A little more of Democratic infighting

[Mass]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08dems.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Since Mr. Bush's re-election, Democrats have been divided over whether to take on the Republicans in a more confrontational manner, ideologically and politically, or to move more forcefully to stake out the center on social and national security issues. They are being pushed, from the left wing of the party, to stand for what they say are the party's historical liberal values.

But among more establishment Democrats, there is concern that many of the party's most visible leaders — among them, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Senator John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate; Mr. Kennedy; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader; and Al Gore, who has assumed a higher profile as the party heads toward the 2008 presidential primaries — may be flawed messengers.

In this view, the most visible Democrats are vulnerable to Republican attacks portraying them as out of the mainstream on issues including security and budget-cutting.

The complete article is BS where people like Dodd, Obama, Bayh, Edwards blast other Dems saying they dont have any program. Thanks to them! That is clearly what we needed.

[karynnj]

1. What do you expect from Nagourney?

I really wonder why Bayh thinks he can correct the security perception. Part of the problem is that for some people strong = Bush attacking countries and blowing off international and domestic law. Neither Bayh or Hillary have any real military credentials.

It's interesting that going into some important midterm elections, Hillary is essentialy refusing to lead - yet she's the candidate of choice. Kerry's comments were really good - the view that the Democrats agree to some degree on many issues is true.

The swipe at Kennedy was obnoxious - the authors repeat the Republican frame completely. I also don't under stand why Dodd said what he did.

[Mass]

2. Nothing of Nagourney, but a lot more from those Democrats who

criticize like that openly. It seems that most come from the Senate, which once again poses the question of the leadership in the Senate, particularly as Reid is not defending (even though Durbin and Boxer are).

[ProSense]

3. I don't get it?

Democrats are heading into this year's elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities.

Followed by quotes from Obama, Dodd and Bayh. They are the party leaders?


So the Democrats are being pushed to the center.


And Last week the entire media pronounced that liberals Kerry and Kennedy were pandering to the fringe left.

Now this week, Kerry, Kennedy and Al Gore (?) are Establishment Democrats (who are also the party leaders in reality) and may be flawed messengers for the (establishment) Democrats?

So are liberal Democrats the same as established Democrats?


How about this party leader:

And Senator Barbara Boxer, also a California Democrat, said: "We have a strategy. First is to convince the American people that what's happening in Washington is not working. We have achieved that. Now we have to, at this stage, convince people that we are the ones to bring positive change."

Seems logical to me.



These writers are starting to trip themselves up on spin.

[Mass]

4. Actually, the article do not say that Dean, Kennedy, Kerry and Gore

are establisment Democrats, but that the establishment democrats oppose them. That part is the only one I understand.

For the rest, you are right. If Dean, Pelosi, Gore, Kerry, Durbin, Boxer, and Kennedy are all in agreement that this is the right strategy, it lets only Reid, Schumer, Richardson, and Rahm (Clinton ?) not listed. Do we have to think these are the ones who disagree, or is it just an invention of the NYTimes?

I agree the NYTimes does not make a lot of sense.

[ProSense]

5. You're right.

That makes me feel better. Calling them establishment Democrats would have been a huge insult.

[karynnj]

7. Who determines who the establishment are

In some ways, it's pretty strange that the last 2 nominees are seen as outsiders "bothering" the establishment. Kerry and Gore were selected by the majority of people in the Democratic party. The media has decided for some reason that they aren't important.

On what basis are the "establishment" the establishment. I almost think they are referring to the non-elected people in Democratic policy groups. Pelosi is lumped with Kerry and Gore - So that only leaves Reid as a Congressional leader. Dean is the head of the DNC.

The only other Democratic leader is Clinton. So is the establishment Bill and his coterie.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. And WTF have "establishment Democrats" done for the party?

A whole lot of nothing - except marginalize our support by weakening the base while pandering to an increasingly conservative "middle." That's the ticket! That must be why we won so many seats in 2000 and 2002 and 2004 - oh, what? Nevermind.

[ginnyinWI]

8. all this political posturing going on--

I don't think it will matter a bit this year. What will matter will be those "felt needs", and people being fed up with Repubs. That's what voters care about. Just give them a Dem to vote for, and stand back!

[karynnj]

9. Interesting short summaries in the print edition

The print edition has a box with pictures and their summary of the person's status. Kerry's and Hillary's are interesting.

Hillary: Senator from New York. Widely viewed as the leading candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination. She has command of policy, a formidable fund raising base, the advise of her husband and the excitement stirred by the prospect of the nation electing the first female President. But as Democrats were reminded by her uninspiring remarks on Coretta Scott King on Tuesday, following her husband's dramatic exhortation, Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton.

Kerry: Senator from Massachusetts. Nearly won the presidency in 2004, and still has a powerful political organization. But the thought of a Kerry comeback makes many Democrats cringe, most recently, Senate colleagues snickered when Mr Kerry called in from Davos, Switzerland, to say he would filibuster the SC nomination of (Alito). The RNC chairman labeled it "Davos Filibuster".

What I think is interesting is that if you read between the lines, they are saying Hillary is uninspiring and implies she wouldn't be the front runner if she wasn't Bill's wife. (The advise and the fund raising base are from Bill. This leaves being female and having "command of policy" - pretty weak for the assumed front runner.)

What's new on Kerry is that they acknowledge that he has a powerful political organization. We know from reports that he is doing great on fund raising. If there were a Republican candidate speaking to the RW base, good fund raising and a powerful organization, would this person be considered a threat to other nominees? Would they even mention that he makes the moderates in the party "cringe"? (Aside from the fact that Kerry is closer to center than say Brownback or Santorum are.)
Note the negatives: The RNC ridicules him (horrors) and "many Democrats" cringe at a Kerry comeback (uhm - don't a few of us cringe at a return of the Clintons?).

I think for those that care, know that Kerry had the guts to make a stand to filibuster Alito - even from Switzerland. Maybe because he is the Senator picked a few years ago as being the most knowledgeable on high technology, he knew how to use the telephone and the internet. Isn't this better than Hillary who either did nothing or fought the idea of filibustering - in spite of spoken platitudes on how bad Alito would be? Hillary was so inactive on this that I have no idea if she was in DC or out fund raising.

For what it's worth, I thought Hillary was far better at the King funeral than at the Parks memorial or the RFK memorial. So, it's interesting that they found this uninspiring.

[beachmom]

10. Read Josh Marshall's reaction

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007630.php

It's exactly how I feel!

[TayTay]

12. Nice article.

Josh Marshall is right. I tend to slough off the Times spin on what was said and just read what was said. I don't buy all of what the Times said. There is other stuff in there on real proposals and such. That is not bad at all.

BTW, what the hell happened at DU? Sen. Feingold has called for action to get the Senate to stand up and fight Bush on the wiretapping and domestic spying issue. (Because Bush broke the law and is trying to take powers that the Constitution didn't grant him.) Why isn't DU up in arms over this? This is at least as important as Alito. Why did that cause DU to re-align and not this? Sen. Feingold needs to keep at this and I hope all Sens, and certainly all Dem Sens join him.

[jenndar]

16. Re: DU and wiretapping

I think there are several reasons this issue does not equal the filibuster issue:

1. Timing. Say what you will about JK, (and everybody has) he really created a sense of urgency in the matter. And maybe we have Specter and Frist to thank for that, too. Which brings me to:

2. Judicial nominations are part of Senate procedure. Everybody knows how a judge gets confirmed or not confirmed - in the Senate, with either a vote on the nomination, or a filibuster. The second Specter filed the cloture motion, the "deadline" was in place. So if we knew that 41 "nay" votes on domestic surveillance, say, this Friday afternoon, could end the whole program, this would be huge. I guess this is a problem that could be solved legislatively, but then, if it passed, it'd probably suffer the same fate as the torture bill, no?

It's very frustrating. Sigh.

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Honest opinion?

