Glenn Greenwald nails it on Dem electoral strategies

[jumptheshadow]

The Salon columnist makes the case that standing firm on principled positions is the way that Democrats will win elections in today's electoral environment. He makes pointed (and constructive) criticism of the way the presidential campaign has been run so far.

I agree with everything he says. My one, heartfelt question is, "What if there is a terrorist attack? Wouldn't that change the environment?" And, "When should we stop thinking about the question, 'What is there is a terrorist attack?'" When I look around NYC, it's clear that security has been beefed up lately in a very visible way. Does our Congress have "inside information" that is the cause of their conservatism or are they simply married to old truisms and the money of large donors. Even if Congress says they have inside information, can we ever trust them again after their votes for the Iraqi war? I know I am mixing two topics here but I do think they are entwined.

Greenwald on campaigns and the current political environment:

>>Beyond its obsolescence, this "move-to-the-center" cliché ignores the extraordinary political climate prevailing in this country, in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular. The very idea that Bush/Cheney policies are the "center," or that one must move towards their approach in order to succeed, ignores the extreme shifts in public opinion generally regarding how our country has been governed over the last seven years.<<

and

>>And in 2002, huge numbers of Congressional Democrats voted to authorize the attack on Iraq based on this same premise that doing so would enable them to avoid looking Weak on National Security. The GOP then based its whole 2002 campaign on attacking Democrats as Weak on National Security and the Democrats were crushed -- because, having accepted rather than debated the GOP premises, there was no way to challenge GOP National Security arguments. What makes Democrats look weak is their patent fear of standing by their own views.<<

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/29/center/

Note: I posted this in GD:P because the column talks about strategy for the presidential campaign. Please feel free to move to GD if that is the proper place for this post.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

1. We won in 2006 while opposing changes to FISA law

Good point by Greenwald. Opposition to all the bad provisions aimed at changing the traditional FISA law resulted in no loss for us in the congressional elections. Not one Democratic incumbent loss back then.

[MasonJar]

2. Read the entire article. It is "dead center" which is ironical. I have been

trying to tell DU that moving center is going to hurt our candidate. When, we who see this, complain, we are bashing our candidate. NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! We want to win. Obama has a much better chance to win by standing for what he stands for. He is quite moderate anyway, and so should naturally appeal to independents and some GOPers. Obama's opportunity to win is diminished if he continues to backtrack just to get elected. The article is quite specific. Obama needs to read it.