This is what happens when most national leaders are Senators. Senators are in the middle of a swirl ot information, rumors, personalities, money and deadlines. Of necessity they are focused on day to day tactics, and they have to be intimately familiar with government jargon, structure and policies to do even a decent job. Such activities do not translate well to the general public.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats do not have captive "news" outlets which translate this for the public and distrubute it. This is not such a bad problem if the Democrats have the Presidency, since a President controls the public political agenda. Right now the Republicans have that also.

This is why we Democrats must resist the urge to nominate a Senator for President. They can't easily make the switch in cultures to communicating mostly one-way to the public.

The Congressional Dems are doing much better under Reid & Pelosi with respect to parliamentary tactics.  The party as a whole still has a "vision thing" problem and still seems a step slow when it comes to political theater and message framing.  So, while we need to acknowledge Reid & Pelosi's efforts, Dems still need a full fledged consultant purge. 

bluebell

Could you tell us what we stand for?  I don't have a clue. 

From the door  hanger to be used on the 29th:

1. Honest Leadership and Open Government
    We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves.
2. Real Security
    We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies.
3. Energy Independence
    We will create a cleaner and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
4. Economic Prosperity and Educational Excellence
    We will create jobs that will stay in America by restoring opportunity and driving innovation.
5. A Healthcare System the Works for Everyone
    We will join 36 other industrialized nations by making sure everyone has access to affordable health care.
6. Retirement Security
    We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American.

Hoppy in Sacramento

bluebell

Hoppy, I admire your ability to keep the faith.

#1 - Americans aren't going to believe Democrats are more honest than Republicans (though they may be willing to throw the current bunch of bums out).

#2 - Truth?  Tell me if we're getting hawks or doves.   That may well decide whether I bother to get out of bed on election day.

#3 - A Republican could run on that.

#4 - Another point that any Republican could make.

#5 - If I believed they meant it, which I don't, that alone would get me hanging flyers on doors.

#6 - I'd feel better if they simply told me I am going to get my Social Security check.  Why be cute?  

With the exception of a nod to healthcare, they might as well be Republicans. 

i'm not going to disagree with you, but if the Democratic Party adopted my positions on all issues we would be lucky to get 33% of the vote.  This is a step back towards a progressive agenda, not much more.  But, it does talk about real issues and not just "be afraid, be very afraid". 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I think it bears mentioning that parliamentary tactics are all that legislators really have at the end of the day.  If they're doing better with that, then they're doing better period.  I frankly am not terribly interested in political theater actors, I'd be much happier with bookish legislators that get thier jobs done, and I think that this is a thing sorely lacking in today's political climate.

Reid's not the most charismatic character ever, that's for sure.  In fact, whenever he tries to get folksie, I always get the impression he's trying to sell me a Pepperidge Farms milano cookie.  Still, he's a good legislator overall.

By the way, has anyone had a chance to check out the Hamilton Project?

Granted, there is nothing in there about the war, but there are some outstanding recommendations for education and investment that are worth a look.  This is the beginning of a new Democratic plan, and while it may not address the Iraq War, it is a positive step that is getting entirely too little press right now. 

Watching from just above the water line. . . .

http://www.dragonflyeye.net 

Well, if they are going door to door, then they are standing for something, not just sitting down.

Personally, I would do something differemt. If they are going door to door, why not ask the people they are talking to what THEY care about?

I realize this isn't aa ego inflating as, say, making vast decisions on the future of nations, but it as least haas the virtue of telling people that the Democratic party is representing them, not the other way around.

Even better idea. Why not take all those questions we collect and answer them, online or via print request?
Has anyone worked out the ROI of one television ad versus a single, personal letter? I mean, there are lots of unemployed, million of Katrina refugees alone, we could outsource this to.

Why are we playing our oppositions game, on their battefield? They have money to waste on big, expensive television ad's that serve as a backdrp to going to the fridge. We have people, people who care, who spend time, not money, on other people. That is supposed to be our strength, why not use it?

ONWARD AND UPWARD!

Many Moderate Liberals such as myself do not see the Democratic Party as representing us. We know the Republicans are not worried about working or middle-class people but see few signs that the Democrats do either.

The Illegal Immigration Issue may split Republicans but it also splits a great many Liberals too.

Democrats seem to be all for law and order unless it applies to millions of people who have broken the laws of this country and entered illegally. Legal Immigration? Fine! Illegal Immigration? Illegal!

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Hoppy, all the best on the 29th. I have walked too many precincts to ever disparge the efforts of anyone who does it.

For the next walk, here's some material that may be useful

“In my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of my leadership in Washington,” Taylor told the president. “And I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and grace to be ashamed of yourself.” 

Thank You Harry Taylor - The Video

Actually I think Redi is under-rated. It is not clear that he was not a conscious enabler for the Harriet Miers fiasco for Bush. Sure, Mr President, Harriet would be a great nominee, yeah, that's the ticket....

Also look at what he has to work with. Had to throw the Senate into closed session to get Rockefeller (that complete waste of space) to get off his lazy inept behind and insist on an investigation into use of prewar intelligence. Even so, trust Rockefeller to keep on dropping the ball.

At least Rockefeller isn't a preening showboat like that other idiot, Biden.

And then there's Clinton, who appears to have locked the Democratic caucus into a disastrous pro-war stance in a ham-fisted attempt to build her national security cred for 2008. Kerry's latest speech as much as anything is probably his shot across her bows.....

