid it happening again.
"Thus with us having had our time this week to bellyache, whin, make excuses, recriminations, etc., I now want to offer my nickel's worth on how to avoid it happening again in 2008, and in the process, have us begin to think about using some of it in 2006 as a practice round here in Georgia.
"First, the ajc photograph of the red and blue counties in the USA should convey a message to us. We can argue the details, the margins, the youth voting or not voting, the exit polls asking about Iraq and security, the economy or values as a flawed and inept question, etc.
"But again I say, I think the photo of red and blue counties says a lot.
"The photograph is at this pdf link if you missed it. The ajc on Thursday noted 83% of Georgia counties voted for Bush, and 81% of counties in America did."
Then the 11-06-04 post reviewed why we lost, and noted two reasons. Only the reasons are noted, and the rest is omitted from this 01-09-05 post:
"First and foremost, Kerry was a hard sale, a very hard sale. . . ."
Continuing on the bigger picture on the Democratic Party part of the loss, the 11-06-04 post noted:
"In the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland."
"Reeling from their party's loss in the presidential election, some key Democratic financiers and strategists say they have learned a clear lesson: Next time around, no Northeasterners need apply.
"The blue-state party needs a face from a red state if it is going to expand beyond its base on the two coasts and preserve its hold on the Upper Midwest, where its long-standing appeal to voters has become tenuous, these insiders say.
"Their voices — if they become ascendant as the Democratic Party undertakes a round of soul-searching after Tuesday's losses by presidential nominee John F. Kerry and key Senate candidates — could dampen prospects for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has been frequently mentioned as a prominent White House contender in 2008."
"This party has got to get in a position where it does not write off an entire section of the country."
"As of now, Hillary Clinton's a bad idea . . . ."
"The standard-bearer should be a face from the South or the Midwest . . . ."
"Do we see a pattern here? No L.A., no Cambridge, no Manhattan . . . . The majority of America isn't from those areas, and they don't hold the values of these folks."
"Following Kerry's defeat, 'it'd be very difficult for a Northeasterner to convince the party that they are the right standard-bearer,' said one fundraiser for the senator's [Kerry's] campaign, who was not named because of the sensitivity of the subject. 'That's the message I'm hearing from a lot of people.'
"The consternation comes as party strategists begin to grapple with what the centrist Democratic Leadership Council called a 'slow but significant erosion of Democratic support in recent years.'
"The electoral map featuring red and blue states, illustrating Republican and Democratic victories, became even more red this year as Republicans claimed two formerly Democratic states — New Mexico and Iowa — while nearly scoring victories in other Democratic strongholds, such as Wisconsin. Democrats, by contrast, this year claimed only one state that the GOP had won in 2000: New Hampshire.
"Days after their loss, Democratic leaders began trying to sort out how much of their problem had to do with the messenger, and how much with the message.
"Some said that Kerry's campaign platform — including his support of middle-class tax cuts and tax increases for the wealthy — would have succeeded had it been delivered by another person.
"They noted that even though Kerry lost Colorado by 6 percentage points, Democrats claimed both chambers of the state Legislature from Republicans and elected a Democrat to replace retiring GOP Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
"In Montana, where Kerry lost by 21 percentage points, a Democrat was elected governor for the first time in 16 years.
"And in North Carolina, where Easley won reelection as governor, Democrats also reclaimed the House from Republicans and retained control of the Senate, despite a 9-point loss by Kerry.
"Still, many Democratic strategists began thinking about how to refocus the party's message — including looking for ways to marry the Democrats' traditional belief in an active government with the culturally conservative views that predominate among many Southern and heartland voters.
"Exit polls suggested that as many as one-fourth of the voters on Tuesday ranked 'values' as their leading concern, guiding many of them to back Bush, a born-again Christian, over Kerry, a Catholic who supported abortion rights and opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
"Kirk Wagar, a Miami trial lawyer who helped raise $15 million for this year's campaign as the Democrats' Florida finance chairman, said he was so frustrated by the party's inability to communicate a values-driven message to voters that he intended to launch an organization to encourage candidates who could do so in future elections.
