which essentially is the same point he's made for years about branding and defining one's opponent (which in this case is the Republican party) and creating repeatedly reinforcing a contrast with one's own party's beliefs and values.
The process needs to be done whener heated issues come up or there's an impending policy battle. Branding like this potentially
backs the DINO's away from enabling the opposition, because no one- not Bayh or even Nelson, wants to be repeatedly associated with unpopular affiliations or with the consequences people associate with FAILED right wing policies.
It's powerful leverage- though as Weston astutely notes:
It may be that the President is not the right messenger for this message (although FDR had no trouble being both an inspirational and transformational leader while also leading his party, and the Republicans became the "Party of Lincoln" after the gangly leader from Illinois not only said a few choice things about those who wanted to hang onto their slaves but actually sent an army after them). And it could be that he is right to stand above the fray. It could also be that House and Senate Democrats need to be more forceful with the media about covering their statements, since their leadership has been less reluctant to talk in partisan tones.
But someone needs to be in the fray other than the GOP. The worst thing to be in politics is silent, because it allows the other side to shape public sentiment uncontested. It wouldn't hurt to have a Southern voice like Tim Kaine's behind a megaphone with a "D" written on it. But whether it's Kaine or someone else with credibility and charisma, somebody needs to start saying what Democrats and Republicans stand for other than Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, and Richard Shelby. That's a lesson we should have learned a long time ago.
On some of these matters- Biden would be a decent choice. I'm sure we can think of others.
Hopefully, Obama, Rahm & Kaine, et al. get the message- because, ironically, too often in the past "the party of faith pays close attention to the science of voter decision-making, while we in the alledged party of science still place inordinate faith in voters' appreciation of our policy proposals."