"I hope Governor Dean will remember that he didn't get elected to be a wimp," said DNC member Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a South Carolina state representative. "We have been waiting a long time for someone to stand up for Democrats."You can stand up for each other without abandoning the principles on which your party is supposedly founded. I thought the Democrats were supposed to be tolerant. I thought they were supposed to preach equality. I thought they were against racism and religious discrimination.
How, then, can they stand by someone who stereotypes and polarizes?
You can be strong without being oppressive. You can be opinionated without being a bigot. Howard Dean has balls, yes. But I fail to see how engaging in rhetoric is going to help the Democrats. Especially when that rhetoric goes against everything the Democrats claim they stand for.
2 comments:
Only one man could give the DNC what it so badly needs. William Jefferson Clinton.
No matter what one thinks of Clinton, the intelligent must admit that he presented a public persona of a smart, egalatarian, down home, approachable fellow. Clinton is the kind of guy who gets elected to rhe presidency twice. Inspite of his medical problems, he presents the impression of man who has vigor.
But the image that is Bill CLinton, tarnish and all, is not the image the DNC wants. The "sucess" of the GOP over the last several election cycles is--to them (and I think the is totally in the minds of the DNC leadership)--based on te sucess of the devisive neo-conservatives. The DNC strategy seems to be to play the same card. to poalrize the issue.
Why they would do this is beyond me. They are the underdogs. In ballpark numbers the US is about 30% conservative and 25% liberal. THe rest are moderates. by attempting to polarize the nations Voting blocks the DNC pretty much gives the GOP a 5% advantage.
Why do that? They should be attempting to undermine the Neo-con-like polarizing rehtoric by putting a "Clinton-esque" face up as the head of their party.
I was actually just thinking about Clinton the other day.
I never personally liked him, but this was more of a gut thing than a policy thing. The fact is that he was very successful, diplomatically. Some of the things he did while in office arguably caused problems for our current administration, but that's really beyond my knowledge. I've heard arguments on both sides.
The thing that I know to be true is that Clinton was good at schmoozing people. That was, actually, part of why I didn't like him, because every time he started talking my insides screamed fake! fake! what a fake! And that's why George Bush appeals to me, because when he messes up while speaking I know he's a real human being.
But ultimately, someone who knows what to say and when to say it is a valuable asset. That person can bring other people together.
Howard Dean, on the other hand, doesn't know when to shut up.
Do we have any idea who's running for president next? I can't think of anyone I would particularly want to elect...
Post a Comment