"'I just don't understand why we have been unable to talk' to lower- and middle-income Americans, who should be responding to the Democrats' economic message, said Wagar, 35, a graduate of a conservative Christian college who in late 2002 hosted the first fundraiser for Kerry's presidential campaign.
"Wagar said his still-unformed organization would work with candidates who could articulate the Democrats' 'core values of opportunity and fairness' but who also didn't 'look down on the people . . . in the heartland.'
"The last Democratic nominee to forge a message with appeal in both red and blue states, Bill Clinton, echoed that frustration Friday as he offered advice to his beleaguered party. He said Kerry had been wounded during the campaign by Republican caricatures of him as antifamily and antireligion.
"'We have to be present with a compelling message in small towns and rural areas,' Clinton [said]. 'If we don't make the message, we can't complain when we're demonized — cartoonized as aliens.'"
_______________
By now you may have forgotten that I began this post by noting that I had a limited purpose in posting the column that is the subject of this post, that being to introduce you to someone I enjoy reading, Joan Vennochi, a Boston Globe columnist.
When I was going to post this on Friday and did not get around to it, I was going to quit on the above from my 11-06-04 post with the part about our 2008 nominee must appeal to red states, and that no Northeasterners -- including Sen. Clinton -- need apply.
But after listening to a fine presentation Saturday at the DNC Southern Caucus meeting in Atlanta by pollster David Beattie entitled "Democrats in the South: Where do we go from here?" that made many of the above-quoted points, I decided to share these thoughts with you again.
Now to the subject of this post:
Who can lead the Democrats?
By Joan Vennochi
The Boston Globe
December 21, 2004
Anyone but Hillary.
The political year ends with Democratic Party leaders searching for a new moral compass -- and concluding, foolishly, that morality is only a focus group away. Blaming the November loss on issues like abortion, they want to be for and against it. With finesse and spin, Democrats long to believe red-state voters will return to them in 2008 -- even though it didn't work in 2004.
It definitely won't work if Hillary Clinton is leading the charge.
Democrats lost the values debate, first to Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, before losing ground to abortion and gay marriage. It explains why George W. Bush was able to sidle into the White House in the first place. Hillary Clinton is part of the party's problem, not part of the solution. Whether you view her as Bill Clinton's victim or co-conspirator, she helped take the country down the path of half-truths and bold lies, from "I didn't inhale" to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman . . . "
The bumper stickers are correct. No one died when Clinton lied. But something was extinguished: respect for the office, the man, his wife, and the truth. It is difficult to imagine red state voters separating Hillary Clinton from the personal immorality of the Clinton presidency. Besides, how can she extricate herself from baby boomer feminists who will fight hard to keep the party's prochoice commitments, particularly as they apply to Supreme Court nominees?
For everyone who looks at Hillary Clinton and sees a fund-raising superstar, remember: Money was not the deciding factor in Bush's reelection. Terry McAuliffe, the outgoing party chairman, said recently that Democrats out-raised Republicans, $389 million to $385 million.
The $10 million in DNC coffers would be wasted on Hillary Clinton. A country as divided as it is along cultural and social issues is not going to elect such a polarizing woman. Someday in America, a woman will be elected president, but it will not happen when war and terrorism are policy priorities. Moreover, Hillary Clinton can't run for office without dragging the Hollywood excesses of the Clinton era back into the national consciousness. With Hillary as their candidate, the Democrats can't run away from Barbra Streisand, any more than they can escape Gloria Steinem.
She is the wrong messenger. So, who is the right one?
It can't be John Edwards, the vice presidential nominee, who could not win his home state of North Carolina and would now be running as a former one-term US senator.
