Democratic (Party) Direction

I should say that I mean as a matter of power/alpha-ness, not morally.

to fight for the center, which is where the votes are, you have to start by credibly asserting your place in it, and rhetorically holding your opponent outside the circle. attacking the opponent directly brings them inside.

attacking an incumbent for his official acts is even worse, because you are acknowledging not only that the incumbent is inside the circle, but that you're outside, trying to get in. the only way to successfully unseat the incumbent is to try to move the circle to where you stand, such that the opponent is now outside it. that was pretty hard to do in 2004, and I'm not sure Kerry would have been able to do so even if he understood the need to do so. Clinton did it successfully in 92 (putting people first), but he had a much easier opponent. Bush arguably succeeded in 2000 with Clinton/Monica's help, and Gore came close to turning things around by trying to turn himself into Clinton 92 (the people vs the powerful).

and what do they think of Gore and Dean? the Dems absolutely have to make addressing the wussy factor one of their top priorities, but they also have to get that attacking Bush/GOP in the wrong way makes them look even wussier.

yeah, I definitely agree with this. The whole "steadfastness/stubborness" was one of the constant storylines trumpeted. Jon Stewart summed it up with, "He may have driven us into a brick wall, but at least he didn't blink." Of course, there was plenty of evidence disproving this, but etc etc etc.

However, I do think Dems need to start adopting more of the Americana side of heartland isolationism, even if it means wrapping themselves in the flag and smearing themselves with apple pie. Mmm, pie.

Well, yeah, to a lot of people.. er, it does if they can't understand why. If there's no underlying sense of core values it just looks like everything is done for short-term political gain and according to focus groups.

Whereas with W lotsa folks still think, OK, he has his core strong beliefs so therefore all the stupid shit he does (& including plenty they don't even agree with) is comprehensible in the context of his larger, uh, vision or whatever.

So yeah, reluctance to vote for the Dems because the devil you know is still less scary than the devil you don't. And ya know if the other current in the race is Dick Cheney et al going PH34R DISASTER ARMAGEDDON OMG WMD HOLY SHIT than, yeah, it's likely you're even more afraid to risk going with the devil you don't know.

Well, at least there won't be an incumbent in the 2008 Presidential race, so everyone will be more or less on an even footing as far as that goes.

that oughta help win over the "git-r-done" demographic

I'm not even kidding.

I disagree, at least to your terms. People already think the administration isn't doing the job well enough, but still trust them to do better than the Dems. If Dems said 'you can't do the job', it doesn't address the fact that the public doesn't think Dems can do it either. Instead, Dems have to say 'we're here to get the job done right', and they have a huge credibility barrier to hurdle by means of personality, rhetoric and actual practical steps to point to, as well as ceaseless assertions that they want to protect America, while "others have different priorities," namely... etc.

a huge credibility barrier to hurdle by means of personality

this means not only finding a sufficiently alpha personality, but also finding a personality that knows the limitations of its alpha-ness. you don't see Bush on a horse.

My prediction = if it gets them anywhere it's through no fault of their own. No, they'll have the Bush admin to thank a thousand times.

STRAPPED: Why America's 20- and 30- Something's Can't Get Ahead

no, you don't get it. (I have no idea what Dem "consultants" say, but I'll stipulate to your kossack/Sirotan belief that they are a monolithic group counseling meekness.) I'm not arguing for Dems to look and act as centrist as possible, I'm counseling that they assert their ownership of the center, aggressively but mild-manneredly (yes you can do those things at the same time) where necessary. Where a Dem position is really way outside the center, which would be rare but conceivable, they should consider whether it may be wrong.

or they just move the center to where they are.

centrism-of-spirit has served Dems very well since Carter thanks very much. the two cultural centrists - Clinton and Carter - won. those who lost were Northern/urban/insider professorial types who did little to argue that they better stood for American values than their opponents.

Appointed U.S. ambassador to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture by President Clinton, McGovern lobbied for a universal school-lunch program funded partly by a $1.2 billion annual U.S. contribution. As an isolationist skeptical of foreign aid, I am able to restrain my huzzahs, but I’d sure as hell rather spend a billion buying lunch for kids in Bangladesh than $300 billion occupying Iraq.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/images/magcover.jpg

Clinton - 49.2%
Dole - 40.7%
Perot - 8.4&

do the math.

did you have some other math in mind?

xxpost - In the same issue they run a pro-Gene McCarthy piece, a piece about Mencken, and a piece critical of Greenspan. Like I said, I don't think it's an easy magazine to pigeonhole and although I don't have a sub I always check in.

But back to gabbneb and his "obstructionist binaries" and focus group claptrap...