Many on this forum have said that the Democratic party needs to move to the right. Here I outline several problems with this argument.
1. Liberals already realize that very liberal candidates generally can't win. That's why they support more moderate candidates like Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, and Paul Hackett. Of course some people confused "outspoken" with "liberal". Someone like Cindy Sheehan would probably not be a good candidate.
I generally agree with this. Dean, Feingold, etc. really aren't that liberal, although they are portrayed this way. Unfortunately, perception is reality in politics.
Very true, and I agree that on many key issues Democrats need to stand up for principle, and that even in defeat principles can still be advanced.
I agree that Miller has gone pretty far right; he used to be a great Governor. ACU ratings aren't everything of course, but he clearly was a DINO by the end of his term, in that he really didn't support the Democrats on anything that I can see. I don't use that term lightly, but I think here it applies.
I'm not so sure I agree with this. I think that the American people affect where the parties are politically a lot more than the parties affect the political views of the people. Although there is some truth to this, the cause/effect relationship is mostly the opposite in my opinion.
True, and obviously Dems don't want to lose their current base. The trick is to get more moderates to vote for us without losing the base; that's the difficult balancing act any party faces. Clinton was an excellent example of someone who was able to do this quite well, and I think that's the model we should follow.
Well, again, I'm not sure I agree. To a certain extent, yes; obviously good arguments can persuade people to change their views. A very charismatic liberal candidate certainly could win, although a liberal starts out at a disadvantage compared to a moderate. It's not like a liberal couldn't win, but they have more obstacles to overcome.
On this I agree in the sense that centrism often is assosciated with spinelessness and not showing leadership; however, centrism most certainly does not have to be this way by any means and there are lots of very principled centrist politicians like Clinton. Again, follow that Clinton model, I say.
I agree that the Dems do a poor job of stressing the issues that people agree with us on; we too often let the Republicans set the agenda nationally. I think that Democrats as a rule tend to be more passive people while Republicans are more likely to be more aggressive and thus the GOP has a tendency to be more likely to steer the national debate and control which issues get more or less importance in the campaign.
