GDP and GD are irrespirable. This report seems to have restarted the

[Mass]

the flamewar.

There may be some truth in the report, but the last paragraph makes me mad. I agree with Kerry that we do not need a second Republican Party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601645_pf.html

They suggest that Democratic presidential candidates replicate Clinton's tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party's liberal base by approving the execution of a semi-retarded prisoner, by challenging liberal icon Jesse L. Jackson and by calling for an end to welfare "as we know it."

[whometense]

1. If they're

"aligned with Clinton" why should we believe anything they say about this? In strictly political terms, it's not hard to see their particular angle.

[karynnj]

2. I think this is a real misreading of the results in 2004

First, Clinton in 1992 was probably helped by Perot - if only because most of Perot's fire was directed at Bush. There are likely people swayed by Perot who thought he was a bit weird who turned to Clinton.

Kerry got one of the highest % of the vote for a Democrat in decades. This was also against a President with a MUCH higher approval rating than Bush Sr in a time of war. Kerry's numbers went up when he addressed terror and the war in Iraq - not when he addressed the economy which was Clinton's advise. (Clinton also didn't have Carter's political operatives bad mouthing him and bemoaning his lack of charisma - as Kerry did with Clinton's people.)

At a time when corruption, lack of ethics and flexible moral values are likely to be an issue, Clinton's ability to ignore values - by excecuting someone with so little concept of what's happening that he saved the dessert of his last meal for "later" is nothing to brag of. In 2004, his advice that Kerry endorse all the gay bashing amendments would have been suicide. I doubt a single gay basher would have then switched to Kerry and the Republicans would have had a genuine example of flip flop and no core values. Kerry's choice to be true to his values was correct.

I doubt it is ever a great idea to copy the campaign that worked 16 years before in a different situation against a different candidate. When people are looking for truth, Clinton type morality and lack of commitment to long term values can't be the answer.

[Mass]

3. Meritocrats and Aristocrats - a analysis of the Third Way report.

http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/7/142426/204

The professionals who Kamarck and Galston think can't communicate with ordinary people well aren't just elite, they're New Yale. John Kerry was literally an Old Yale person, but his life and career clearly identified him with New Yale. Both Bushes were Old Yale, while JFK and FDR were Old Harvard, which amounts to the same thing. Today's professional elite is, in short, a different kind of elite from the slowly-dying one which has given us many successful politicians over the years. This, I think, is probably not a coincidence. There's not only the communications issues that Kamarck and Galston reference, but also a values gap.

I think most meritocrats -- New Yale types -- have a hard time understanding that most of the population doesn't regard professional competence as the highest of personal virtues. There's a certain segment of the American population in which people primarily define their self-worth in these meritocratic terms, and it's tended to become sufficiently isolated from the rest of the population that people don't realize exactly how narrow this view is. At the same time, the professional class has become such a large element of the Democratic Party constituency that it's hard to see how the Party can avoid embracing its attitudes.

This type of analysis (both the one in the report and Yglesias's one) drive me crazy. After 4+ years of the false folksy Bush , all that these people are proposing is to have our own Bush. Thanksfully, a few of the answers get it, but we can expect another primary season full of the artificial dychotomy between those who " connect", even if they are not ready for the job (understand those who come from the South) and those who are competent. May be some day the Democrats will understand that these battles should be won on issues.

[JI7]

4. Reagan Hagel etc

and no matter who the Republicans nominate they will turn it into a positive. they nominate california ,hollywood types against someone like Jimmy Carter who represents all that these people are talking about and we still lose.

if they nominate Hagel they will suddenly talk about how experience, military service etc matters and is a positive thing even though they said the opposite when it was a Democratic candidate who had the same qualities.

you would think they would learn just from the fact that they drag Arnold out to get support for candidates in states where some of these Dems fall for the shit about how they need someone who connects and is like them.

[karynnj]

9. This analysis is idiotic

So, Kerry who could have coasted on being the right class - as Old Yale as you can get - becomes new Yale because he works had enough to be a New Yale meritocracy person. The fact is he is old Yale in that he was very well connected and used the connections at various times in his life to do good, But, are they saying that instead of going to VN, testifying before the Senate at 27, being a proscecutor, a lt governor and a Senator - he should have learned to drink more, taken cocaine and had a Forbes relative set him up in several companies. Then he would connect with people.

