It does pose an interesting problem, doesn't it?

You advocate fighting for process, fair debate, values, and ethics, and are told that first thing's first: win elections.

All well and good, but what are you supposed to win elections with?

Well, you're either going to win them by fighting for process, fair debate, values and ethics, or you're going to win them by fighting for something else.

If it's something else, then you're either proposing not to fight for process, fair debate, values and ethics when you get to Washington, or you're proposing a bait-and-switch, with the fight for process, fair debate, values and ethics to replace the fight for what you said you were running on. That usually doesn't bode well for re-election campaigns, though.

There's no reason in the world why a positive agenda of fighting for process, fair debate, values and ethics can't be a part of the "just win" mantra. In fact, I think there's a good argument that it has to be. And it's also a good bet that the campaign rhetoric in support of your fight for process, fair debate, values and ethics will ring truer if you don't appear to have discovered it in October. 

1.  We have so MANY options.  Maybe we could throw the corrupt bums out?  Maybe we could hould the accountable for trying to reck Social Security?  Maybe we could toss a roadblock into the growing disparity between the Rich and the former middle class?  Maybe we could restore the right to a decent education (including higher education) that the Republicans have been determined to elimnate?  Maybe we could hold them responsible for a corrupt and incompetent Medicare Part D?  Then there are Iraq, teasonous presidential aides, Osama's been forgotten, Korea the real Nuclear threat, pissing off the whole world at us, doubling of the price of oil...

Hello?  What is the trouble with choosing 2 or three and sticking with them?

The trouble is, our own party cannot produce candidates who will hit hard and keep hitting hard over and over and over.

What the hell has Obama done? He's made a good speech or two. His election was handed to him on a gold platter by an imploding Republican Party in Illinois, a blue state. If you look up "phony" in Webster's dictionary they have a photo of the picturesque Obama there.

This is reasoning that is akin to Monday morning quarterbacking.  The Democrats were doing fine until 9/11 made people want to kick some ass and wave the flag -- not exactly Democratic Party strengths these days -- and now it turns out Dems have no values, stand for nothing, and just want to win.  This belongs on dKos with the "Fighting Dems" ("Move to the left!") people.  

of the strangest conflations I've seen in quite some time.  What about the Fighting Dems is a move to the left?  And why is that a dKos item?  Do I detect some snobbery there against dkos?  And why aren't the Fighting Dems related to genuine discussion of elections?  There are about 55 of them who are talking about the meat and potatoes issues that are at the center of good politics.

The problem is not so much whether one should emphasize "elections first" or "policy first".  These represent two different approaches for control of the Democratic head.  But the problem is not with Democratic brains.  It is with the ascendancy of a style of Democrat who has no heart.  Where are the major national Democratic leaders these days who can put a lump in the American throat and bring a tear to the American eye?

I generally support the "move left" strategy.  But certainly not every attitude of the left raises goosebumbs, and puts fire in the belly.  Still, there are certain attitudes and outlooks that are both of the left and totally and sentimentally All-American.  Democrats have had a problem with candidates whose policy agenda seems to match up with the majority of Americans, right down the line, but who are still held in contempt, or at least faint regard, by those same voters.  That is because they don't connect emotionally with those voters.  They voters may think what the candidates think; but they don't feel what the candidates feel.  Or more accurately: they don't know what those candidates feel.  And feeling is the bedrock of trust; it is what takes opinions and beliefs, and makes of them convictions.

I think a problem is that many Democrats have trouble engaging in the simple-hearted, sentimental and schmaltzty rhetoric with Republicans are so at home.  It wasn't always thus, not by a long shot.  It used to be Democrats who were noted for their sentimental populist appeals.  Well they are going to have to learn how to do it again.  They need to get in touch with their inner Frank Capras and stop running away from their own feelings, and everyone else's feelings in the process.

What about the Fighting Dems is a move to the left?  And why is that a dKos item?

It's the liberal strawman. Very useful for the vital center.

What about the Fighting Dems is a move to the left?

Have you seen the things the "fighting Dems" stand for and advocate?  "Fighting Dems" is code for moving to the left.

Do I detect some snobbery there against dkos?  

Depends on how you define "snobbery."  Do I think dKos is largely populated by under-educated, over-opinionated idiots?  Yes.  It's your call as to whether that's snobbery, or an accurate assessment of the average dKos poster.    

Nonsense. They weren't doing fine. They had lost the Presidency and the House BEFORE 9/11 and only Jeffords defection gave them a precarious 1 vote margin in the Senate. Oh, maybe from your point of view and the  point of view of the non-fighting Dems, it was fine.

Let me understand. This Luigi Vampa runs around using dailyKOS as an insult??? Maybe he has his head stuck so far up the moose's behind he just cannot see. I really hate that sort of branding. Frankly I wish I saw a little more intelligence in his comments in general than the childish name-calling (left, left, left) he is so proud of. I think this sort of scurrilous crap is called red-baiting and has a long history Luigi Vampa can be proud of. I read dailyKOS regularly, do not agree with everything, but it certainly beats anything the "vital non-fighting center" has put out. If you have nothing to say, Luigi Vampa, the general rule is to be quiet until you think of something. 

