Democrats' 'can't-win' attitude

[wyldwolf]

WHAT'S A key difference between Republicans and Democrats?

Republicans believe they can win, no matter what. Democrats doubt they can win, no matter what.

The debate over Hillary Clinton's electability is a prime example of the Democrats' fatal flaw: acceptance of defeat as inevitable.

They are running against a president with abysmal approval ratings who divided the country to win election and keeps it divided to hold on to a shrinking base. But instead of working to undermine those Republicans who want to succeed President Bush, Democrats would rather undermine Clinton, who may be their party's nominee.

Sure, this is an expected part of the presidential primary process. Clinton's opponents are not ready to concede defeat, even as she solidifies her lead in polls. But something else leads Democrats to tear one another down, rather than build their party up.

Look at the difference in how each party's big shots go about their business.

Bob Shrum leaves the consulting business to write a book about Democrats he advised on the presidential campaign trail; in the process, he discloses confidential information that makes his fellow Democrats look as craven as possible. Karl Rove is essentially chased from his White House policy berth. On the way out, he lobs bombs, not at Republicans, but at exactly whom you would expect him to go after: Clinton. Rove called her "fatally flawed," but Democrats beat him to it.

The "Hillary-can't-win" theory was advanced in a recent Associated Press story that received prominent coverage across the country.

Based on 40 interviews with Democratic candidates, consultants, and party chairpersons, reporter Ron Fournier wrote that "Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom." Democrats referenced in the story worried that the New York senator is too polarizing and burdened by high unfavorability ratings.

The "worried" include Congressional Democrats and representatives of the party's far left. Ideological disagreement over the Iraq war accounts for some of the hostility, along with the envy and resentment that drives a lot of Democratic Party politics. Fear of standing behind a female presidential candidate also contributes to unease over Clinton.

Democrats tend to view their nominees as the Titanic on the ticket, and treat them accordingly.

Indeed, if Democrats worry about the electability of Clinton, who would be the party's first female nominee, you can imagine the butterflies over Barack Obama, who would be the party's first African-American nominee.

Recent presidential election history accounts for that sinking, can't-win feeling. The 2000 showdown between Bush and Vice President Al Gore was obviously a downer for Democrats. The 2004 showdown between Bush and Senator John F. Kerry was another disappointment. Different scripts, same plot: The Democratic presidential nominees snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

But Democrats need to get over it. If they can't get past defeatism in this election cycle, when will they ever do it? The best news for Bush in weeks is his daughter Jenna's engagement. It doesn't overcome the image of White House aides Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card trying to get then Attorney General John D. Ashcroft to approve a warrantless wiretapping program, as Ashcroft rested, weak and wan, in a hospital room after surgery.

Given Bush's drag on the GOP, Republicans should rightly view themselves as underdogs in 2008. But, as former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee said Friday during a stop at the Globe, "Americans like underdogs."

Americans also like chutzpah, and Republicans have a maddening amount of that, too. It takes a lot of nerve for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to campaign as the candidate of change, at the same time he embraces Bush administration policies. Already in high, Rove-like gear, Romney is equating Clinton with Karl Marx.

Republicans think positive and go negative -- especially against Democrats.

Meanwhile, Democrats fret about electability. They should stop worrying about it, and make the real case for change that Bush is handing them, complete with footnotes and bibliography, from Iraq to Katrina, from Vice President Dick Cheney to Attorney General Gonzales. The GOP presidential candidates can't separate themselves from that sorry brief -- unless the Democrats let them.

And they just might.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/19/democrats_cant_win_attitude/

[Mythsaje]

1. The message being that we should be more like Republicans

and nominate candidates who offer little perceptible change from the status quo? That we shouldn't oppose a nominee who is apparently diametrically opposed to many of our goals in several key areas? That are pro-business even in an atmosphere where it's growing even more apparent that the current economic model of Wallfare is killing our economy and screwing everyone who isn't making more than a million dollars a year?

Well, hell, we should get right on that.

[billyoc]

3. Dude, we're ON it.

http://dlc.org/

[trayted]

2. I have a "can win" mentality named John Edwards, and a "can't win" one named Hillary Clinton

I guess you can say that I have a split personality.

[rjones2818]

4. You should be a supporter of one of the 'lower tier' candidates.

How many times do we have to hear from other Dems that our candidate(s) aren't electable so we should vote for any of the big three? Pretty much every single posting.

I say don't whine, joint the club.

:nopity:

[peacebird]

5. I have a CAN WIN attitude about several Dem candidates just not for HRC

for HRC I have a "dear god I pray she is not our candidate after the primaries" attitude which is not the same thing as a defeatist can't win attitude in general.