Reply #27: Brazille, Carville and Begala all will be working for Sen.. Clinton

[TayTay]

if she does run. (I still think that is an open question.) There should be a disclosure requirement for consultants when they go on TV, maybe a scrawl at the bottom of the screen that says, "these are hired guns. Take whatever they say with a grain of salt."

There are two distinct strains of thought within the Democratic Party for how to proceed. David Broder had a column in today's Washington Post that said that the country wants a 'uniter and not a divider' and that the party that selects the person who can tack toward the mushy middle will win the vote in both '06 and '08. Broder is discounting substance in favor of appearing to have substance and the ability to not offend anyone. (I don't look for 'the ability to not offend anyone' as a criterion when I select a candidate but I might be old-fashioned.)

Gore's numbers went up when he went negative on Bush and also went Dem populist on the issues. Gore split with Clinton on economic policy and on the emphasis on appealing to traditional Dem voters with traditional Dem concerns: jobs, economic security, health care and so forth. (Al From of the DLC was livid about this. Al From doesn't like the traditional Dem base and would like to trade them in for a whiter and more middle and upper class base.)

John Kerry's numbers went up when he acted like, well, John Kerry. I heard it throughout the year, but the convention should have been MORE red meatish and not tried to be 'nice.' I loved, loved, loved the speeches after the one at NYU that basically took Bush apart for his Iraq War stance and for other things. Dammit, Kerry's numbers went up when he 'went negative.' Kerry's numbers went up after the debates when he clearly was in opposition to what Bush was doing, not trying to be upbeat and positive. Remember, that? Anyone remember that? He killed when he spoke his mind, said what he thought and let the chips fall where they may. (And that was the true Kerry anyway. People should be themselves and not some false creation that people see through anyway.)

If Hillary is going to run a positive campaign, she will have a historic loss. People are not stupid. They know their paychecks aren't going up, their schools aren't getting any better, their jobs are being outsourced overseas and that the War in Iraq is not going well. They see an Administration that refuses to admit any wrongdoing or failures and is overwhelmingly rejecting that. I think Americans are not tacking 'to the mushy middle' but want some people to tell them what the hell is really going on. I think a candidate that does that will have traction, no matter what the insiders and people who don't want to rock the boat say. That's my take from talking to people out in the 'real world.'