Excellent post Nathan. My take is that when Clinton won through triangulation between liberals and conservatives, many democrats saw that as the way to hold on to their seats so many moved toward the right. So many moved to the right that there were really very few democrats left who would openly profess to be liberals or actual democrats. Many wanted to be seen as being to the right of liberals so they were sort of leap-frogging each other to get further and further right. The 2004 campaign was the beginning of the end of that. It became clear that Kerry and the dems stood for nothing. I don't think Kerry had one position that was clear. Just that he wasn't Bush and he wasn't a liberal either.

Triangulation only works when both parties are strong. Right now it's like a 2-legged stool with the far right and the center right. Lamont's victory may be the first signs of rebuilding the third leg of the stool. I really feel that this is a harbinger of great things to come and the reconstruction of the democratic party.

In the end, I blame Clinton's success for the demise of the democratic party. He was a very good president, but he destroyed the foundations of the democratic party.

Raindog

Posted at August 9, 2006 6:02 AM in response to Bipartisanship Without Ideology is Pathetic

You guys are right. Dems need to vote on what they believe, defend their votes with pride and attack Republicans for their reprehensible behavior. When they cave because they are worried about what people will say about them on Fox News then we have all lost.

Posted at August 7, 2006 10:37 AM in response to A Few Last Thoughts on Connecticut

This is exactly right. Lieberman reinforces republican frames of democrats as being weak on national security, immoral, etc. you can't build a party with guys like this in it. If he loses tomorrow, we have a great chance in the Fall and in 2008. If he wins, look for more of the same old confused democrats who are all trying to triangulate off each other.

Posted at August 7, 2006 10:34 AM in response to A Few Last Thoughts on Connecticut

Look,

It's not Lieberman's position on the war that is killing him! It's his turncoat behavior against his fellow democrats! He was already a party of one even before his threatened independent run. He wants to be loved by all, especially neoconservatives. Every time the democrats get a good issue he pulls the rug out from under them! He has no loyalty to anyone except himself.

This is about building a strong democratic party. Plain and simple. Got to get the weak links out first.

I think that we should learn from what we did wrong with the Vietnam comparison. there has to be a way that we can do the right thing (i.e. get out of Iraq) and still look strong. I think we have to do it in such a way that we express anger at the republicans for weakening America in the eyes of the world and blaming them for trouble. We can also do it by saying look, we got Saddam out of there and have tried to help the Iraqis. Now is the time for them to stand on their own two feet. There is a way to do it and sound tough.

All these pundits just love the status quo and they love bipartisan types like McCain and Lieberman. But when one party is completely partisan (the republicans), the other party must take a similar stance or they will perish.

Raindog

Posted at August 7, 2006 6:47 AM in response to A Few Last Thoughts on Connecticut

I want them both out. They are both bad for the party. The Lieberman-lovers all seem to agree that McKinney is bad for the party but don't seem to realize that Joe is ten times worse. We can take diversity of opinion on Israel and the War - We can't take backstabbers which is wht Lieberman is. He is out for himself and could care less about his party. Look no further than his threat to run as an independent as confirmation of this.

Posted at August 5, 2006 6:10 AM in response to McKinney and Lieberman

OK. you know - the war is actually promoting Iranian expansion. as I have heard some people say - The winner of the Iraq war was....Iran.

Posted at August 2, 2006 6:51 PM in response to Brutality and Insurgency

Ellen

You seem to take the right's position in many arguments so I made a flawed assumption.

I completely agree with the view that if we wanted to keep the peace in Iraq we needed to rule in a manner very similar to the way Saddam did. And like the other guy who called me out above, that was a major reason to oppose the war in the first place. Abu Gharaib, Haditha, etc are all predictable results of the invasion as is the eventual call for genocide.

I am still not entirely sure where you stand on the war Ellen. I don't read the site as much as I would like to. Can you tell me whether you think the war in Iraq was a good idea?

Posted at August 2, 2006 11:17 AM in response to Brutality and Insurgency

If this is true then it's my bad. I was pretty sure that hse was supporting JPod's view from what I read.

Posted at August 2, 2006 11:12 AM in response to Brutality and Insurgency

Ellen

Aren't you republcians supposed to be the party of "moral values?" Are you really suggesting that wiping out all of the Sunni males between 15-35 was what we should have done? Doesn't proposing that make you feel horrible? Especially since they had done nothing to us and we were invading their country for what turns out to be no good reason? I find that proposal very disturbing.

Posted at August 1, 2006 7:23 PM in response to Brutality and Insurgency

Mark,

 This is one of the best bits of analysis I have read. I think that what you are saying ties in very nicely with what Kos and Howard Dean have been saying as well. We need our party back!

You have articulated why people are so eager to see Lieberman sent packing - He has been sabotaging efforts to build a party and to support his party. 

 Incidentally, this was also the problem with Bill Clinton.  Through his approach of triangulation, he ended up decimating the democratic party.  In order to triangulate, there has to be a democratic party. When triangulation was demonstrated to be successful, many dems went scrambling to be Clinton clones and left the party in a shambles.  Clinton was a very good president, but he, more than anyone, is responsible for the current sorry, confused state of the democratic party.

 Getting Lieberman out is a very important step towards rebuilding the party. People will think twice about triangulation after this.

This is what I think the party should be about (in addition to no dumbassed wars).

Posted at July 31, 2006 8:41 AM in response to The End of Checklist Liberalism