The holiday buzz in Boston suggests that John Kerry is sending out signals that he will run again. At the moment, those signals are greeted with sad, even angry faces. The consultants, strategists, and organizers who bled for Kerry are tired, frustrated, and disinclined to give him or Massachusetts another shot.
But there is an argument to be made that for all the flaws he demonstrated as the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Kerry is a stronger contender in 2008 than Senator Clinton -- if he applies the lessons he should have learned in this campaign to a second attempt.
One lesson: To voters, political equivocation is not a sign of moral strength. Kerry gained nothing from straddling any number of issues, from abortion and gay marriage to war and national security. Fearing to speak out against war in Iraq, he misused the moral authority he had as a veteran who returned home to speak out against another war. He squandered more of it the day he stood at the edge of the Grand Canyon and said that, knowing all he now knows, he would still vote to authorize the president to invade Iraq.
But the debate on Iraq and American foreign policy will look very different in the next election cycle. The consequences from the Iraq invasion will be much less hypothetical. The Democrat who runs in 2008 will not be running against Bush. The party must consider: Who will run strongest against Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee?
This year, the Democrats ran an anyone-but-Bush campaign. They should begin their 2008 quest thinking about a candidate other than Clinton.
I want to introduce you to her so that you will appreciate a column that she wrote this past Friday about an entirely different matter from the subject of her column.
I had previously done a post reflecting my feelings about Hillary Clinton as our Party's nominee in 2008, and for this reason did not post the following column by Ms. Vennochi.
My earlier post was done soon right after the election on 11-06-04 and was entitled "Democrats Map Out a Different Strategy -- The 2008 nominee must appeal to red states, analysts say. Hillary Clinton may not (read WILL NOT) qualify."
This earlier post began as follows:
"Other than my Nov. 3 post discussed below, I have refrained from commenting on the presidential race. Why? When folks are down and out, it is usually not the best time to provide a reality check. Even if they might agree with the message, they resent it, and especially the timing.
"Having been through denial, anger, depression, and while understandably not quite ready to accept what happened, let's at least begin trying to reach a consensus on accepting why it happened. This way we can begin to prepare to avoid it happening again.
"Thus with us having had our time this week to bellyache, whin, make excuses, recriminations, etc., I now want to offer my nickel's worth on how to avoid it happening again in 2008, and in the process, have us begin to think about using some of it in 2006 as a practice round here in Georgia.
"First, the ajc photograph of the red and blue counties in the USA should convey a message to us. We can argue the details, the margins, the youth voting or not voting, the exit polls asking about Iraq and security, the economy or values as a flawed and inept question, etc.
"But again I say, I think the photo of red and blue counties says a lot.
"The photograph is at this pdf link if you missed it. The ajc on Thursday noted 83% of Georgia counties voted for Bush, and 81% of counties in America did."
Then the 11-06-04 post reviewed why we lost, and noted two reasons. Only the reasons are noted, and the rest is omitted from this 01-09-05 post:
"First and foremost, Kerry was a hard sale, a very hard sale. . . ."
Continuing on the bigger picture on the Democratic Party part of the loss, the 11-06-04 post noted:
"In the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland."
"Reeling from their party's loss in the presidential election, some key Democratic financiers and strategists say they have learned a clear lesson: Next time around, no Northeasterners need apply.
"The blue-state party needs a face from a red state if it is going to expand beyond its base on the two coasts and preserve its hold on the Upper Midwest, where its long-standing appeal to voters has become tenuous, these insiders say.
"Their voices — if they become ascendant as the Democratic Party undertakes a round of soul-searching after Tuesday's losses by presidential nominee John F. Kerry and key Senate candidates — could dampen prospects for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has been frequently mentioned as a prominent White House contender in 2008."
"This party has got to get in a position where it does not write off an entire section of the country."
"As of now, Hillary Clinton's a bad idea . . . ."
"The standard-bearer should be a face from the South or the Midwest . . . ."
