| After the month-long shock wore off for most Democrats, the dissection began, and we all got to watch damn near every Democrat on the continent convince themselves that John Kerry was a weak candidate. 'He was tepid' (the word I was most astounded by), 'he didn't fight back when attacked', 'he didn't campaign hard enough' I don't believe any of those accusations to be true or factual. There are reasons that John Kerry lost (failure to run a 50 state campaign, shenanigans in Ohio, ...) but the weak blame laid in his lap by Democrats struck me then as now to be little more than CYA. for the last several years, a collective amnesia seems to have taken hold, where John Kerry will take a strong stand on something, and Democrats will say, "gosh, where was that John Kerry when he was running for President?" That was the John Kerry that ran for President, we were just focused on the gotcha instead of the winning. There are things that John Kerry could have done better, but there's one helluva lot that Democrats could have done better.
Ya' see, The republicans were right about one thing. Most Democrats were clearly focused on "anybody except Bush". I think if we'd have nominated a platypus, the polling likely would have remained the same. (Yes, I know that's an exaggeration.) In the actual analysis of the election, what swung the vote for Bush were the so-called "Security Moms", women who self describe as Independents or even Democrats, but just didn't trust John Kerry to defend Precious Q. Snowflake from the 'terrists'. The funny part is, I don't think those people, because it wasn't just women who voted on that weak distrust, needed John Kerry to convince them of his strengths. They wanted their Kerry-voting neighbors to show the confidence in the candidate that they themselves lacked. Sadly, we were all either sharing their distrust or too damn busy attacking Bush (ANYBODY BUT BUSH!) to actually, you know, support our candidate. That's why Kerry lost. Not because he was a tepid candidate, but because we Democrats showed tepid support. Our support of our ideals was plenty strong, but in a Republic, if you don't imbue those ideals into a candidate, you lose. And we did.
The question remains, did we learn anything from that. Some of us did. Howard Dean formulated the 50 state strategy, which Barack Obama effectively used to defeat a very powerful primary opponent. I think most of us learned that the change we want and need isn't going to happen overnight. It will take more and better Democrats, and that's a long hard slog.
Some Democrats, on the other hand, don't seem to have learned a damn thing. They are still fixated on ideas that don't work; thinking that one candidate with the proper party credentials will 'win the game'; thinking that America boils down to Ohio, Michigan and Florida, and thinking that anything is better than a Republican in the White House. In other words, they are fixated on an ideal of the Democratic party and it's candidates that has shown a remarkable aptitude for failure, (even in the primary just past.) And in the most remarkable of almost Republican twists, they project their own short-sighted idealism onto their opponents.
It is my opinion that it is well passed the time for Democrats to wake up to few realities. No candidate will embody everything you want and more. The realities of politics are not such that each person gets what they want. Seemingly since Ronald Reagan, Americans have carried a national delusion that our President needs to be just like us, and give us everything that we ask for, or that person is unworthy of our support. Our sense of individualism appears to overridden our reason, at which point all we have to hang onto is our idealism. That is a national zeitgeist custom made for Republican victory and service to those most well heeled to manipulate that idealism. The reality is that we are not special little snowflakes. We won't get everything we want, and our desires for ourselves cannot trump the good of the country as carried out by the candidates we elect. Speaking personally, I don't want politicians who 'feel my pain'. I want politicians who will do something about it ... for all of us. Those are the people to whom I will give my whole hearted support.
Which brings us to the present. The Democrats have another candidate who is, by most metrics, terrific. He has a track record of building consensus. He is possibly one of the best public speakers of modern times. His ideas are soundly in the camp of the Democratic platform. He has international appeal as well as an appeal to minority voters. He is young, attractive and energetic. And he's running against a lobbyist- gelded dinosaur that he should quite easily crush.
However, Democrats being Democrats, we're already looking for ways to snatch defeat from the angry jaws of victory. It isn't at all surprising to view the claims concerning Obama coming from Republicans. They are mostly untrue and easy to counter with polling, facts and a small degree of objectivity:
'Obama supporters are brainwashed children drunk on charisma. They will suffer 'Obama Fatigue''. Not likely.
'Obama is inexperienced; an empty suit.' Simply not true. He has more experience in public service than GW did.
'Obama can't win the big states'. Better check the polling, 'cause that's just not the case.
'Obama can't win any demographic except black people and young folks'. He already leads (in aggregate polling) among the hardest demographic for a Democrat to crack, white males between 30 and 50. The only demographic in which Obama shows any weakness is among the elderly.
I won't even go into the more despicable attacks (race baiting, religious terror ...) being thrown out by the Republican fear generation machine. I wanted to point out these above complaints because they are coming as often from Democrats as they are from Republicans. And if we have learned anything from 2004, it's that weak support, lacking any confidence in our candidate, can be more damaging than no support at all.
I, for one, have no patience left for those who claim support while tearing at the candidate and the candidate's supporters. The time for political illusions is well past; realism about politics and our politicians is exactly the change that America needs. Part of that realism is accepting that you can't always have what you want. As regards the FISA reauthorization vote, which has many Democrats disappointed in candidate Obama, I have to ask what the reality we wished to accomplish was. Let's be honest. The whole fight was over retroactive immunity for the telecoms who aided the criminal activities of an out-of-control executive branch. What we wanted was a statement that these criminals will be held accountable. Was that realistic? You bet. Was it politically realistic? About as much as impeachment. Was this the stand upon which we want candidate Obama to stake his election? Not me. Vengeance is best left to those who have the power, not those who are seeking it.
We've played a game. A game we've been losing for going on thirty years now. We've been trading 'gotchas' with the Republicans, only theirs have been a helluva lot bigger than ours, because Democrats keep losing sight of the goal in favor of the short desire. The goal is to get our candidate elected President. The death of telco-immunity would have been a nice gotcha, a 'feel good'. That's all. I am disappointed that candidate Obama did not take a stand. But then, I am a realist. I expect to be disappointed by many things that President Obama will do, or not do. But I look forward with a completely positive attitude to what he can and will do that serves the country once he is in office. His support of this one compromise will not stand in the way of him becoming President. What will are those who points fingers with a happy cry of "See, he's not your progressive messiah, foolish bot-people!" What will stand in the way of Obama becoming President is when those people are Democrats, and I see no reason to be polite or gentle in pointing out the insult they lay upon me, our candidate and, of course, the worst insult they could level of all ... "President John McCain".
This election is about Change. And the biggest change should be this: no more tepid Democratic gotchas, and no more tepid support. There will be many people who favor a President Obama, but he makes them nervous. He's a little too dark, a little unknown, a little too seductive to others. The American impulse will be to run home to momma, or in this case, the old white guy. It will take commitment and confidence on the part of Democrats to convince these people that change can be good; it can be healthy; it is what our nation is and truly was all about. A Democratic President can help move this country beyond the failures of BushCo. This is our election to lose. I say, let's not do that. |
