State of the Democratic Party

Lethargic and lost. That characterizes the Democratic Party today. Howard Dean's passionate speeches are a thing of the not so distant past. Yes, even Dean seems like he's taking heavy doses of Lithium. Or maybe, while no one was looking, there was an Invasion of the Lieberman People?

It's as though the spirit of dissent is silenced from Bully Boy's ass to Joe Lieberman's mouth and then throughout the rest of the party.

2004 seems a lifetime ago. During the campaigning, we heard lots of big talk about fighting and standing up and then came election day. We're supposed to take comfort, to hear some spin it, in the alleged belief that John Edwards was opposed to the ticket throwing in the towel and that Edwards had serious questions about the Ohio vote. It's funny because we don't remember him standing with Barbara Boxer or Stephanie Tubbs Jones. What's the point of concerns if you don't express them publicly?

We've seen a few individuals in the party speak out such as Boxer and Tubbs Jones, Barbara Lee, John Conyers. Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters. We've also seen a lot more than we'd care to see of Ben Nelson who seems to be understudying Joe Lieberman's role in the party (useless idiot) in case Lieberman loses his Senate seat.

Hillary Clinton seems to be both inspiring & studying Geena Davis' Commander-in-Chief character to prove just how macho she is. Lately, you get the idea that if Bully Boy went wobbly, Hill would be perfectly happy to take a few Green Berets to Iran and kick some butt all by herself. We get your point, Hillary, a woman can be anything a man can be. You've demonstrated that a woman can be as vile, as craven, and as sicken with the blood & war lust as any man. You're what the industry trades used to call "a break through." Now that you've broken hopes and dreams could you quietly exit the stage?

How does a Democratic get good mainstream? Not by taking brave stands. The Gang of Fourteen (killing the filibuster in their own right) found Dems and Republicans working together praised by the mainstream press. It was almost a McCain moment for the mainstream press as they gushed over the hybrids. Dems seem to have internalized that and seem to think that the press is on their side. Like the battered spouse who tells herself things really will be different now, spineless Dems cover up their bruises and force a smile.

The truly brave get ignored publicly and, by the way, is there any reporter at Newsweek who can utter John Conyers' name without a facial grimace? Seriously, is there one reporter at the publication that can? And when did it become so fashionable for reporters (not op-ed writers or columnists) to flaunt their political bias?

Though some wanted to tell you that it wasn't happening, 2005 was the year the Democratic Party turned away from the strong support for reproductive rights. Remember the uproar over Hillary's remarks early in the year? Well, there really wasn't that much of an uproar. In fact, there was more of an uproar over people calling her out for (yet again) repositioning herself. "Hillary's always been there for reproductive rights!" was the response to those who dared point out the obvious. Still think so? As Hillary goes so goes the conventional wisdom of the party.

2005 was the year Bill Clinton made nice with Poppy Bush and denied even knowing of the Downing Street Memos on David Letterman (long after everyone was talking of them -- and Bill's always had his ear to the grapevine). Hillary's main office in New York struck a similar pose when constituents phoned in asking that she speak out on DSM. Callers were repeatedly asked what they were speaking of? Apparently not only had Hillary not heard of them, but her staff suffered from a severe short term memory loss.

Nancy Pelosi seemed shocked when protesters greeted her recently demanding that she stop voting to fund the occupation. But, she argued, if we didn't fund it, then what would happen? The troops would have to come home, Nancy. And you're smart enough to know that.

What's the biggest Democratic name providing any hope/leadership/sense of direction? Al Gore. The man the party and the press have disowned. We can't figure out if he's "the outsider as insider" or if it's the other way around. But you don't get the idea that Gore wakes up each morning wondering what pollsters are pushing as "electable" that day.

Want to know what Hillary and similar Democrats fear most? That Al Gore will run for president in 2008. They know they've burned bridges. They also know that Hillary can't really debate Al in a public forum the way she can others. What's she going to call him on? One of her husband's policies?