Kerry is far more charismatic and engaging than Russ Feingold. It's connected to the point (I think it was you) you made about the response to Kerry's DKos diary compared to the response to Feingold's diary. Kerry is a compelling figure - his first diary, pre-filibuster, drew one thousand emotionally charged responses. Whether they realize it or not, Kerry's detractors themselves put the lie to the meme that he is "dull" and that "no one cares" about him - people very clearly DO care. He excites people and gives them hope. His call for a filibuster instantly galvanized the lefty blogosphere to a level that has not been seen since the election. It was the first time since the election that Kerry had directly reached out to "the people," and you saw the response. It was like manna from heaven to the beleagured liberal troopers fighting Bushco in the trenches.

Feingold, on the other hand, lacks even a fraction of this emotional resonance. His pleas are met with the same response as a MoveOn petition - worthy of interest and response, but nothing out of the ordinary or thrilling. Feingold does not impel people to care as deeply as Kerry does. It is interesting that, though DKos (and DU to a lesser extent) claim to prefer Feingold to Kerry, it is Kerry who excites and thrills and ignites hope in their hearts.

Just my two cents.

As an aside: Feingold's call to action on DKos exhorting bloggers to call senators is so similar in style to Kerry's filibuster crusade that I can't help but think that he's behaving rather like a Johnny-come-lately who realized the lightning in a bottle that Kerry harnessed and who is trying to create a little of that magic for his own momentum - after all, Kerry is his direct competition for the "liberal" bloc of the party in the 2008 primaries. It isn't working for the reasons I enumerated above. Again, that's just my opinion, and I do think the NSA issue is vitally important and I do think Feingold sincerely cares about it, so I don't think it's just a matter of pandering. I do, however, think that he is trying to "keep up with the Joneses" (or the Massholes, in this case).

[whometense]

20. For what it's worth,

I agree with you.

Rachel Maddow made a terrific comment at the end of her show yesterday about the dems always being in search of a new face. I wondered if it was prompted by the Canellos article from yesterday's Globe.

Those who are interested, the podcast is here: http://airamericaplace.com/upload/aarm020606.mp3

It was somewhere in the last half hour, I believe. Unfortunately, from today on the only free downloads will be clips, as AAR is going to a paid premium service.

[TayTay]

22. I wouldn't be surprised if other Sens join this call though

Perhaps even the two Sens from MA. This is a vital issue and seeks to define the response of the Congress and the Democratic Party to a blatantly illegal act by the President of the United States. The President willfully and with knowledge aforethought, broke the law. This was no accident and no 'maybe he did, maybe he didn't' thing. This is an eggregious violation of the President's Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

DU should respond. This is beyond any reflection on who likes who for 2008. It is a question about the rule of law in this country. Feingold's pleas for action should be answered. (And there are Sens who are ready, willing and able to take up the call on that. My two will, as they have already spoken out on this issue. It's vital.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. I didn't disagree with that point

I answered your question as to why DU responded to Kerry's plea and not so much to Feingold's - I didn't imply that what Feingold is asking for is not necessary or not a good thing. The wiretap issue is as bad as Alito, so all things considered, the response should be the same - my post merely speculated on why it is not.

[TayTay]

25. I still don't think that Dems have learned how to frame

this stuff on the internet. The Alito thing might have even resulted in a filibuster if it had been done right. I just hope that Feingold's call is a beginning for action on this and not an end.

And Kerry's post was his first. It was an emotional response from a lot of people who were responding both to his call for action and to him, and to the guy that a lot of people had taken chunkcs out of their life to fight for in 2004. That was a fascinating response, both for what was said and for how it was said. (I often wonder how public people deal with this level of emotional response. What do you do with all that raw feeling?)

WEL, I bet JK gets into this fight. I really bet he does. (He already has in floor speeches going back to late Dec.) This is a big deal and I hope the Sens work together on this. (As I wish Feingold had worked on stopping Alito by calling in more troops from among his Senate colleagues.)

[Inuca]

27. Just read...

...Feingold's speech at DKos. EXCELLENT!! Independent of all other considerations, the past, the present, or the future, an extremely powerful and courageous speech.

[Mass]

13. Excellent reaction - It is pretty much what I feel as well.

[TayTay]

11. Read between the lines on this

1. This is the NYTimes take on who the power centers in the Dem Party are in a snapshot of Feb 8, 2006. (This will change.) The Times is correctly commenting on the split in the Dem Party on how to take advantage of the collapsing Republican power structure.