You folks are all falling for a false dichotomy: The great and profound choice between focusing on policy (and somehow magically winning elections because you won a policy debate) and focusing on winning (without standing for any policy in particular). That's crap. I totally agree that compromising on everything in hopes of appearing "moderate" isn't going ot win you any votes. No argument at all. But focusing on policy and fighting for policy outcomes won't win you votes either. Republicans haven't won the last three elections (and yes, it has only been three elections) because they fought for policy outcomes. Nor because they just "decided to win" by sacrificing policy outcomes for votes. The reality is none of the above.

The fundamental understanding that we in the progressive and Democratic communities always fail to reach is that policy outcomes are irrelevant to the average voter. They don't know, and don't want to know, what government does, and don't think what government does is all that important anyway. Whether you have the "right" policies, and fight for them or don't, is of no importance to swing voters. It matters to us, and it matters to our counterparts on the other side, but neither of us decide close elections. 

What matters to swing voters, and thus what decides elections, are the personal characteristics they perceive in candidates, as presented in large part by the media: Whether a candidate is honest, confident, cares about average folks, looks like a trusted icon, talks like the district, and so forth. Pretty much the same things employers think about when hiring someone: Am I comfortable giving this person responsibility and just being around them for the next few years? I know, this sucks, and there are all sorts of negative repercussions. But it's reality, and we simply cannot fight it!!! This is the central principle that Lee Atwater and Michael Deaver and friends discovered with Reagan in 1980 (borrowed in part from Kennedy no doubt). Rove and friends have just refined it to its cynical end.

So the whole debate you are engaged in is kind of moot. Policy vs. winning? Forget it! What Democrats need to do to win is build up their candidates with positive associations rather than tear them down. If someone is a genuinely genteel moderate like Biden, talk about them as a statesman. If a natural progressive firebrand like a Dean, talk up their passion and backbone. The trick is to work with the material you have and win candidate by candidate, NOT with some master strategy across the spectrum, especially one that involves certain policy positions or outcomes.

Well Luigi, one thing I know is that Republicans stand for rolling back abortion rights in this country.

If Republicans stand for "rolling back abortion rights," why don't they have a plank in their platform calling for the elimination of Roe?  Why don't they campaign promising only to nominate judges who will vote against Roe?  The Democrats' position on abortion is far more honest and straightforward than the Republican one, but you can't see it.  In fact, you infer what the Republicans will not come out and say.  Republicans weasel, and suckers like you see read between the lines and pretend they say things they don't; Democrats weasel, and suckers like you cry about "spineless Dems."  

What the Democrats need are two or three core principles that tie all their ideas and policies together. The Republicans have these core ideas: they're for low taxes, small government, a strong military, and traditional values. Sure--in reality these principles often conflict with each other and actual Republican policies often don't support them--but in general Republicans keep coming back to these simple ideas. This gives them a clear identity that people can grasp. The Democrats, meanwhile, are all over the place.

Luigi, I don't know what you're talking about.  Here is what the 2004 Republic platform says about abortion:

They support an amendment to the constitution outlawing abortion?  It's fantasyland, posturing, because it's not going to happen, and the people who wrote those words know it, and so does everyone else -- besides, that is, you.  The only way to get rid of abortion is to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe.  And Republicans won't say that's what they want to do, because they know they'll get crushed for it.  But that's OK, they know they don't have to.  The media won't call them on it, and suckers like you are too busy attacking your own party to point out that the other party does the exact same things.  

Americans know what Republicans want to do with the country.  

Really?  How do they "know" this, when the Republicans themselves don't say?  Have you loaned some of your mindreading abilities out to the public? Or have the Republicans perfected semiotics to the point where words aren't necessary?  Or maybe the past few years of "liberal" pundits and their faithful sucker-sheep saying Democrats "don't stand for anything" has done the Republicans' jobs for them.    

I think I know what a few Democrats--Kennedy, Feingold, etc.--stand for. But the party as a whole? I can't make sense of it . . .it's a big blur.

Gee, Kennedy and Feingold.  I think we're getting closer here: if you aren't a liberal, you "stand for nothing."  Of course, Feingold is all over the place on lots of issues, but hey, he was against the PATRIOT Act and he's against the war, so he must stand for something!

Frankly, if you don't know where more than "a few Democrats" stand, you aren't paying attention.    

The Republicans are not subtle about their agenda.

Where is it then?  Where's the call for a flat tax?  Where's the call to gut environmental protections?  School prayer?  Eliminating Roe?  Teaching creationism?  Union busting?  Why is it that everyone seems to know about this obvious Republican agenda, when it can't be found anywhere in their speeches or their platform?  If they are so unsubtle about it, you'd think you could actually find it written down somewhere.  But nevermind that, we've got mindreaders who do that for the Republicans.        

Why is it that everyone seems to know about this obvious Republican agenda, when it can't be found anywhere in their speeches or their platform?

It's an interesting question.  But the fact is that people do associate this agenda with Republicans.  So they have communicated it somehow. So why don't you answer your own question?  Are you suggesting that Republicans are not clearly identified in the public mind as being in favor of school prayer?  And if you accept they are, how do you know this?  It obviously isn't from platforms, which no one reads.  I would suggest that the Republicans (a) have a very vocal right wing, which defends these causes very explicitly in thier many speeches, television appearances and public pronouncements.  They have a moderate wing which does not always support these causes, but which embraces the right wing publicly, and does not denounce them.