I hate Maureen Dowd and her columns, but she sure got it right in
today's paper, where she ended her piece with a quote from a convention
goer in Denver:

“I’m telling you, man,” said one top Democrat, “it’s something about our party, the shtetl mentality.”

That's
totally been the case on this site the last week. I usually love TPM,
but I've gotten tired of the relentless whiny please asking when we're
going on the attack, and I lost it last night when Josh made a post out
of some reader e-mail (from a supposed "marketer") complaining about
the "More of the same" signs.

The reason the Republicans so often win, and the Democrats lose, is not
because we don't attack enough, but because we allow them to play into
our sick tendencies for self-loathing. No candidate, or convention, is
ever quite good enough for us Democrats. Al Gore, John Kerry, and even
Bill Clinton (for you adults out there) -- none of them were ever quite
good enough.

People, we have an incredible candidate in Barack
Obama. Perhaps the best in my lifetime, who combines intelligence,
political instincts, charisma and leadership skills like no other
Democrat in a generation, maybe two.

His biggest problem is
that so many Americans don't know him. I saw this in person when I
knocked on doors for Obama in Muncie, Indiana for the May primary.
Maybe you've seen the same thing with your friends, or your neighbors,
who don't read TPM every day. And the Republicans are better able to
land their punches (creating a caricature using Ayers, Wright, Rezko)
if voters don't know who he is.

That's why Monday night with
Michelle was so important. It'll be that much harder now to paint the
Obama family as some exotic "other." It's why tomorrow night will be
important.

And frankly, the "attack" mentality is silly. Go back
and read the speeches of the 1992 convention. Were they red meat
attacks on George Bush? No. Here's Clinton's speech (which got panned
by the NY Times the next day):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton%27s_acceptance_speech_to_1992_Democratic_Convention

We
didn't win in 1992 because of "attacks." That's a myth. It's because
Clinton drew clear contrasts between what he would do and what George
Bush was doing. And the country got over reservations it had about
Clinton and decided to give him a chance. Oh, and because Ross Perot
drew 20% of the vote.

The convention with the most blistering
attack against a competitor came in 1988, when Ann Richards landed the
hilarious and famous "Poor George. He can't help it. He was born with a
silver foot in his mouth."
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/annrichards1988dnc.htm

It was a lacerating speech. She ripped the Republicans. And we lost the election, badly.

So,
instead of whining about how you don't think the language on some of
the signs is perfect, or that we do't attack enough, get out there and
knock on some doors, talk to your neighbors, help introduce them to
Senator Obama. That'll be more effective than your self-loathing and
pitiful pleas for more attacks.

And if you can't do those
things, then please go work out your problem in therapy and not on
Democratic-leaning blogs. It's distracting, and doesn't help the cause.