Posted on 11/04/2004 8:02:54 PM PST by NewMediaFan
Even before John Kerry conceded defeat Wednesday, Democratic strategists, activists and party leaders already were beginning a difficult self-examination of the party's failure to connect with voters, spurred on by a deeply disappointing performance in the election.
The debate over the future of the Democrats will play out in the weeks and months ahead, probably continuing until the party has settled on a new presidential nominee four years hence. And the parameters of the discourse are still emerging.
"This will be an important choice," said former Bill Clinton aide Paul Begala. "The Democrats will ask hard questions about our party and our future."
Some themes already were clear Wednesday, as party insiders traded condolences and activists took to Web logs to express their frustration.
Some in the liberal wing of the party suggested that John Kerry had failed to present a sufficiently coherent and clear alternative to President Bush and the Republican Party's policies. In particular, they criticized him for sounding an uncertain trumpet against the war in Iraq (news - web sites), which Kerry voted to authorize.
But, in the initial hours after the defeat, much of the discussion among political professionals touched on how the Democratic Party could draw a closer connection to moderate and rural voters on issues of values and culture.
"If we don't step back, take a good hard look and address these issues, we're going to be in the back seat for many years to come," Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) told CNN.
Exit polls showed 22 percent of voters were most concerned about "moral issues," ahead of any other concerns, including Iraq, terrorism or the economy. President Bush, a born-again Christian who embraced religion in a midlife struggle against alcohol, comfortably includes regular references to faith in his political speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Go further towards the left.
That is the answer.
The only thing sociopaths like Begala and Dodd have the slightest interest in is how can democrats can better disguise who they are.
This will come down to "damn those conservative evangelical Christians! It's THEIR fault we lost! We've got to court the most liberal leaning wackos of our party and extort them to fight against the evil Christians!"
I don't think this is much of an exaggeration.
So many idiots in that party who refuse to even acknowledge the existence of Zell Miller, the one man over there who has a clue....
watch for hillary to go to church...
Oh sure, this party is going to ask the hard questions while retaining Nancy Pelosi (Communist-SF) in charge of their House delegation.
This sounds like something I read in 2002 and 2000. Hopefully, they will continue to not get it.
It would do her some good.
At least Begala admitted Bush has a mandate -- quite surprising to me.
Hey DNC, how about "Lies don't win!"
Listening to Al Sharpton on O'Reilly tonight -- they haven't learned one thing....nada...zip....
Evan Bayh is the future template for Democratic leadership.
Fortunately for us, the Dems don't know it yet.
Hillary will put on her Pretty in Pink outfits and pretend to be a good little Methodist girl. (While off-camera cursing like a sailor to her lesbian associates at how she has to put up with this poll driven cr*p).
He'll deny it within a couple of weeks. Chastised Democrats often say things immediately after an election which are honest.
It doesn't stick. Been there, done that.
So now they will pretend to have religious and moral concerns? There's a word for that, or rather, two words:
Whited sepulchers.
The Democrats could have been winners - if they had nominated George W. Bush for President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.