Stop Loss

[Epitome22]

THAT'S LIFE
Stop Loss
by Michelle Cottle


Iran is going nuclear. Iraq is on the brink of civil war. Egypt is suffering an actual, literal plague of locusts. The Red Sox won the World Series. Karl Rove is front-runner for Man of the Year. Clearly the Apocalypse is at hand. With the Four Horsemen descending, Democrats have precious little time to get their act together, and someone needs to sit them down for what a friend of mine calls a "get right with Jesus talk."

For the past few weeks Dems have spent their days (and, knowing the geekiness of Beltway types, probably their nights) wringing their hands about the unpleasantness of November 2 and what it all means. They have agonized about the party's failure to connect with religious voters, married women, old folks. They have bemoaned its lack of vision, lack of narrative, lack of a core message. Unhinged by defeat, they have vowed to reevaluate every policy the party has backed (or blocked) since the glory days of FDR in an effort to figure out how they let some smirking, swaggering, verbally challenged, pathologically incurious cowboy whip their butts. So intense is their identity crisis that, at this rate, I half expect the 2008 nominee to run on a platform of mandatory school prayer, abolition of the IRS, and free TEC-9s for all new voters. And if that doesn't work--a constitutional amendment banning gay people.

Now, let us set aside for a minute the fact that, if the success of George W. Bush has taught us anything, it is that self-reflection is for losers. I recognize that the Democratic Party is the party of pointy-heads who overanalyze the frappuccino menu at Starbucks. Liberals deconstruct. It's what we do. But in the midst of all this rampant self-analysis, what perplexes me is that just about everyone seems to be scrupulously avoiding discussion of the unavoidable reality that the Democratic Party lost because it once again ran a certifiably piss-poor candidate for president.

I'm sorry, I know Kerry came close. I know he gave a helluva debate performance. I know he tried really hard to convince Middle America that he would recognize Dale Earnhardt Jr. if the bad boy of NASCAR spent an afternoon doing doughnuts on his front lawn. But the fact remains that JFK2 was a terrible choice for Democrats, especially now, especially against this president.

Having written ad nauseum about why this is so, I won't bore everyone with a detailed recap. Suffice it to say that the senator brought nothing--zero, zilch, nada--to the table that would actively appeal to any voter beyond the safe bicoastal blue zones. (Even poor Dick Gephardt, eternally handicapped by his lack of eyebrows, might have made inroads into the Midwest.) Hey, there's no need to take my word on the matter: Über-handicapper Charlie Cook was offering this same assessment less than a week before Election Day.

Thus far, however, most people seem to be holding their tongues about this core truth. Maybe it's too soon, and Dems are allowing Kerry a little time to heal. Maybe Republicans are hoping Dems screw up and run him again in 2008. But my suspicion is that everyone is still so awed by Kerry's coming so close, by his outperforming all expectations, that they have completely forgotten why expectations were so low to begin with: because he was a lousy candidate.

Ordinarily I'm not the kind of gal to kick a guy when he's down--at least not unless I'm pretty sure he's so far down he ain't getting back up. But I make an exception in Kerry's case because, while Democrats are busy reflecting, they need to carefully consider the costs of disregarding a candidate's basic likeability. (Not to be confused with his IQ or experience or fundraising clout or height.) Dems can rework their policies and narrative and meta-message all they want, but if they don't learn to pick a contender with a common touch and a broad appeal--meaning someone who can relate to the masses outside the Delta Shuttle corridor--they are going to wind up wandering in the wilderness far longer than Moses.

Most importantly, the party would do well to come to grips with this electoral reality now, before it finds itself staring down the barrel of an even grander presidential disaster. I speak, of course, of Hillary '08.

Since Election Day, I have suffered through multiple discussions with giddy conservatives all but drooling over a Hillary run. They--like most liberals I know--all assume Senator Clinton is the horse to beat in 2008. But unlike discussions with liberals, my Hillary chats with conservatives typically begin with a variation on, Have your people gone completely insane? I'd like to take offense, but I can't, because nominating Hillary would be insanity. It's not that she's a bad gal. And she's surprised most of the Beltway crowd by turning out to be a relatively moderate, low-key, collegial, workhorse senator. Factoring in her high name recognition, her mythic status with the base, her ability to energize female voters, and, of course, her easy access to the greatest natural politician of our time, it's easy to see Hillary's appeal. Looked at rationally, she'd make a crackerjack presidential candidate.

