Apparently, Josh Marshall hates the Jeffrey Goldberg article that I've been quoting so much from. Closer to home, so does co-blogger and good friend Mark Adams.
So, Mark: I thought the article good enough to read all the way through, quote here more than once and recommend to my friends and family.
But for Josh, not so much. He speaks for many Democrats when he says this:
What struck me most about [Goldberg's] article was how little grasp Goldberg seemed to have of the divisions and cross-cutting alliances that exist in the Democratic party today. Politicians that are darlings of the Democratic blogosphere appear in the piece as its critics and sworn enemies -- in most cases, seemingly, based on their willingness to provide a quote taking down one of the author's straw men.
Democrats arguing amongst themselves?
There's a newsflash! In short, I wasn't bothered by this tone in the article.
Here's the thing: I know that Howard Dean is right -- Democrats have to be a national party. Democrats have to compete everywhere. Like Mark Warner says in the article: Democrats can't just try to perfect the "triple bank shot" approach of focusing on the Northeast and the West Coast and hoping for a win in Florida or Ohio. Democrats have to compete everywhere -- Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky, and the majority of the Mississippi River states.
[Note: How on earth can you do that? Well, there is a way (see below).]
There wasn't anything in the article that convinced me otherwise -- in fact, I was left with the impression that folks like Warner, Claire McCaskill, Brian Schweitzer, Brad Carson, Harold Ford and Kathleen Sullivan understood that better than the likes of John Kerry, Chris Dodd, and (perhaps) Hillary Clinton.
Speaking of Howard Dean, I can see where Marshall might be put off by the profile of Dean in this piece; more importantly, I can see how a non-junkie might get the idea that Dean is still a bull in a china shop. But, you know, on certain days, he is. And/but that's what I like about Dean. So I guess I wasn't surprised or dismayed by his portrayal.
On the other hand, I cringed when I read this quote from Chris Dodd:
Dodd is convinced that the Party is so weary of losing that its voters will make their decisions strategically. "The Party won't nominate someone who starts in a hole. They will make that determination if they perceive a person not to be a winner. They want to win. They really want to win.'
Hey, I want to win too. But, sadly, we picked the "electable" candidate the last time. It didn't work out so well.
The article hints at a different kind of Democratic candidate each time it returns to Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana. He may not run; but Schweitzer has gone on the record (elsewhere) as describing the kind of Democrats the party needs:
Does personal authenticity trump everything else in the minds of voters?
Look, I started this out by saying that Democrats can win if they lead with their hearts. Let people feel you! Don't try to verbalize. Let them feel you first. [...]
If I'm for something, you're gonna know it pretty quick. And if I'm agin it, you're gonna know it too. I'm straight about those things.
Some people can't do that. Maybe they've had a lot of time in politics, or they're lawyers, or it's just their makeup. And they have all these highfalutin pollsters and media people, and they say, "Well, there's this demographic that kind of bleeds into this demographic, and you don't want to lose these over here because you were on this." I don't believe any of it.
I think most people will support you if they know that you'll stand your ground.
Even if they don't stand on the same ground?
That's right.
George Burns used to say that sincerity was the most important thing in show business. Once you learned how to fake that, you'd have it made. Is that what we're talking about?
Just tell 'em what you are. [...]
[D]o you believe in something? Did you have something when you started? If you do, tell 'em what it is. You'll be all right. If you're a kook, you're not going to get elected.
But if you're real, you're normal, you're halfway bright, and you're willing to stand up -- that's the most important thing.
Sadly, recent history shows that (by far) the most important thing is:
- how you look, followed by
- how you sound and lastly
- what you say.
You can resist that idea; you can even try to reverse it. But even Chris Dodd will tell you: Democrats don't want someone who starts in a hole. And trying to reverse human nature will put you in the hole before you even get started.
"You know who the most successful Democrats have been through history?" [Schweitzer] asks. "Democrats who've led with their hearts, not their heads. Harry Truman, he led with his heart. Jack Kennedy led with his heart. Bill Clinton, well, he led with his heart, but it dropped about 2 feet lower in his anatomy later on.
"We are the folks who represent the families. Talk like you care. Act like you care. When you're talking about issues that touch families, it's OK to make it look like you care. It's OK to have policies that demonstrate that you'll make their lives better -- and talk about it in a way that they understand. Too many Democrats -- the policy's just fine, but they can't talk about it in a way that anybody else understands."
The Moral Yardstick: What it is and why Democrats need to find it
In the absence of everything else, in the absence of a deep commitment to policy wonkery, in the absence of a politics jones, people will judge you with a
moral yardstick.
In no particular order, they'll want to know:
- what shaped your life?
- What bad experiences did you endure and what did you learn from them?
- What good fortune have you had and what did you do with it?
- What are you enthusiastic about?
- What do you look forward to doing every morning when you get out of bed and your feet hit the floor?
- Who were your parents? Were they good to you? What was the best part of them that you carry with you today? What about them will you teach your own children? On the other hand, if your parents were bad to you, tell us what you did to rise above that disadvantage.
In short, they'll want to know: what was the crucible in which you were shaped?
They'll want to know these things about you and they will judge you by the answers you give and (most importantly) they will judge you in how you look and sound when you give the answers.
These are the sorts of things that give people an idea of your moral yardstick. People want to know this because people cannot predict how good a President you'll be. But they can look at where you came from and get an idea of where you'll take them from here on out.
It's simple human nature. You can deny it; you can think it is unimportant; you can try to resist it, or change it. Good luck with that.
That's what I got from the Goldberg article and that's why I, as a Democrat, liked it.
First, VPOTUS chief of staff Scooter Libby killed Valerie Plame's career (under orders from his boss) to stop Joe Wilson. After his indictment, he resigned. Then, taking a page out of the Jack Ruby manual on law enforcement, WH deputy chief of staff Karl Rove stabbed Scooter in the back to protect the president.
| del.icio.us 
Ok, that's a joke, but you know, Rove's mojo was always about the bluffing. 
Now maybe Bush is reverting to his former role as a high school cheerleader. Maybe he sees his role as Morale-Builder-In-Chief. But even if Osama is captured -- or delivers another jihad-video -- on November 3, it won't change what this election is about:
The Republicans are clinging to power in Congress. And now I understand that they're going to cling to each other (and to Bush, too), hoping they can gut it out one more time. Too bad for the Democrats that the election isn't today. Because they could beat these guys in a heartbeat right now. 
Actually the judge did 
It was just Wednesday that I was wondering when Bush would dip into to the 20's. 
Turns out Katrina is the issue that turns the reddest part of red-state America against the Republicans:
