If the democrats survive a 2008 defeat...

[jokerman]

Populism must be harnessed progressively by the Democratic Party, because if we don't, the GOP will take the ugly, isolationist and nativist side of it and use it as a regressive force in this country.

[Beet]

When the policy preferences of the two camps are so similar, and yet the vitriol and passion is so high, then there is too much focus being placed on what divides us and not enough on what unites us-- and what unites the party with most of America. Democrats need to understand that politics is about coalition building, not coalition destroying. Yes, campaigns can be likened to warfare, but they ought to be a constructive process as much as they are a competitive one.

There are too many elements within this party for which a large part of the joy they receive from their political activism is that it affords them the opportunity to attack and attempt to destroy other members of their own party, while simultaneously neglecting or taking a flippant attitude toward bringing in those who would not ordinarily vote for them into the party. By emphasizing what unites us, we would set a good example for the country as a whole.

[Democratic Hawk]

Why wouldn't the Democrats survive a 2008 defeat? I'm kinda used to it . All that tells me is that the Democrats need to be more pragmatic when it comes to selecting future nominees and there may come a time when the party needs to confront its dovish base

Democrats, rightly or wrongly, still have a perceived credibility gap when it comes to defense and national security. And have done since 1968, more or less, when the lunatics took over the asylum

Why the necessity for liberal purity? Because I don't get it!

Supportive of Obama as I am - and yes, I'm at variance with the senator on certain issues - the fact that more moderate Democrats struggled to get out of the traps in 2008 has peeved me off a bit

Back in the immediate aftermath of His Ineptness being, sadly, re-elected in 2004, I warned against the potential nightmare scenario of liberal Democrat vs moderate Republican in 2012 and, rightly or wrongly, McCain is perceived as a moderate Republican despite the fact he is now rebrandishing his conservative credentials with flip-flops on the Bush tax cuts and an ever shifting rationale for opposing them to begin with

Dave

[Person Man]

Yeah, if 2008 ends in defeat, we will probably never be out of Iraq anytime soon. The best way to deal with this issue would probably be to triangulate it...but how do we do that?

[Beet]

Why wouldn't the Democrats survive a 2008 defeat? I'm kinda used to it . All that tells me is that the Democrats need to be more pragmatic when it comes to selecting future nominees and there may come a time when the party needs to confront its dovish base

Democrats, rightly or wrongly, still have a perceived credibility gap when it comes to defense and national security. And have done since 1968, more or less, when the lunatics took over the asylum

Why the necessity for liberal purity? Because I don't get it!

Supportive of Obama as I am - and yes, I'm at variance with the senator on certain issues - the fact that more moderate Democrats struggled to get out of the traps in 2008 has peeved me off a bit

Back in the immediate aftermath of His Ineptness being, sadly, re-elected in 2004, I warned against the potential nightmare scenario of liberal Democrat vs moderate Republican in 2012 and, rightly or wrongly, McCain is perceived as a moderate Republican despite the fact he is now rebrandishing his conservative credentials with flip-flops on the Bush tax cuts and an ever shifting rationale for opposing them to begin with

Dave

Clinton and Obama were both seen as more moderate at the start of the election cycle than they are now. The longer the primary has gone on, the more time they have to spend pandering to their party and less time wooing swing voters and independents.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Why wouldn't the Democrats survive a 2008 defeat? I'm kinda used to it . All that tells me is that the Democrats need to be more pragmatic when it comes to selecting future nominees and there may come a time when the party needs to confront its dovish base

Democrats, rightly or wrongly, still have a perceived credibility gap when it comes to defense and national security. And have done since 1968, more or less, when the lunatics took over the asylum

Why the necessity for liberal purity? Because I don't get it!

Supportive of Obama as I am - and yes, I'm at variance with the senator on certain issues - the fact that more moderate Democrats struggled to get out of the traps in 2008 has peeved me off a bit

Back in the immediate aftermath of His Ineptness being, sadly, re-elected in 2004, I warned against the potential nightmare scenario of liberal Democrat vs moderate Republican in 2012 and, rightly or wrongly, McCain is perceived as a moderate Republican despite the fact he is now rebrandishing his conservative credentials with flip-flops on the Bush tax cuts and an ever shifting rationale for opposing them to begin with

Dave

The Democrats can break this cycle of losing presidential elections if they just simply stuck to the formula that works best for them:  choose centrist governors as their candidates.

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest Dem candidates pass a liberal purity test, when such candidates are bound to lose in a general election.  Whats the point of advancing a progressive agenda when your progressive candidates have zero chance in winning the White House?    Makes no sense.

[NDN]

Yeah, if 2008 ends in defeat, we will probably never be out of Iraq anytime soon. The best way to deal with this issue would probably be to triangulate it...but how do we do that?

Easy, favor the Biden plan and focusing on the borders.

[NDN]

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest Dem candidates pass a liberal purity test, when such candidates are bound to lose in a general election.  Whats the point of advancing a progressive agenda when your progressive candidates have zero chance in winning the White House?    Makes no sense.

But but REPUBLICAN LITE.11

I agree, the 'experienced' Senator with a strong liberal (real or perceived) record is a sure loser. Also the Democrats could win if they didn't blatantly side with 'identity politics' types/special interests on hot button issues like education (see: vouchers; No Child Left Behind), gun control, being for laxer borders, etc. Those alienate a lot of independents who might otherwise vote for them. Overall, Democrats need to be more skeptical about the federal government and more supportive of local concerns/government. They also need to stop trying to use the military as some sort of giant Peace Corps like they did in the 1990s. That will win them the votes of moderates and even conservatives/libertarians.

[StateBoiler]

Here's what they should do.

Split into two.

The liberals have their own party that will absorb the Greens/Green-type Democrats.

The Blue Dogs/centrists have their own party that will take in some independent-minded Republicans and also the populist Republicans such as those represented by Mike Huckabee.

[white patriot]

the dems have the altimate opurtunity with Bush's failed legacy if the blow it there F$%^ed.

[StateBoiler]

the dems have the altimate opurtunity with Bush's failed legacy if the blow it there F$%^ed.

Translated into English for other readers:

The Democrats have the ultimate opportunity with Bush's current popularity. If they blow it, they're f***ed.

[Democratic Hawk]

Clinton and Obama were both seen as more moderate at the start of the election cycle than they are now. The longer the primary has gone on, the more time they have to spend pandering to their party and less time wooing swing voters and independents.

Well, it's not like the 'moderate' McCain isn't pandering to his party's conservatives; seems to be forever banging on about being a conservative Republican, despite him, reportedly, considering to defect to the Democratic Party in 2001. I suspect that is why is opposed the Bush tax cuts then for much the same reason Democrats, which is why I think there is a kernal of truth in these reports. Is it any wonder he's been so quick to shift his rationale for opposing them; first, it was because he felt they were needless gifts to the rich; then it was because he felt they irresponsible in a time of war; now it's because they weren't accompanied by cuts in spending and low and behold he now supports extending them but would have still voted against them. John Kerry eat your heart out !

Obama and Clinton might be 'liberals' but both, IMO, are pragmatically progressive - and either would be an improvement on the ideologically conservative Republican incumbent and an incompetent one at that. Just because Bush has been proved inept, as reflected in his low approval ratings, it doesn't follow that voters will think a President McCain would be the same

Obama or Clinton can win this election but they sure as hell can't rely on 'Winny' sinking staid, old and tired Johnny Mc. The hack in me thinks he should but he won't. And the longer the Democratic race lasts and the more bruising it becomes, McCain is smiling

If Obama had sealed the deal on Super Tuesday or March 4, that money he's been raising could have been better spent forcing McCain on an early defense with money he ain't got. It's moot anyway. Besides the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's more controversial rantings have come to the surface since then ...

[I've done Wright to death, ad nauseum, I'll say no more]

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

The Democrats can break this cycle of losing presidential elections if they just simply stuck to the formula that works best for them:  choose centrist governors as their candidates.

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest Dem candidates pass a liberal purity test, when such candidates are bound to lose in a general election.  Whats the point of advancing a progressive agenda when your progressive candidates have zero chance in winning the White House?    Makes no sense.

Nevertheless, I'd take a pragmatic progressive Democrat over some overly ideological conservative Republican - and given the Republican incumbent, I'm sure as hell in no mood for another 1972 Moment. John McCain? Eight years too late, if anything

Dave