It's Monday, so I Meet the Press

Well it's another Monday which means I have my weekly comments about yesterday's Meet The Press. I was pretty excited since the line up included one of my favorite statesmen, Barack Obama (D-IL), and a roundtable with James Carville, Paul Begala (miswritten on Msnbc.com hysterically as Paula Begala) and Mary Matalin, who of course is good for a few laughs and some honesty political commentary.

What this week summed up, in my opinion, is that the Democrats are still an unorganized group, which doesn't bode well for them in this election year. I'm awestuck at this, considering what a horrendous year Bush and the GOP are having. With their backs against the ropes the Democrats should be making a full frontal assault, but yet they still seem to be confused, keeping one eye on Bush and the other on the opinion polls. Obama isn't the most aggressive politician, but with all these openings he still seemed intent on jabbing rather than delivering haymakers. The interview started off well with Russert setting up this volley for Obama's to spike over the net:

"The question is, here at home what are the politics, and you said this according to the Chicago Tribune. “It is arguable that the best politics going into ’06 would be a clear, succinct message, ‘Let’s bring our troops home.’ It’s certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now.” Why do you think that’s the best political message?"

This is a softball question if I've ever seen one. Obama's quote here is precisely what the Democrats need to make, (although it doesn't necessarily have to be in regards to Iraq--as I'll discuss later) however once making that point in the Tribune Obama continues the mistakes of Kerry and Hilary by back pedaling against the issue:

"Well, you know, one of the things that I think in politics you’re always looking for is contrast, and obviously that gives a sharp, clearly-defined contrast to administration’s policy. Keep in mind, though, that that quote was presented in me explaining that that’s actually not the approach that I’m pursuing. My position has been that it would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously draw troops down regardless of the politics, because I think that all of us have a stake in seeing Iraq succeed. We need to get the policy right, and it’s inappropriate, I think, to have politics intrude at this point in such a critical stage and in the development of the Middle East."

He's exactly right that "you're always looking for...contrast," but then says "...that's actually not the approach that I'm pursuing." Once again we're back to square one regarding troop withdrawals. Look either you're in or you're out. This waffling about troop withdrawal is KILLING the Democrats. If you're for leaving troops in then say so and find that "contrast" on another facet of the GOP agenda. If you want stark contrast then say you're for pulling out, and if you do want a gradual withdrawal then state that and give an exit strategy, and how this exit will be militarily backed up. The problem with this whole issue is that no one seems to have a concrete plan and that's exactly what both sides need. There's a saying in poker that "first one to bet wins the pot." Well both sides are checking around the table to see who cracks first and that's not good for America. We see what's going on and it encourages more apathy by the population.

Later in the show Begala picks up on this point:

"...about that campaign (2004 Presidental). But the—the Democrats blew it, let’s face it. They blew it, and it’s not that people think that we’re too liberal. It’s that they think we’re too weak, because we don’t stand up and say clearly and plainly what we stand for. And that’s really the thesis of the book. It’s that our problem is not ideological, it is anatomical. We need a spine. And a party that allows someone who has won five major medals, who three times has shed blood for our country, and won the bronze star and the silver star to be positioned as weak and woffling and weird is—it’s a sin. It’s awful. And Democrats have got to learn from that if we’re ever going to take it back."

Thanks Paula.

What astounds me is that you don't have to be either Karl Rove or George Stephanopoulos to figure this stuff out. After the 2004 election people were constantly thinking that Bush's win had to do with this puzzling thing known as "values" when any one who thought about it for more than 5 minutes could have told you that they only value people cared about then was determination and vision. In order for the Democrats to win anything both this year and in 2008 they have to present some vision and plan that, as Obama says, has "contrast." As we have discussed, Iraq is one of those issues out there but there are many more, such as:

1) Competency
2) Corruption
3) Taxes--(Repeal the Bush tax cuts immediately)
4) Freedom at home vs. Freedom abroad (Basically Bush's policies have denied freedom for Americans, and the Democrats can insure these freedoms)

And most importantly,

5) Universal Health Care.

Yes folks remember that one? Remember when the Democrats were the party of social reform? What can be any more important (especially now that Congress has screwed up Medicare) than providing the most basic of human needs for our population. The Democrats need to publish a Universal health care plan as an united front and have every Dem, both in office and running, endorse it. Make it known that a vote of the Democrats is a vote for health insurance, and watch the support gel around you.

Look I'm not saying that any of these points alone will ensure a Dem. victory in 2006. But together, in the right proportion, they should begin to give the Democrats a spine and more importantly piece together the only platform that can defeat the Republican's fear machine, which is hope. Hope is the only thing that can defeat fear, and unless the Democrats have some plan for hope this year, the GOP's steam engine of terror will roll over them, and us, once again.