But the American public is not rational about anyone with the last name Clinton. If you thought the Republican base was energized this year, just give them the chance to vote against that uppity Clinton girl. The GOP possibilities for fund-raising, not to mention creative attack ads, are mind-boggling.

At minimum, Hillary starts with some 40 percent of the country dead-set against her. Granted, an equal number would start out in her corner. But it's hard to see how she unloads all of her baggage in order to reach enough mushy-middle voters to win. The political class may now think of Hillary as a moderate legislator. But the bulk of the electorate, all those folks who won't tune into the race until after Labor Day '08, will be voting on Hillary the icon. Think headbands and cookie-baking. Think Vince Foster and the Rose law firm billing records and the health care debacle. Washington understands that Hillary has grown, but it will be much tougher to convince Middle America. (And let's face it: Her status as a senator from the ultra-uppity, Yankee state of New York is unlikely to help.)

Bush was unquestionably a polarizing figure this election. But it bears recalling that he initially came to power not by energizing his base, but by projecting an aggressively non-polarizing image that drew swing voters to his corner. (He also got a little help from stupid Floridians and the U.S. Supreme Court, but it's considered bad form to mention all that now.)

If Dems have any hope of performing better in 2008, they need to rally around a candidate who won't freak out the GOP base, even as he or she reassures wary swing voters that Democrats aren't the godless, convictionless, condescending, out-of-touch cultural aliens that Karl Rove claims. It's still too early for anyone to know who that candidate is yet. But I damn sure know who it ain't.

[jacktruth]

I completely agree about Hillary. I jump for joy at the thought of her winning the nomination. In fact, I may vote in the democratic primary in 2008 just to help her cause.

The stuff about Kerry's candidacy is a lot like the Mavs analysis during last few years:

"I think the Mavs need to go out and get a center that can score 15 pts a game and guard Tim Duncan and Shaquille ONeal."

This statement is absolutely correct, unfortunately such a player does not exist!

The fact is that there was no better candidate for the Democratic party. Anybody else running would have got creamed and if there was a better candidate to run, they would have made him run. Kerry was the best they had!

[Drbio]

Nice analogy JT. Spot on.

[jacktruth]

(He also got a little help from stupid Floridians and the U.S. Supreme Court, but it's considered bad form to mention all that now.)

I just wanted to add that this is the very problem with Democrats:

They say things they know they shouldn't say
They insult the very people that can bring them vicrtory
They only respect the US Supreme Court when it favors them (as it currently does most of the time)

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: jacktruth
I completely agree about Hillary. I jump for joy at the thought of her winning the nomination. In fact, I may vote in the democratic primary in 2008 just to help her cause.

The stuff about Kerry's candidacy is a lot like the Mavs analysis during last few years:

"I think the Mavs need to go out and get a center that can score 15 pts a game and guard Tim Duncan and Shaquille ONeal."

This statement is absolutely correct, unfortunately such a player does not exist!

The fact is that there was no better candidate for the Democratic party. Anybody else running would have got creamed and if there was a better candidate to run, they would have made him run. Kerry was the best they had!

Kerry was not the 'best they had' most Republicans don't even believe Kerry was the best they had. Next to howard dean, republican strategists considered Kerry their biggest mark. Wesley Clark or Joe Lieberman or even Dick Gephardt would have made stronger candidates than Dukakis 2.0

[jacktruth]

Kerry was not the 'best they had' most Republicans don't even believe Kerry was the best they had. Next to howard dean, republican strategists considered Kerry their biggest mark. Wesley Clark or Joe Lieberman or even Dick Gephardt would have made stronger candidates than Dukakis 2.0

Then why didn't any of those other guys get the nomination? It was democrats who voted in the primaries, right.

Perhaps the number one problem with the democratic party isn't who they pick to lead, but instead is the people doing the picking. Maybe thier ideology just isn't one that will win America over.