Herbert: No Will to Win? (Timid Dems)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/opinion/12HERB.html

Ready, aim. . . .

The Democratic Party's circular firing squad has assembled. Everybody's angry with everybody else. Joe Lieberman is trying to extricate the knife that, in his view, Al Gore deposited in his back. Al Sharpton is accusing Mr. Gore of engaging in the kind of "bossism" that belongs "in the other party."

The Gore and Clinton families are morphing into the Hatfields and the McCoys. And the runaway Dean machine, which has shown an impressive ability to amass campaign cash and early primary support, is now generating prodigious amounts of fear and loathing as well.

<snip>

The Dems may indeed sink like the Titanic next year. But I don't think Dr. Dean is the problem — at least, not yet. The problem is the party itself. God and the Republicans have blessed the Democrats with the high ground on one important issue after another, from the war in Iraq to national economic policy to health care to education to the environment.

But like the Union general George McClellan, the Democrats have been too timid to take full advantage. It's a party for the faint of heart. The Republicans are hijacking elections and redistricting the country and looting the Treasury and ignoring the Constitution and embittering our allies, while the Democrats are — let's see, fumbling their way through an incoherent primary season and freaking out over Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean.

[NNadir]

1. Bullshit.

They're getting nervous at Das Stuermer.

[Brucey]

2. Well, he got the repugs right...

but, timid? Dean? Kucinich? Sharpton? I don't think so. The problem is they don't have a media to encourage and promote their views, and they don't have an arena to present sanity to a public that is ignorant and hypnotized.

[dweller]

4. Yes it would be interesting to see Herbert

turn his critical eye inward, and examine the media and how they have brought this division and delusion on the Democratic party, after all, he stands to gain more supportive readers who may just get it.
For if we have the higher ground, why are Democrats shown to be 'unpatriotic, weak, infighting' and then even not represented by the media conglomerates (abc on Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, for example).

maybe it's easier just to point the fingers than finger the points.
dp

[eileen from OH]

3. Gee, it sounds like DU. ..

really, he makes very salient points. And the points he makes about the Dems are also seen here, in a microcosm of the party.

1. We got the folks that post negative shit about other candidates and then disengenously say, "gee, what do you think this means?"

2. We got the folks who foresee a total blowout of the election if "X" is the nominee, mostly because of what Rove will do with "X". (This usually ignores the fact that Rove is gonna pile on the shit, whether the candidate is X, Y, or Z. The difference will be in the shit that's flung and the effectiveness of the response of the candidate.)

3. We got the feet-firmly-planted folks who take every honest question as an attack. (not to be confused with #1.)

4. We got the purist/idealists who believe their candidate (OR single issue) is the way, the truth, and the light and if he/she is NOT the nominee, well then, they are done and leaving and not voting.
Nyah, nyah, nyah. These are the virulent "anti-s" who seem to care less about winning than they do about remaining "true" to their candidate, even if it means four more years of Bush.

5. Finally, we got the "supporters" who think their proclamations somehow absolve them from actually DOING or CONTRIBUTING or WORKING. Granted, I think (or rather hope) that this is a miniscule group. But, then again, talk is cheap and if your "support" consists primarily of loudly endorsing here plus your one vote, and nuthin' else. . .well. . .sorry, but I'm not impressed.

I may have missed a few - feel free to add your own.

If you see yourself in one or more of the above groups, then this editorial outta be printed and posted by your computer. I don't believe in the Bush bullshit of "if you ain't with us, you're agin us." But I DO believe that if you ain't part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem.

eileen from OH

[burning bush]

6. Good points, Eileen, but what is the solution?

I'm interested in your view...

[Cocoa]

5. what about the fucking press?

including the fucking NYT?

Why isn't the NYT calling repeatedly for Bush to be impeached? They should be. Bob Graham called for it, did the NYT? Herbert?

What about the fucking Plame leak, is the NYT following it? Did they break the story, even after Novak handed it to anyone who cared to write about it. No, they ignored it, except for David Corn of the Nation.