Reply #14: Winning the battle, losing the war [View All]

[jumptheshadow]

Point one: Yes, Bush is vulnerable. With time, hopefully the weight of his grievous sins will register with the electorate. The right-wing is getting increasingly desperate. Every scheme they are concocting has the potential of blowing up in their faces. (Hee hee.)

However, the Republicans also are exponentially more organized than we are. They've raised far more money. And their ethical compasses are broken. They are simply much more capable of dirty tricks than the typical purist Democrat. Don't count Bush out. In fact, don't count any vote out, anywhere.

Point two: We are not just running for the presidency. We are trying to win back the House and the Senate so that our next Democratic president can actually be effective. We have so much repair work to do. The future of our nation is at stake. I don't think I'm overstating that, am I?

One of my frustrations with Democratic activists is that so many of them use short-term strategy. They are aiming to win the battle at the expense of losing the war. They are using scorched earth tactics to prevail in the primary at the risk of gutting the support for the war. And our focus must always -- always -- be on the war.

In order to win the war, we are going to need the support of voters who, for whatever reason, cast their ballot for Bush or were absent altogether from the polls last time. We are going to have to make inroads into geographic territories that didn't go our way in 2000. And we are going to have to score decisive victories. You know the right-wing will fight the marginal wins. It will try its best to deflate any mandate given to a Democratic president, if not to derail the outcome of the election itself.

That brings us to Wesley Clark. Your essay about a general aspiring to the presidency was brilliant. It was just the intelligent kind of discourse I look for on DU. And your points are well-taken. However...

Wesley Clark's run for the presidency strengthens the hand of any Democrat who wins the primary. His endorsement of the Democratic party wins us credibility among Southern voters, male voters and swing state voters. His embrace of the word "liberal" helps blunt the years worth of disgraceful invective aimed at those of us who believe that our politicians should be compassionate as well as strong. The general's coattails will be powerful, for the nominee of our party, and for the countless candidates who will be running in congressional races across the nation. We need him.

And if, let's say, Dean wins, he will require the passionate support of the Clark supporters, the Kucinich supporters, the Kerry supporters, etc., etc. He will need around-the-clock electioneering in minority districts by people like Charlie Rangel, Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton. He will need unwavering support from the very people who are routinely demonized on this board. The Democratic party will have to be very unified and organized if we want to generate the congressional support for our next president. Or else it's win the battle and lose the war...