There is an oft-repeated mantra here at Dailykos: More and Better Democrats.
In practice, sometimes this has meant spending a considerable amount of time talking about why the few Democrats we do have aren't good enough.
There is another sentiment I often see mentioned here, that we need to get back to the 50 state strategy, where Democrats pose a credible campaign for every seat, large and small.
Yet in practice, we still spend far too much time focused on the single seat of the Presidency.
There are many here who are quick to knock Republicans for their penchant for visceral reactions, and often their aversion to facts.
But then at the same time, there are also many here who are quick to voice their displeasure with Hillary Clinton, and even President Obama, without rationally measuring the qualities they hate to the qualities that are worth lauding.
I am not here to defend Hillary, to say that she is a perfect Democrat. I do not think that.
I am not here to repeat the notion that Hillary is our best chance at winning the Presidency, and should therefore be free from scrutiny. I do not think that either.
But what I do think needs to be said, is that all the time spent talking about Hillary, or talking about who should take her place as our Presidential candidate, detracts from more important goals. And for anyone who feels that wasting time attacking a credible Democratic candidate is harmless, I would ask them how they feel about whether or not precious time and resources have been wasted by Republican votes to repeal Obamacare.
I would never dispute the fact that Hillary should face a primary challenge in 2016. After all, if the same thing didn't happen 6 years ago, we wouldn't have had these 8 years of Obama, and someone trying to argue that Democrats could've had any better 8 years with any other 2008 Presidential candidate than we have had with Obama, is being wildly disingenuous.
But if this fact manifests in a movement to push someone to run, who has repeatedly said that she does not want to run, how is that living up to our Democratic values? Where is the compassion in that, to not respect a person's professed wishes, because of some high-vaunted rhetoric of being for the good of the people, or for the good of the Democratic Party? If it turns out that Warrens runs, but not because she ultimately wants to herself, but because so many people want her to that she feels compelled to, is that really going to be a successful candidate? Would she be a senator now if she didn't truly want it during her campaign?
There should be a strong Progressive candidate lined up to challenge Hillary. There should be one on tap for every seat, long before 2016, or at least, being groomed behind the scenes. So rather than focus on candidates - as great as they may potentially be - who have expressed that they do not to run, why aren't we focusing on ones who do want to run for something?
For example, the Presidency is not the only office up for election in 2016.
There will also be 24 Senate seats currently held by Republicans up for election, including such affable characters as John McCain, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. As the Progressive wing, shouldn't we do our best to make sure each and every one of those seats has a strong Progressive candidate in the running to replace them? We love to give Elizabeth Warren love around here for all the good work she does for Progressive values. Why don't we work to give her some more Senators like herself to work alongside?
Consider where some of these seats are located. Do we really trust that the establishment Democratic Party will ably field strong Progressive candidates in all of these seats? As the Progressive wing, is there really anything that would serves our interests more than turning over every rock, seeking out and vetting every possible option, so that we feel we have a worthy candidate to wear the Progressive mantle in all of these races?
There will also be the possibility of flipping the House. Far-fetched possibility? Perhaps. Does that mean we give up on that possibility? Or does that mean we work even harder to reach that achievement? After all, what pride is there in winning a battle that isn't hard-fought? We would need to pickup 30-some seats to flip the House. That's less than one pickup per state. Again, is this something that we really can't achieve? Conversely, do we really deserve to imagine such a dream if we don't at least give it our 100% effort? Why aren't we spending more time now compiling the list of potential Progressive champions for each and every one of these seats? Why are there not more diaries highlighting the good work being done by true Democrats at the lower levels, than there are diaries
But again, if we can't even begin to leave the Presidency alone, how can we hope to begin the real fight that deserves our actual attention?
Because finding good candidates, who have the chops to actually be electable, who actually represent Progressive values, who are actually willing to take the fight to these Republican incumbents, that's no easy task.
All the time, effort, resources, words written, and enthusiasm, about the Presidency and who should run, can't we start to devote more of those to the other races as well?
I realize that this may do little to obstruct the fount of diaries blasting Hillary and/or a Hillary campaign, or feeding speculation into diaries of who may challenge her.
But the notion that one can thwart a Hillary campaign without detracting from our other efforts, such as the effort to retake Congress, or to retake elected seats across the nation?
That lie must end as soon as possible.