Al Gore, our elected but never sworn in president, isn't offering mealy mouth fine tuning. He's sounding alarms over and over. That's leadership.

We're not sure what to make of John Kerry's late call for a filibuster. Is it genuine? We don't know. We'll watch closely to see what follows. It packed more punch than any of John Edwards fuzzy talk. He still seems convinced that he can play it like he's "The Man from Hope" and that, if he could pull that off, the country's in the mood for a retread at present.

Those inside the Senate wanting to be President (including Russ Feingold and Ron Wyden) really haven't led the way. We've seen each come out strong an issue but we haven't seen leadership. We haven't seen a strong desire to break from the pack and speak truth to power. Time and again, it's been left to Al Gore to demonstrate how much America lost out on when the Supreme Court decided that they were more important than voters in an election. There really were differences in the two major parties in 2000.

If the Democrats had any guts, they'd have Al Gore deliver the rebutal to the State of the Union speech Tuesday. But instead they're still stuck in the myth that "values voters" decided the election (and loathe to address the realities of the Ohio vote). The fact of the matter is that the votes (counted) didn't provide Bully Boy with a "mandate" (unless, possibly, Bully Boy meant some evening plans he had with Jeff Gannon).

For those who've forgotten the tallies were:

Bully Boy: 62,040,610
Kerry: 59,028,111

That's not a mandate, that's not a landslide. That's a close election. The totals should have led Democrats to strengthen positions and winning platforms. Instead, they acted as though the party was in crisis. They rushed to hop on the non-existant "values voters" bandwagon.

A record turnout was ignored and those who had supported the Party were pushed aside as Dems postured and preened. Women voters , who consistently provide the Party with the largest number of votes, found themselves dismissed the same way the party dismissed union members and African-Americans before. Though the party membership is overwhelmingly pro-choice, the anti-choice Harry Reid was made Senate Minority Leader. A slap in the face to the voters and a strategic mistake since Reid has shown no desire to impose party discipline himself (as he all but bragged to Elsa Walsh of The New Yorker while also revealing that on the use of the filibuster he consulted Karl Rove).

A further slap in the face came when telecommunications lobbyist Simon Rosenberg nearly was installed as DNC chair. "Man of the people" Slimey Simon was known for making public noises about the need to address the Hugo Chavez problem (Chavez is a "problem" for non-libs), for being trained by mentors like Joe Lieberman, for his failure to address issues pertaining to African-American voters and for his sudden discovery (post-election) of Latino voters. (With which he attempted to stab John Kerry in the back -- "period." -- only to have his claims refuted when the data he based his claims on was disproven.) It's no real surprise that Simon slimed on over to the telecommunications industry after he wasn't installed as DNC chair. It is amazing that he managed to fool so many for a short time.

But the people rallied. And if there's one consistant sign of hope in the Democratic Party, it comes from the people not the media designated leaders. The people got behind Howard Dean and told the Party loudly and clearly that they weren't taking a Lieberman protegee. The people sent out the message that they wanted the troops home when pols were still talking "fine tuning." The people embraced Cindy Sheehan despite the efforts of many to water down her position (and claim that she wasn't for bringing the troops home now). The people marched and rallied throughout 2005. They included Dems, they included Greens and even some conservatives. That's an electorate that could win national elections.

But the Democratic Party wasn't interested in that potential electorate. Instead, of addressing issues like universal health care, they mistook themselves for clerry and not lawmakers. 2005 was the year of Republican-lite for the Democratic Party as the attempted to ape the Republican Party as closely as possible. They took a dive on the confirmation of John Roberts and they seemed to think they could take another dive on Samuel Alito. The people weren't having it. So the Party's staging a fight in some form. (We'll soon find out how sincere they are.)

Does the Party have any goals or objectives or just a severe case of 'vangical-voters-envy? The answer may emerge in 2006.