Having read a couple of diaries about this or that coalition existing or not and whether any if all can be transferred or not to any given candidate in the future.
I will say this from a personal viewpoint and probably a skeptical one at that. I might be persuaded to believe in coalition if in fact The Democratic Party knew for what it stood and could count on the Democratic Party to actually stand up for the principles that lead to a coalition. There are advantages and disadvantages to a big tent viewpoint but some minimum standard must be applied to what are the objectives of such a partnership.
Having been drawn to the hope and change campaign myself something else escaped my thoughts. The main one being was did the Democratic Party itself believe in that message and who amongst them were prepared to actually implement that hope and change. The Democratic Party had majorities in the House and Senate as well as the White House, we witnessed some pretty rapid backpedaling by quite a few with respect to the message that most people were motivated to vote for. There is another question, was this merely hot air and did anyone in fact in a position to do so really believe what the objectives were in the first place.
The following three election cycles seemed to echo my own skepticism after the first two years, yes Obama was reelected but fund himself in a weaker and weaker position as time goes by, now he faces a hostile congress. We already have seen Democrats more than willing to jump at the supposed holy grail of bipartisanship and also going directly against the President. I think this will be the pattern for the next two years, they may even cycle the aisle hopping to obscure the continuity.
So as we enter the absolute bloody joy of the Presidential hype games and people are proposing how things are to be done so that "we" can win I would say that is way to early and some people on the Hill have a great deal of convincing to do before that can even be talked about intelligently.
You can run a hope and change strategy once every fifty years or so but you cannot repeat more often than that per party, voters tend to remember the immediate after effect.
I have always been in favor of a manifesto [a much maligned term] because a written document is a letter of intent it is also a reference point by which results can be accurately judged. Biographies by the way are not a manifesto, a statement of objectives requires more than one signature. Personally I cannot see how a coalition could support anything without this basic standard document, I don't even see how you could propose a coalition without it. Accountability needs a point of reference.
I know our politicians love to make promises but without to support them they are all but meaningless, I'm tired of the "it was impossible, but I tried" escape clause. The waffle coefficient is just to damn significant.
A but a manifesto would be too restrictive we need move for maneuver, to my mind that means we will run away from it as soon as it is convenient to do so; in other words the day we take our seats. Then package the absolute surrender of principle with the typical DC get out clause "Bipartisanship". What Bipartisanship seems to mean these days is a few politicians sitting on the fence actually holding the real power. I suppose this reduces the cost of lobbying.
I don't suppose that I will be excited to vote because of some stated group of basic principles but to vote for the not as bad as once again. This to my mind is the real voter suppression, apathy as to the result.
I am going to have to be convinced by more than rhetoric to put my heart and soul into supporting the Democratic Party, they have a great deal to prove over the next two years. My hopes are not high after witnessing the last six years of their supposed efforts.
Just a thought.