75% of 70%

[grantcart]

I am proud to be in a party where the label of homphobe, anti-gay or anti-woman is an absolute death sentence for leadership.

However before any of those labels are applied a rigorous intellectually honest standard must be applied.

Democratic office holders who run in red states cannot be expected to be on the cutting edge of every issue. In the past whenever you would find a Senator or Congressman from a red state who was really progressive in one area you didn't have to look too far to see that there was something that they stood for was absolutely shameful in another area. Senator Fullbright was brilliant on the Vietnam war and terrible on civil rights.

I am glad that we don't have that kind of a double standard anymore. It has meant that we have been out of the White House more than we should have since the 60's, but the party is better for it.


It is absolutely unreasonable to expect all Democratic politicians from red states to come out leading on same sex marriages. In fairness we didn't apply that standard to Edwards, Clinton or Obama. In fairness California wouldn't have approved it 5 years ago. With the defeat of the constitutional amendment in November California it will show the country how silly the objection is and slowly tens of thousands of legally married gay couples will move into cities across the country and the litigation and the headaches will clearly demonstrate that 'how goes California so goes the nation'. New York has already ruled that they will honor California weddings.

If labels like anti-gay, anti-woman, and homphobe are thrown about capriciously then they will lose their meaning, and their force.

If a politician from a red state is criticized for opposing 'stem cell research' (and if that is their current position they should be) then the should also be admired for their high principles in speaking out against capital punishment which is almost universally embraced in large parts of the country.

The debate about how tolerant we are to intelligent principled Democratic office holders coming from states that have been traditionally conservative goes directly to the heart of our ability to win in November. Did anybody really think that we could nominate an African American Senator with an Islamic sounding name and then not run him with somebody who in many ways is going to appear conventional and traditional?

Can we be honest here?

Canvassing in 'liberal' Democratic California I still find Democrats who are still 'worried and scared' about Obama and still think he is Muslim. Whoever our VP is, that candidate is going to have to be one that is going to make people feel safe and familiar.

It shouldn't have to be that way but that is the reality when you start the election with 30% of the population who will refuse to vote with you because of the race of the candidate. Of the remaining 70% we have to win 75% of the remaining population.

Can I repeat that. We have to win 75% of the non racist population of this country.

Winning 75% of any large diverse group is almost impossible.

If we are going to win in November we are not going to be able to win by advancing every progressive agenda that the people in DU know to be right and fair. Does that mean that we sell our souls? No. It means that we insist that we end "don't ask and don't tell". It means that we recognize that progress on same sex marriages is progressing better at the state level than the national level. It means we make smart decisions.

For those that think that this is in the bag and that we can just go aggressively after every issue at full volume from day one I would like to humbly point out that this is still a very fragile lead. Obama barely has 51% of the total population and that a loss this time would be a disaster too great to contemplate.

[BlooInBloo]

1. 52.5% ain't that bad.

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. You should edit Kaine's wikipedia page to say he wasn't a missionary BTW.

You said in a response to me that he wasn't, because catholics have to be ordained. The thread got locked before I could respond with the article. So if you know you're right, you should edit it for the sake of clarity of all concerned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine

[grantcart]

3. the official term for ordained priests who are missionaries are apostolic missionaries

and they appointed by the Pope.

They are seminary trained and competent to teach the Catechism and can give Mass.


Lay volunteers who join for short periods of time and are not seminary trained are not, in my mind, missionaries. I served in a similar duty (was seminar trained) and no one ever called us nor did we ever use that term for ourselves.

I think that it should be changed to Lay volunteer or Lay teacher or at the very least Lay Missionary, depending on what he actually did, but given the fact that he has no seminary training I find it very strange. Like calling somebody a doctor because they volunteered and helped out in a medical clinic. But given that it is a high profile person and I am not a Catholic would leave it so somebody who has authority, preferably an ecclesiastical expert to make the change.

As it is stated I think it is completely misrepresents what he did. The only groups that I know that send untrained lay people out and call them missionaries are the mormons.

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. If you think its politically hurting him, you can edit it.

That's why I was pointing it out. It may be actually be a good thing for certain swing voters. I was thinking about it, and I could imagine a VP viewed as a missionary could soften the xenophobia of Obama's "otherness" in certain voting blocks. But the question is whether its a misrepresentation.

[Skittles]

5. there's a difference between accepting this reality

and pandering to homophobes

[phrigndumass]

6. All it takes is five states to completely change the picture

And those states are teetering between Obama +1 and McCain +1.

For those of us here who will vote for Obama in November (all of us?), we might do our party some good to write down all the issues that are important to us, put it in an envelope, seal it, and not open it again until after the election. It'll be good for our party to open up Obama's envelope and work on his issues until then, imho.

Great post, grantcart, one of the best you've written so far. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: