E Pluribus Unum

What the f*ck have I been saying?

1. Democrats need to show that they have a spine.

2. Democrats need to show that they have the courage of their convictions and values.

3. Democrats need to cajole, ridicule, and/or shout down the pampered press poodles every time they start spouting Republican propaganda and otherwise treating Democrats like there is anything equivalent between their progressive public policies and Republican policies of social de-construction (in other words, f*ck Joe Klein and David Broder with a sharp stick).

"…I know what you're thinking: this is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. We have a conscience, they don't; we are intellectually more able to find, and explain, the subtle nuances in the issues, they cannot; we're tolerent, they're not…"

No. The difference is that, relatively speaking, Democrats represent the common man, common sense and common decency. They need to start acting like they are fighting against an enemy of all of those things (see points 1., 2., and 3.).

I've been letting this mull over in my head -- like stinky cheese I don't know if it got better or worse.

One: John Edwards on the Hardball follow-up yesterday. All he talked about was standing up and fighting "the crazies.

"I think when they engage in these attacks and use the language of hate, it's very important to stand up," Edwards said. "What happens if you are silent when this kind of hateful language is used - not just by her, but by anyone - hate gets a foothold."

[snip]

What she said about Senator Clinton and Senator Obama is outrageous," Edwards said. "And somebody has to stand up when she makes these kind of attacks."

Oh, and if you didn't catch it last night, Elizabeth was chatting in a liveblog on KOS last night. (Best quotes collected here.)

Two: Fighting the right on their terms, in their way, opens the door to more -- not less -- of their patented obscurations unless you just come out and call them a "liar." And "them's fightin' words."

If you're trying to project an image of dignity and likeability, that's a dicy way to go. Even if you win the argument, you risk turning off the vast majority of fense-sitting indifferent voters (and doners) who may just see you (on an emotional level) as no better that your opponent.

We win by being better -- and they are better at the dirt because they can't win on a logical review of the issues. Edwards pushs the envelope as a candidate by calling Coulter (and Rove) or the others "crazies." It was as close as I've seen a Dem candidate get to playing in the GOP mudpile directly, not through surrogates.

And if it was all done by design, it speaks well for their strategy. And if it was done on the fly, seeing Coulter as a target of opportunity, it speaks even better about their instincts and the flexibility of their organization.

Tip your hat guys. This round went to the Edwards folks.

The traditional way to handle these attacks is to use surrogates, i.e., high-profile allies that are not directly tied to the campaign. And, if you get the nomination, it is your VP candidate who gets to do it. (google "Dole hatchetman")

However you do it, the candidate stays above the fray, out of the mud. But the message is sent.

Edwards has another challenge: he is only top-tier Dem candidate that is a white male, i.e., "fair game." Clinton and Obama get a certain amount of latitude because picking on them opens up a host of questions about racism and sexism. Even Richardson (who is sinking fast) gets some breathing room because he is Hispanic and the Republicans are desperately hoping they can hang on to some portion of that vote. Good luck.

That said, Obama is taking a lot of heat among the crazies for his (nearly non-existent) Muslim heritage. And what else is there left to say about Hillary -- that she risks being seen as a gangster when she parodies the hottest cultural phenomenon of the year? Lame.

No, it's Edwards who has a big old target on his back. So Giuliani gets to imply that Edwards is frivolous (he's a trial lawyer, get it?) and Coulter gets to call him -- well you know what she does.

What I wish is that Edwards would talk more about his main strength as a Democrat: his Southern heritage. He should play it off against the amped-up big-city corruption and insanity that is Rudy Giuliani and Ann Coulter. Elizabeth alluded to that somewhat in her confrontation. Maybe John should too.

No. Just No.

You guys sound like Democrats, and I mean that in the worst “Bob Shrum” kind of way.

Liar?! Democrats are called everything in the book: Kerry and Gore – liars, Bill Clinton – rapist, Edwards – pussy, Hillary – shrew, Obama – terrorist sympathizer. You know what you look like when you’re called that and you sit there smiling like an idiot (whoops, I think I gave that away) and let your “surrogates” reply?

You know what you look like when you watch the criminal, anti-democratic and traitorous sh*t the Republicans have been doing, aided and abetted by the MSM, for the past 27 years and respond to that by “trying to project an image of dignity and likeability”?

