It might be helpful to understand what conservative ideology is.

Hillary Clinton is clearly a conservative with her reluctance to address issues of importance to the nation. What you get with the new Clinton is the same as the old Clinton - more of the same. The only object is to maintain power and position.

CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. - The Devil's Dictionary

Best, Terry

what blue said.

Otherwise a good point by Anrig.

I disagree. The Republicans are certainly attacking one another; and they attack Hillary or other Dem candidates (Romney's loss of proper pronunciation of Obama's name comes to mind) because they believe it will gather them more primary votes.

The Democrats are--what--supposed to remain above the political fray as they flutter wings and flit their fingers across the harp strings? What would differentiate them for primary voters--the song? It's simply ridiculous and all it does is support the alleged frontrunner.

There are differences amongst these candidates and voters deserve to have those differences highlighted. That process began last night in the debate.

Stlounick, If just one of the leading Democrats were to launch an effective, integrated attack against conservatism, that would differentiate him or her from the other Democrats. The problem is that none of them seems inclined to do that, so voters just hear the usual off-putting cacophony without a clear overarching theme or message from any of the candidates. --Greg

Greg--

Again, as with Edwards getting "partial credit" for saying that the neo-cons wrote the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, I think he should also get partial credit for his rant about the US not having healthcare because of insurance and drug lobbyists and for the US not having a serious climate change policy because of oil and gas lobbyists. True he does not say that those big lobbyists are the same as the conservative ideology, but I think a lot of people make that connection without the explicit reference. I think you are right that he should make that connection more clear for people, but as you no doubt know, what Edwards is also trying to do is draw a distinction between himself and Hillary at this point, and he feels she has the taint of those same lobbyists all over her.

Ultimately, since so few voters watch these debates, the only way for Edwards or anyone else to gain ground on the HRC machine is for the MSM to pick up on one of these exchanges and really play it up, or for HRC to make a major blunder on the campaign trail. As Josh says, she is too much of a machine to do that.

Basically, if Hillary wins Iowa, the MSM and the busy, distracted populace will accept that she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Iowa is the whole ballgame right now and that is why Edwards has visited every county in Iowa. I know what the polls there show, but I still think that Edwards has a shot because of his experience in Iowa from the last cycle (he did much better than expected) and his even larger organization this time around.

I've been constantly wanting the candidates to LEAD on issues, instead of waiting for the public to come around first. Edwards has been good about this from the beginning, and recently, Dodd.

But none seem to want to lead by differentiating democrats from the republicans. I can't understand why they're all not trying to outdo each other to see who can get the best licks in against the other side of the aisle.

People are frustrated with congress because it's not opposing Bush's agenda well enough. I'm feeling the same way about this crop of candidates and I doubt I'm alone. While I'm well aware Bush isn't running, his ideology certainly is.

I would submit that the still-casual voter wasn't watching last night. The two points you picked up on will probably filter out, and are certainly useful. But I couldn't agree more with Greg on this, and I couldn't be more frustrated and puzzled that the Dems haven't picked up on it already. The voters are absolutely open to it, just as they were open to the argument that liberal ideology had failed -- an argument that had a lot less merit to it than ours, but that had just enough plausibility in the '70s for the Republicans to ride it to success for decades now and utterly change the political landscape.

As for the primary versus the general, the groundwork needs to be laid now. And it wouldn't mean a meaningless primary, either: if the Republicans can manage to go after both us and each other, surely our folks are capable of the same. What the heck are they waiting for?

Thanks as always, Greg, for continuing to push this critical theme. (And congrats on the book!)

the republicans demonstrate to their supporters that they are ready to run against the democratic nominee by doing so from day one.

the democrats argue about who is "electable" instead.

these two approaches show us just what the candidates think about their party's base.

the republicans are eager to energize and rely on their right-wing base. Doing so pushes the national debate further right, to their benefit. Democrats who seriously discuss "electability", on the other hand, demonstrate that they have bought the republican smear that the left is out of touch with America, and they reinforce that smear.

The belief that a democratic candidate will not be close enough to the mainstream relates closely to the fear of atttacking conservatism. They both stem from right-wing talking points that our own candidates often seem to have internalized: that the right-wing is more American, and more patriotic.

Jcrcj-- 

 I agree.

   It is so stange: Democrats seem very afraid of declaring their values and standing up for them. It seems, as you suggest, as if Democrates are ashamed of their values--and have "bought the republican smear that the left is out of touch with America."

   But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans are very frustrated with the fact that Congress is refusing to stand up to Bush and the conservatives. They want Democrats-- and Republicans-- to stand up against Bush's conservative agenda.

The notion that there is no difference between Hillary and any of the Republicans is either extremely uninformed or malicious propaganda of the kryptoright trying to undermine Liberal enthusiasm.

LOL!

Hey, "liberal," there are differences between Republicans too but not ones that generally matter. Ron Paul's opposition to the occupation of Iraq is a delight despite much else that is frankly zany.

Lady Hawk is for war, privilege, power. She accepts money from any lobbyist willing to help the cause but claims she will do nothing for those paying her. You believe that? From energy policies (like the mythical "clean coal") to her rejection of so-called one-payer national healthcare, Hillary stands on the rightwing side of the spectrum.

Fine if you want to support a winger but it might be helpful if you frankly said so rather than trashing us liberals with false charges.

Got to admit "kryptorightist" has a ring to it. Don't suppose you could define what that might be?

Best, Terry