For good or for ill American political parties aren't like European ones. They are not structured around ideologically issues. American political parties are broad based with diverse opinions within them. Even the Republicans are held together more by faith in Ronald Reagan and taxcuts than a truly consistent philosophy. It can be hoped that that Republicans on issues like immigration, and education will see a split between their various factions.

Democrats certainly would do well to improve their image as a party that will stand for something and fight for it. However, without candidates what party has a coherent known philosophy? As November approaches 435 candidates for the House and about 33 candidates for the Senate will put forth their Democratic philosophy.

As the presidential race begins the Democratic Philosophy will differ if Feingold or Bayh, or Clinton or Biden or Edwards is the candidtate. Once the Demcorats have a nominee there will be a clear philosophy, even if it is not liked too much by Republicans for people here.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Democrats continue to look disorganized and split because they are unable to articulate the basic principles around which liberals could agree and unite. Instead Democrats squabble over policy positions, which emphasizes disagreements and identifies candidates in terms of their disputes. The party is atomized, organization scattered to the four winds.

If Democrats want to begin to appear to be organized (and they should want that), they need to select a few ripe progressive ideals, and refer to those ideals with one voice, even as they may disagree on how to achieve them through policy. What if Democrats agreed that fair elections was a crucial party principle, war is bad foreign policy, laws and the Constitution are sacrosanct, just a few clear defining ideals that distinguish Dems from the rePuds. All dialogue about policy, even disagreement, reinforces the ideals and projects the Democratic identity.

Take the immigration reform meltdown. Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy failed to connect, in fact there was little coherence between various Democratic policy proposals. Whatever their personal disagreements, if Reid and Kennedy and every Democrat who stands up to a lectern could make a point of reinforcing a common principle the whole party stands for every time they spoke about their efforts, people would come to know what Democrats stand for and also begin to feel a sense of cohesion and power within the party.

Imagine Democrats saying with one voice: "I believe American workers must be protected from wage erosion and I believe illegal immigrants must be treated fairly and humanely." These are two defensible principles that progressives everywhere could largely support. Policy disputes would occur, but the larger ideals would always be highlighted in any debate over how to achieve them. Political support for the ideals could be built even as individuals disagreed.

The key is to select a principle and rally around it. Principles are unassailable, they cannot be argued with, and once the public identifies Democrats with a set of principles, we will know what we are voting for when we vote Democrat. At this point I don’t know what Democrats stand for, and consequently, I have no reason to support them. Give me a reason, dammit.

Think for a moment about Ronald Reagan's utterly stupid and destructive "ideal" that government is incompetent. This foolish notion has informed public opinion and conservative policy for 20 years. Every conservative politician has made this one idea the touchstone of his political career. The public still feeds off that ideal even as politicians use it to destroy government and diminish public welfare, in favor of our noble corporations like Enron and Halliburton and Exxon.

How long before Democrats realize that Reagan's lies were designed to castrate the liberal agenda? How long before Democrats stand up and counter Reagan and his evil spawn with ideals that debunk the foolish myths of the neo-confidence men. How long before Democrats get clear that their mission is to protect the public welfare, and they shout it without apology to their corporate masters, they in fact shed their supply-side shackles and reinvent an economic vision that directs corporate power to embrace its responsibility to the public good.

Democrats need a noble vision, a set of ideals around which to organize and generate public enthusiasm. Republicans have done appallingly well appealing to American selfishness, I think the time is ripe for Democrats to appeal to America's generosity. Selfishness is about to carry our nation over the brink.

As I said, I have no problem with Harry Reid in the Big Tent. His leadership has been somewhat better tactically than Tom Daschle, though he doesn't have Gephardt undermining him like Daschle had.

Max Baucus. "Running scared since the day he got to the Senate."

Mary Landrieu. Even the sight of her constituents dying on the streets can't light a fire under her, she has to be embarrassed by a reporter into speaking for the people who elected her. Someone explain to her that that frightened pandering to the WH doesn't win her any votes with conservative voters.

Lieberman. It's all been said already. If he wins his Senate seat in 06, he will be the GOP VP nominee in 08, mark my words.

I'm undecided on Feingold. He is definitely something of a showboat, though much more effective than Biden. I think he could have played the censure motion better tactically, the way he did it pretty well ensured that no other Dem senators would back him up. Call them frightened and egotistical if you want, he still could have played it better.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

FOCUS | Kerry Sharply Criticizes Bush on Several Fronts

Senator John Kerry made a slashing attack on the Bush administration yesterday, comparing it to the faltering government in Iraq and equating
its war strategy with its planning for Hurricane Katrina, while also invoking Jesus as he criticized federal Medicaid policy.

Now THAT's more like it. Instinct for the jugular

Is the idea here to let the voters know what the Dems positions are, or to get the voters to vote for Dems?

The last election was won by data mining the polls. This one can only be won by text mining responses.

Use those volunteers to find out what the voters want (Just ask "what do you want out of your next congressperson?) and then thrash out the top 30 or so issues on a website. If you do it "American Idol" sytle, the DNC could make enough money on side bets to pay for lots of ads.

I think the voter would be delighted to get a chance to actually be involved in an election for once.

Let's just say that I'm somewhat skeptical of any political analysis in which an example from C-SPAN plays a prominent role.

Swing voters follow politics LESS THAN THE NORM among voters... and even above-avergae voters tend to be unable to tell you what channel C-SPAN is on their television.

blog.njdc.orgwww.njdc.org