"Do we see a pattern here? No L.A., no Cambridge, no Manhattan . . . . The majority of America isn't from those areas, and they don't hold the values of these folks."
"Following Kerry's defeat, 'it'd be very difficult for a Northeasterner to convince the party that they are the right standard-bearer,' said one fundraiser for the senator's [Kerry's] campaign, who was not named because of the sensitivity of the subject. 'That's the message I'm hearing from a lot of people.'
"The consternation comes as party strategists begin to grapple with what the centrist Democratic Leadership Council called a 'slow but significant erosion of Democratic support in recent years.'
"The electoral map featuring red and blue states, illustrating Republican and Democratic victories, became even more red this year as Republicans claimed two formerly Democratic states — New Mexico and Iowa — while nearly scoring victories in other Democratic strongholds, such as Wisconsin. Democrats, by contrast, this year claimed only one state that the GOP had won in 2000: New Hampshire.
"Days after their loss, Democratic leaders began trying to sort out how much of their problem had to do with the messenger, and how much with the message.
"Some said that Kerry's campaign platform — including his support of middle-class tax cuts and tax increases for the wealthy — would have succeeded had it been delivered by another person.
"They noted that even though Kerry lost Colorado by 6 percentage points, Democrats claimed both chambers of the state Legislature from Republicans and elected a Democrat to replace retiring GOP Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
"In Montana, where Kerry lost by 21 percentage points, a Democrat was elected governor for the first time in 16 years.
"And in North Carolina, where Easley won reelection as governor, Democrats also reclaimed the House from Republicans and retained control of the Senate, despite a 9-point loss by Kerry.
"Still, many Democratic strategists began thinking about how to refocus the party's message — including looking for ways to marry the Democrats' traditional belief in an active government with the culturally conservative views that predominate among many Southern and heartland voters.
"Exit polls suggested that as many as one-fourth of the voters on Tuesday ranked 'values' as their leading concern, guiding many of them to back Bush, a born-again Christian, over Kerry, a Catholic who supported abortion rights and opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
"Kirk Wagar, a Miami trial lawyer who helped raise $15 million for this year's campaign as the Democrats' Florida finance chairman, said he was so frustrated by the party's inability to communicate a values-driven message to voters that he intended to launch an organization to encourage candidates who could do so in future elections.
"'I just don't understand why we have been unable to talk' to lower- and middle-income Americans, who should be responding to the Democrats' economic message, said Wagar, 35, a graduate of a conservative Christian college who in late 2002 hosted the first fundraiser for Kerry's presidential campaign.
"Wagar said his still-unformed organization would work with candidates who could articulate the Democrats' 'core values of opportunity and fairness' but who also didn't 'look down on the people . . . in the heartland.'
"The last Democratic nominee to forge a message with appeal in both red and blue states, Bill Clinton, echoed that frustration Friday as he offered advice to his beleaguered party. He said Kerry had been wounded during the campaign by Republican caricatures of him as antifamily and antireligion.
"'We have to be present with a compelling message in small towns and rural areas,' Clinton [said]. 'If we don't make the message, we can't complain when we're demonized — cartoonized as aliens.'"
_______________
By now you may have forgotten that I began this post by noting that I had a limited purpose in posting the column that is the subject of this post, that being to introduce you to someone I enjoy reading, Joan Vennochi, a Boston Globe columnist.
When I was going to post this on Friday and did not get around to it, I was going to quit on the above from my 11-06-04 post with the part about our 2008 nominee must appeal to red states, and that no Northeasterners -- including Sen. Clinton -- need apply.
But after listening to a fine presentation Saturday at the DNC Southern Caucus meeting in Atlanta by pollster David Beattie entitled "Democrats in the South: Where do we go from here?" that made many of the above-quoted points, I decided to share these thoughts with you again.
Now to the subject of this post:
Who can lead the Democrats?