“Fence-sitters” want to see a leader who looks like they believe in something. They want to see a leader who looks like they will stand up for them and themselves. They want to see some toughness from the people they want to protect them from threats at home and abroad.

Haven’t the Republicans, who have offered nothing else but triumphalism, hatemongering and tax cuts taught you anything?

Fight fair but fight like hell. If there ever was one, now is the time for some honest-to-goodness righteous indignation.

One more thing: Elizabeth Edwards didn’t win the last cycle by playing into the way-too-late, Democrat hamstringing, beltway-elite calls for more civil discourse. She won because she called out and stood up to a despicable bully. I’m not sure where I read it but it took about two seconds before someone said: “If Elizabeth Edwards was running, she’d have my vote.”

What Greg Sargent said:

well, yes, the idea behind drawing attention to her hatefulness and stupidity is to shame the big news orgs into not giving her a platform anymore...it's really about them, not her...

Makes sense. And good for her for showing some outrage. It didn't seem to hurt her politically one bit, did it?

But why not shame them directly: "Chris, why give her a platform to spew that sort of toxic rhetoric. If people want that, they can buy her books."

No one with a heart and a spine could hear some of the personal crap that gets thrown at Democrats and not think, "damn, I'd sure tell that assh*le to go Cheney himself." One thing that makes Democrats look like cowards is that they often seem afraid to say what they really think.

e.g., “I think it’s time to teach you a few old-fashioned lessons about character..."

As usual, Digby says it better:

“While I think it's great to engage in a dialog about "hate speech" and try to educate the nation about how we should all get along, while we jabber they are out there behaving like miscreant adolescents and pushing powerful primitive buttons against which rational dialog just can't compete.

[snip]

People tend to personalize politics and put politicians into roles to which they can relate. When candidates have the opportunity to demonstrate how they handle situations in which ordinary Americans can see themselves, they should take it. It's a way of communicating leadership in a visceral, instantly comprehensible way.”

shep:

Not sure where you got the idea that I wanted Edwards (or any Dem) to "sit there smiling like an idiot and let your 'surrogates' reply..."

If you know anything about me, you know I want our guy to throw punches and knock the other guy down. Didn't you read the post these comments are attached to??

No ifs, ands, or buts.

Ask Mark: If anything I've been saying all along that Edwards hasn't gone far enough.

Sorry, Ara. After Mark's comment, the "[h]owever you do it, the candidate stays above the fray, out of the mud," smacked of the maddening Dem consultant "fight by not fighting" zen bullshit.

Democrats don't exactly need to "get in the mud," because they have the truth and the moral high ground on policy. They don't have to do Coultereque hate speech or even Swiftvet-style personal smears. But they sure as sh*t need to get instantly and observably mad in response to it. That's what real, feeling, unafraid people do.

And they could show a lot more passion, even anger, with what Republicans have done to government and society. That is, if they want anyone to take them seriously and differentiate a brand that the "fence-sitters" want to buy.

If I come off sounding like I don't want a fight, well, I can see your point. Mostly I think we're disagreeing over tactics, not strategery. There's room for smashmouth AND slipping a knife between their ribs. IJS.

On a related topic, I saw this today at Firedoglake from Swopa:

Over the weekend, during an impromptu discussion of impeachment deep in an FDL comments thread, I wrote:

With only some hyperbole, I’d say that Republicans’ message about Clinton was, “He acted in a way that you’d be ashamed to tell your kids.”

In contrast, Democrats’ message tends to be, “He violated section 12(c) of Chapter 344-7 of the…”. There’s a problem there, I think.

I don’t know if Rahm Emanuel was reading (though I’m sure he’s a big FDL fan), but check out his statement today on the Fourthbranch controversy, via TPM Muckraker:

Yesterday the vice president was forced to admit what even an eighth-grade student knew: there is no Cheney branch of government.

But I think more Dems should listen to Emanuel. You might disagree with his politics but he knows how to punch.

"But I think more Dems should listen to Emanuel. You might disagree with his politics but he knows how to punch."

Agreed. Rahm is an excellent rhetorical street fighter. I think that his problem (like Hillary's) comes down to a question of political calculation. By contrast, #1 Dean comes off as completely sincere and unscripted.

Again, we come down to the issue of Democrats expressing how they really feel. John Kerry got a very good blog named after his "crooks and liars," "off-mike" gaffe. Just imagine...

Keep your eye on Emanuel. He'll be Speaker some day and his story will have plenty of dark and stormy nights.