In reality, if the media let people see him, he would connect. Give anyone the Butler book of pictures and they'll connect - even with no words.

This entire issue is a lie and also doen't pan out -even for their examples. Clinton was as new Yale as you can get and he connects. Bush I DID NOT connect at all and they define him as Old Yale.

[sandnsea]

5. policies aren't values

One example, the execution. Republicans support execution, which is a tough on crime POLICY, because they base it on the "value" that it doesn't take any intelligence for a person to know it is morally wrong to kill. We haven't defined the value behind not executing the retarded, teen-agers, etc. That's what is wrong with this article and what is wrong with simply re-framing too. Neither one targets values that liberals have and that mainstream Americans can rally behind, AND that can get all those non-voters to the polls.

[JI7]

6. what do you think Clinton's position was ?

do you think he agreed with Republicans on the "value" part of it.

or more of a political move where he did not really believe in it and probably thought it was wrong. but it helped him politically.

[sandnsea]

7. On the execution?

I don't even like to think that he let somebody die because it was politically expedient, but he didn't fight against the death penalty at all that I remember. And yet the country was definitely turning more against the death penalty while he was in office. I just don't know, but he sure didn't lead on the issue. Although he did lead on guns and that's a hot potato. I really never know for sure about Bill & Hil, I guess that's why I hope she doesn't win.

[JI7]

8. i know he is a supporter of the death penalty

he was the one who put support for it back in the national dem platform when he became the nominee in 1992. it was taken off in 2004 by Kerry. but Clinton has also done things for political reasons such as signing the defense of marriage act and using that in ads in conservative areas for his 96 re-election campaign.

the thing or problem with Clinton i have is that his view of the country is that it's conservative mostly(he is right in some ways) and he does things in accordance to that. so rather than try to find ways to make liberal issues or positions appealing, he appeals to the right. i'm sure a lot of what Hillary is saying is because of him. and just look at his advice to Kerry on wanting him to endorse all those state anti gay measures last year.

i'm not sure how much guns were a hot potato issue for him since most people supported it. and he never really counted on the white conservative men for support and they seem to have the biggest problem with gun control.the nra also seemed to become bigger under his presidency when they had an enemy to rile up support from anti gun control types rather than before when they might have had more influence against him. it was mostly moderate-conservative leaning white women which helped him win in traditionally conservate areas. i think his tough on crime thing combined with gun control helped him.

[TayTay]

10. I think you're on to something with the women's vote.

If Sen. Kerry had pulled white suburban women at the same rate that Gore did, he would be in the White House today. Likewise, if he had managed to pull Catholics at the same rate that Gore did, he would be in the White House. (Fraud notwithstanding, of course.)

Last year, it was the terra, terra, terra. We constantly forget that the Democrats and Kerry 'won' all the social issues. Kerry got 59 million votes, more than any other Democrat in history. (And 48.3% of the total vote. Clinton won in -92 with 43% of the total vote. Clinton got 47,400,125 votes in '96, or 49.2% of the vote. He never got a plurality of the vote, in either election. Clinton was good, but he wasn't that good.) He lost the presidency due to 118,000 votes in Ohio, which makes this one of the closest elections in Presidential history. Oh, and did anyone mention that he was a 'Massachusetts liberal' who couldn't connect and who didn't have the backing of the national media, who didn't like him be cause he was 'wooden?' Ahm, I know Kerry didn't win, but, he did do a lot of things right against a sitting president in a time of war with the media against him.

The Clinton people are revisionists. They want to frim in people's minds the idea that Clinton was a 'Dem god' and that Clinton alone knows how to win. (This keeps all those aging Clintonistas in high demand and rolling in big fat contracts.) But that doesn't make it true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996

[JI7]

11. it became close after the debates

which was the only time people were able to see him as he was in comparison to the Chimp. the got to see the candidates straight without the media whores . of course the whoring started after the debate.

but the polls afterwards showed more people thought he was likable.

and this shit about him not connecting. if that was true then he would have LOST support after people saw him in the debates rather than gain it.

if only people had been able to see that throughout the entire campaign then we would have something.

i'm sure the Bin Laden tape was revealed at the end because of this also.

[TayTay]

12. All those terra alerts last year at key Dem moments

were no accident. Tom Ridge has admitted this. Several of them were announced based on flimsy evidence. Kerry know this.

I agree. The more people got to know Kerry, the more they liked him.