Wednesday, December 04, 2002
NY Times: Clinton Says Party Failed Midterm Test Over Security Issue.
Former President Bill Clinton said yesterday that the Democratic Party had lost the midterm elections because its candidates had failed to offer a convincing case that the party could manage national security during dangerous times.Also:
The former president ... brushed aside the argument by some Democrats that the party needed to return to its liberal roots to regain power.I don't like it. This is the president, after all, who was largely responsible for the shift to the right of the Democratic party. Surprise of surprises, now he is defending that strategy. I fear that, between Clinton's stature as the only Democratic president to be elected twice since FDR and in the absence of strong Democratic leadership, the Democratic party is likely to be swayed by this argument, and continue to be Pepsi to the GOP's Coke. I've read numerous surveys that indicate a majority of Americans think the Bush administration is corrupt, self-serving, and undemocratic, and yet they still handed them a substantial victory. This tells me there is something very wrong with the Democratic party, and after 10 years of the Clintonian New Democratic Party, I hardly think it is because they are too far left. Americans have had 10 years to get used to it, and I suspect they see no point in choosing a cheap knockoff (the Democrats) when they could have the real thing (the Republicans). It was obvious in 2000 when there was widespread voter apathy due to a lack of perceptible distinctions between the candidates, and it is even more obvious now as the Democratic party flounders without coherent leadership as the Republicans have organized a coherent and disciplined platform. Even if Clinton is correct and the only way to win votes is to effectively be Republicans, that doesn't mean that the Democratic party should shift its whole platform, it means that those more conservative Democrats should just go ahead and join the GOP. What's the point of having two separate but equal political parties?* Well, I guess the point is political leverage, but it is just not a good thing.
yeah, that was a misplaced reference, but so what?