2. There is a war in the Dem Party about how hard to strike and who to strike. Should the Dems strike at Bush or forget him becuase he is a 'weak President' right now with a collapsing base of support. (Bush is down to the hardcore supporters. He will NOT be an asset to Repubs voting this fall, except in a few, a very few core states and districts.)

3. For this group, please note that the Times did not say, as many other media spokeman and newspapers did, that Kerry dealt himself a fatal wound with the filibuster last week. On the contrary, the Times has obviously noted that the net responded to Kerry's call for action and it was a very powerful reaction. (Imagine what could happen if something organized had been done. Sigh!)

4. This is very inside baseball. We are trying out the Dem recipes for success this year. So far, we haven't even agreed on the menu yet. It is very early for this and things will change. There are good things in this article, read between the lines and read for the background stuff. I am not upset by it at all. Read it carefully, and note the battle lines starting to form and why.

[karynnj]

14. Great comments

I think it's also interesting to add that their comments on Hillary being uninspiring at the funeral are a huge turn around, as at least from what I've seen, this is the first time they criticized her on any important quality. (In fairness, I didn't notice it - my husband pointed it out after I complained (again) that they picked on Kerry.)

Maureen Dowd also has a really nasty column where she talks about how the Republicans smear Democrats by repeating short negative labels - which she then proves by repeating ALL of them - either a brainless or a closet Republican.

She revisted the following smears:
Al Gore - beta tree-hugger
John Kerry - Waffling war wimp with a hectoring wife
John Edwards - Kerry's true bride, the Breck girl
(What did John or Teresa Kerry ever do to her?

Hillary Clinton -She-monster melding the images of Medea, the Furies, harpies, Glenn Close in "Fatal Attaction" and Johansson in "matchpoint"

Howard Dean - Scream
McCain's letter sounds more like spurned lover to ex-boyfriend

----------------------------------------------------
So, who gets praised in this mess:
Condi Rice, "who gets hyper-articulate and bristly when she's angry, but not bitchy"

Dowd then skewers Hillary with "the Republicans can't marginalize Hillary. She has already marginalized herself." (Becaue " She's too busy triangulating and calculating to be good at articulating". (because she didn't speak out on Iraq, Katrina (didn't she call for investigation first?), Schiavo, Alito, NSA spying, and congressional corruption)

[TayTay]

15. Maureen Dowd has worn out her welcome with me

She is just too whiny and sullen. I stopped reading her at the time of her great, 'Why can't smart women attract men' thing. I just shut her off. She comments don't add anything to either my knowledge of the world or of politics and I don't have time for lousy writers.

[ProSense]

17. Maureen Dowd is

an exercise in pseudo-intellectual head games. It's not about what's best for the country, from any ideological standpoint, it's about the useless (this is not the time) one-upmanship game of politics she is playing with herself.

[whometense]

18. Me too.

Plus she gets off on being a snarky talking head on the stupid shows. I don't read her column anymore.

It's struck me recently (since Oliphant left the Globe, in fact) how very few op-ed columnists I do read. Ummmm,...Krugman. Jim Carroll. Ellen Goodman. Frank Rich on Sundays, even though he's dangerously close to Dowd territory with me. That's about it. Oh, and Bob Herbert, and E.J. Dionne when I remember to check the WaPo.

[karynnj]

21. Your list is almost identical to mine, but I don't know who Carroll is

I use to love Frank Rich's columns, but during the elction he seemed to be trying to see if he could mock Kerry in more clever ways than Dowd. I kind of wondered what the real "inner office" POV was at the NYT because in general, they seemed to lack the concern with what W has done and in their snarky way hated Kerry's earnest and sincere values.

[whometense]

23. Jim Carroll is a Boston Globe columnist -

I don't think he's syndicated. He's a husband, father, and ex-priest - I find his writing to be very sane, honest and searching. Here's his archive if you're interested: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/carroll/

He also wrote a very celebrated (at least it was celebrated locally) book called Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618219080/sr=1-1/qid=1139426206/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3109573-0184612?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[karynnj]

26. Thanks

I'll definately look at them. His book sounds fascinating.