(
From the diaries -- kos)
It's no secret that the efforts of some Democrats to blame gays for this election loss makes me froth at the mouth. The code words about a return to morality, or connecting to evangelicals, or embracing "mainstream" America, are all very pretty but do very little to focus on the real reasons that Democrats continue to lose elections.
But nothing annoys me more than the welcome mat being rolled out for outdated, greedy Democratic fatcats every time they parrot this conventional wisdom.
There's plenty of scorn for Bob Shrum, for Al From, for Bruce Reed. Lots of rage at Terry Macauliffe, a man whose only real job was to raise money and try to shore up connections within the party. Yet, none of the same rage for some of the people who helped put Macauliffe into power in the first place -- James Carville and Bill Clinton.
Neither of these men had any particularly memorable advice to give. Not very detailed. Yet, Democrats say "finally, some sense!!" and "they WON, so we'd better listen to them!" and treat their opportunistic pandering as the gospel.
What is the last race that James Carville won? When was the last time that Carville stuck his neck out to help win a race? What was the last race that Clinton helped Democrats win? Where his personal involvement was a major asset?
Kerry has been criticized for his weak and confusing positions on the Iraq war. Where were Carville and Clinton when you needed them to oppose the Iraq war? When you marched in the streets and faced scorn and abuse from many in your own party, in your nation?
When your civil liberties were being eroded over the past 4 years, where were Clinton and Carville to try to help you fight back? Oh, that's right, Hillary was in the Senate, happily voting for various measures like the RAVE Act and the Iraq war, all because she is desperately afraid to take any risk that is not painstakingly calculated.
Bill Clinton and James Carville belong to another era. The truth is that they no longer have the pulse of the Democratic voter base, if they ever really did. They don't want to change the party, as the party must be changed. They just want the party to get yet another facelift. To pander on "moral" issues, to make vague titterings to "evangelicals", to sell out key constituents in order to appeal to a large swathe of the populace that rejected the Democratic ticket in spite of the mushiest, least objectionable, least memorable platforms imaginable.
These men don't care about you. They don't care about the party. They never did. They care about themselves, their careers, their consulting and speaking fees, their book deals, their TV time. Their "legacy". Do you honestly think that James Carville really wants anything to change? He has it great. He is a bad sitcom character. He is a reptile who has carved out an acceptable, nonthreatening. He is the Cajun who is about as "raging" as Britney Spears. He is a packaged, manufactured, and utterly predictable hack. Why do you think he flew into a rage at Howard Dean and John Stewart? Because they want to challenge the system, in a genuine way. They don't just want to kick shins and have Daddy give them a lollipop, like Carville. He's terrified of any real reform. So is Clinton. These men continue to pursue an ossified and uninspired agenda, where safety and security and sweet jobs for cronies are the only real stakes. They don't mean anything they say. The hollowness of their buzzwords and platitudes make them a joke among Republicans and to any voters who bother to take 2 seconds to look at the legacy vs. the hype.
Earlier this year, Democrats could have voted for REAL change. But that change was sandbagged by the media, by Dean's own mistakes, and by a self-involved, greedy, short-sighted media whore named Joe Trippi. When Dean lost, the CW became that Democrats really didn't want a new voice. They were just "flirting" until they went back to the same old faces.
We cannot let this happen again. We cannot delude ourselves into thinking that the Clintonistas and their triangulation and phony populism and spinelessness and gluttony are what this party needs. People like to say that we should go back to the Clinton plan because he won. Yes, he won. Democrats lost Congress. Democrats lost many state legislatures. They lost many states that they are not likely to get back. The party became all about ONE man.
Democrats have continued to lose over the past 4 years. This is not because of Clinton's absence. This is because we cannot identify a national vision for this party. We cannot sell ourselves on a national level. But the building blocks are there. Democrats did better on a statewide level this year than they have in over a decade. The reason for that is because Democrats on a grassroots level, inspired to be independent and to talk about genuine issues, trained and molded by progressive organizations working in the image of Howard Dean and Paul Wellstone, convinced voters on an individual basis that Democrats are the party of the common man. That Democrats truly do want to help the poor, the sick, the needy. They did not rely on tiresome catchphrases or on guest appearances from has-beens.
I am really concerned by the tendency of so many people here to fall back into the comforting coccoon of the 90's Democratic Party, their safe, stingy, and empty-headed rhetoric that was designed to help one man, not the entire country. We can't go back to that. We need to look inside ourselves and focus on what to do next. And we MUST ensure that the Clinton machine is removed from power before the 2006 and 2008 elections. I'm not kidding here. I think that these people are as dangerous to this party's future than Bush, because they are as committed to marginalizing this party. They know that the main way they keep control, they keep the money and the cushy jobs, is to shut out a diverse coalition of voices that want to specify detailed and well-articulated plans that real people (NOT FOCUS GROUPS) want to hear about.
The only way for this party is to survive is for these old hacks to be exposed for what they are and to be made irrevelant. Most of them are already jokes on a national level, circus clowns left behind to clean up the elephant shit. Most people see through them. Why don't we? Why don't we treat the Carvilles with what they deserve -- open contempt? Where were they when we needed them? Isn't it a bit odd that one of the Clintonista's least favorite senators, Russ Feingold, won handily in a good GOP year, while the establishment, safe, archaic faces they backed (like Bowles, or too often, Kerry, even if he was not their first choice) did what these types do best - lose?
YOU are the future of this party. Not James Carville. Not Bill Clinton. Don't let them take away the spine of this party. We need to fight like hell. We don't need to apologize to the public and beg for sympathy. The main reason that Democrats continue to lose is weakness. America thinks we are weak. They will support fighters. Men and women with integrity. Men and women like Russ Feingold or even Patty Murray. EVERY SINGLE SENATOR who voted against the Iraq war - a war that the establishment Democrats demanded they vote for - was reelected this year, by DOUBLE DIGITS. What message does that send? The message that integrity, and character, instead of lecturing about morals while cheating on your wife, or attacking Republicans for war-mongering when you happily voted for that war to score political poins, will win out just about every time as long as you have enough money, enough of a coherent message, enough organization, and smart, tough counterattacks.
We need to study the lessons of success this year, instead of hiding under the shroud of failure and scapegoating. It's time to reject the wing of this party that is so busy demonizing easy targets, that has spent decades demonizing easy targets and talking down to Americas, and stand up for true populists who love this nation instead of their bank accounts and their shitty HBO shows.