Perhaps the biggest failing of Democrats today is the inability to speak authentically.

Authenticity!  What a radical concept!  That works for me.  I have not viewed Bush as especially authentic, but apparently others do.  I have long doubted pitching the message to those elusive and perhaps illusory swing voters.  You come out looking weak, as though you stand for not much of anything.

start withdrawing steadily but precipitously from Iraq,  Check.

clean up the ethical sewer of Washington,  Check.  That might include cleaning out some Dem sewers, but the Bush administration's corruption is the broadest and deepest that I have seen for a while, and I'm not young.

build a well funded public commitment to healthcare/education/retirement  Check.

That's a good start, Reed.

You got it Reed. That's what we're all looking for. Someone who knows what s/he believes in and isn't afraid to articulate it.

Of course, the person also has to have some personality, an untainted character, a message people like, and a good delivery. Sorry for the sports metaphor, but great politicians are as hard to find as great baseball players--they need to hit with power, hit for average, field well, run fast, and throw hard. Not too many people can put it all together. That's why the Republicans all hung on Reagan's coat-tails as long and hard as they could (making up for their weaknesses with his strengths).

Now, back to watching my beloved Red Sox lose to Toronto while the damn Yankees win . . . I fear another 86 years. Hopefully, the Democrats have better luck than the Sox.

Something that you fail to mention that I think is critical to this argument is that at least half of the American voting public has been brainwashed to reject candidates who are intellectually gifted.

To some degree this aversion comes from religious practice that reinforces its constituency not to think too much about religious teaching or rational arguments (for the obvious reason that thinking invalidates or exposes the religious rough edges).

So, rather than promoting intelligent counter candidates, the Dems might be just as well off running a personable huckleberry who can surround himself with competent Democratic administrators.

And Democrats themselves need to chill out about the eventual candidate as long as that candidate is not just a wishy-washy, jellyfish.  I could live with anyone with a sincere commitment to grassroots Democratic ideals. 

De Tocqueville noticed this tendency in America in the 1800s.  Richard Hofstader wrote Anti-Intellectualism In America.  This is not a new problem, alas.

"To this point, what many swing voters and some Democrats admired most about the President, until his recent performances, was his authenticity."

 bush...????????? authentic...??????????????? my professional skill is centered around being able to identify authenticity, to recognize genuine human beings in action, to distinguish between transparency and opacity... bush is the least transparent person i have ever seen... the incongruity and cognitive dissonance that exists between the words that come out of his mouth vs. the tone of voice and body language that accompany those words is sizeable enough to swallow an 18-wheeler and possibly even a good size freight train... "authenticity" for bush is a costume, a charade, a posture, and he does a damn poor job of faking it... what astounds me is how many people have been duped... i can no longer even hear his voice without experiencing visceral revulsion... the man is about as far from being genuine and authentic as you can get and still fall into the category of human being...

But,...but....they said that was a really fine ermine robe, with scarlet trim, and gold piping. I admit I never did see it, but I just assumed I was deficient in vision or something.

I think that there is a basic assumption which is because Bush is presently unpopular that means that the whole republican philosophy is unpopular. I do not think that this is necessarily true and I would guess that in fact it is not true. Jimmy Carter did not exactly go down in history as one of our great presidents but that did not cause me to vote for a republican in following elections. I would guess that the same holds true for most republicans, even if they disapprove of Bush at this point in time they will more than likely vote for the republican candidate in 2008 despite Bush’s abysmal record, and of course that is only my opinion that Bush has an abysmal record. Others could see it much differently and indeed they do.

I think you are correct that democrat politicians do seem rather less than genuine. I myself have called my congresswoman with questions, was promised an answer in an email and both times I never got that answer.

Democrats are perceived as bowing to special interest groups and more interested in their poll standings than in doing the right thing. I think this is true and it has hurt them a great deal, it may even be fatal for any hopes of moderate much less liberal leadership in the near future.  

To sum it up democrats are seen as spineless turncoats who have consistently sold out to their constituents in order to retain their position in government.

It is time for democrats to put their money where there mouths are, they need to stand up for what their constituents believe in, they may lose of course, but in the long run I think that this would be more of a winning strategy than what they are pursuing now.

Perhaps rather than the content of their message democrats should be focusing on their image, and image and message really is not quite the same thing.

Good outrage, profmarcus. Love it when your anger is so...authentic. As for that quality from Bush, I think it has to do with his southerness. Americans have this funny belief that a twang and cowboy boots equal authenticity. Look how PBS gushes over every performer from that region. Irregardless, I do agree with Reed. (Is that a last name used for a first name or did your parents admire swampy areas?) His choice of three subjects for the Dems to hit on as one is right on. count me in.

The Red Sox came back and won! So maybe there's hope for the Dems. Can they sign Ortiz?

So if the Democrats were always pressing the three themes -- start withdrawing steadily but precipitously from Iraq, clean up the ethical sewer of Washington, build a well funded public commitment to health care/education/retirement -- when events like the recent indictment and investigation occur, everyone would see the connection to the themes. Then each could speak in his or her own way and yet compose a coherent wholistic program.

Hey, this is something new for the Democrats.

It's called a "strategy."

Wouldn't it be nice if we actually followed one?

Then each could speak in his or her own way and yet compose a coherent wholistic program.

This post insists that having a strategy and moving in lockstep are not the same thing.  Too often, I fear, we equate the two (maybe in imitation of the Republicans?).  If we could get elected Democrats to agree on those three themes, we’d be coherent.  But each official could still preserve his/her "independence" and own way of speaking.

Bush's "authenticity" is, I believe, more a product of him sticking to two or three simplistic messages and repeating those simplistic messages over and over.

The irony of the last election is that at the time of the vote, Americans generally disapproved of the way he had handled the economy and were well on their way to disapproving of his handling of Iraq... but they still voted for him by enough of a margin to elect him.

I don't think it was authenticity as much as a consistency of message.

Let's face it... Many Americans these days have the attention spans of a greyhound.  In `04, people were looking for someone who "stood his ground" (however phony Bush's steadfastness was/is), and, even though a majority disagreed with his performance on key issues, they still voted for him.

So, if by authenticity you mean repeating the same three simplified talking points over and over to generate an appearance of steadfastness, then I agree.

Kerry certainly never did that.  Not in his make up.  He did okay at times, but most of the time, he wanted to make sure that everyone knew he was the smartest guy in the room.