By Joan Vennochi
The Boston Globe
December 21, 2004
Anyone but Hillary.
The political year ends with Democratic Party leaders searching for a new moral compass -- and concluding, foolishly, that morality is only a focus group away. Blaming the November loss on issues like abortion, they want to be for and against it. With finesse and spin, Democrats long to believe red-state voters will return to them in 2008 -- even though it didn't work in 2004.
It definitely won't work if Hillary Clinton is leading the charge.
Democrats lost the values debate, first to Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, before losing ground to abortion and gay marriage. It explains why George W. Bush was able to sidle into the White House in the first place. Hillary Clinton is part of the party's problem, not part of the solution. Whether you view her as Bill Clinton's victim or co-conspirator, she helped take the country down the path of half-truths and bold lies, from "I didn't inhale" to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman . . . "
The bumper stickers are correct. No one died when Clinton lied. But something was extinguished: respect for the office, the man, his wife, and the truth. It is difficult to imagine red state voters separating Hillary Clinton from the personal immorality of the Clinton presidency. Besides, how can she extricate herself from baby boomer feminists who will fight hard to keep the party's prochoice commitments, particularly as they apply to Supreme Court nominees?
For everyone who looks at Hillary Clinton and sees a fund-raising superstar, remember: Money was not the deciding factor in Bush's reelection. Terry McAuliffe, the outgoing party chairman, said recently that Democrats out-raised Republicans, $389 million to $385 million.
The $10 million in DNC coffers would be wasted on Hillary Clinton. A country as divided as it is along cultural and social issues is not going to elect such a polarizing woman. Someday in America, a woman will be elected president, but it will not happen when war and terrorism are policy priorities. Moreover, Hillary Clinton can't run for office without dragging the Hollywood excesses of the Clinton era back into the national consciousness. With Hillary as their candidate, the Democrats can't run away from Barbra Streisand, any more than they can escape Gloria Steinem.
She is the wrong messenger. So, who is the right one?
It can't be John Edwards, the vice presidential nominee, who could not win his home state of North Carolina and would now be running as a former one-term US senator.
The holiday buzz in Boston suggests that John Kerry is sending out signals that he will run again. At the moment, those signals are greeted with sad, even angry faces. The consultants, strategists, and organizers who bled for Kerry are tired, frustrated, and disinclined to give him or Massachusetts another shot.
But there is an argument to be made that for all the flaws he demonstrated as the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Kerry is a stronger contender in 2008 than Senator Clinton -- if he applies the lessons he should have learned in this campaign to a second attempt.
One lesson: To voters, political equivocation is not a sign of moral strength. Kerry gained nothing from straddling any number of issues, from abortion and gay marriage to war and national security. Fearing to speak out against war in Iraq, he misused the moral authority he had as a veteran who returned home to speak out against another war. He squandered more of it the day he stood at the edge of the Grand Canyon and said that, knowing all he now knows, he would still vote to authorize the president to invade Iraq.
But the debate on Iraq and American foreign policy will look very different in the next election cycle. The consequences from the Iraq invasion will be much less hypothetical. The Democrat who runs in 2008 will not be running against Bush. The party must consider: Who will run strongest against Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee?
This year, the Democrats ran an anyone-but-Bush campaign. They should begin their 2008 quest thinking about a candidate other than Clinton.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 5:03 PM
3 Comments:
The wise man/woman watches Mark Warner...
Steve: You're thinking good, real good. See my 12-19-04 post entitled "Virginia's Democratic Governor Mark Warner. He may be worth a look in 2008" at http://crackersquire.blogspot.com/2004/12/virginias-democratic-governor-mark.html
re: Joan's column
I'm beginning to think that the only people who really really want Hillary to run for President are the whacko right-wingers, as I can't find any Democrats, myself included, who want her to run.
And forget John Kerry.
Steve's right. Gotta watch Mark Warner.
Post a Comment
<< Home