Enough Already with the Self-Hate
I hate Maureen Dowd and her columns, but she sure got it right in
today's paper, where she ended her piece with a quote from a convention
goer in Denver:
“I’m telling you, man,” said one top Democrat, “it’s something about our party, the shtetl mentality.”
That's totally been the case on this site the last week. I usually love TPM, but I've gotten tired of the relentless whiny please asking when we're going on the attack, and I lost it last night when Josh made a post out of some reader e-mail (from a supposed "marketer") complaining about the "More of the same" signs.
The reason the Republicans so often win, and the Democrats lose, is not because we don't attack enough, but because we allow them to play into our sick tendencies for self-loathing. No candidate, or convention, is ever quite good enough for us Democrats. Al Gore, John Kerry, and even Bill Clinton (for you adults out there) -- none of them were ever quite good enough.
People, we have an incredible candidate in Barack Obama. Perhaps the best in my lifetime, who combines intelligence, political instincts, charisma and leadership skills like no other Democrat in a generation, maybe two.
His biggest problem is that so many Americans don't know him. I saw this in person when I knocked on doors for Obama in Muncie, Indiana for the May primary. Maybe you've seen the same thing with your friends, or your neighbors, who don't read TPM every day. And the Republicans are better able to land their punches (creating a caricature using Ayers, Wright, Rezko) if voters don't know who he is.
That's why Monday night with Michelle was so important. It'll be that much harder now to paint the Obama family as some exotic "other." It's why tomorrow night will be important.
And frankly, the "attack" mentality is silly. Go back and read the speeches of the 1992 convention. Were they red meat attacks on George Bush? No. Here's Clinton's speech (which got panned by the NY Times the next day):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton%27s_acceptance_speech_to_1992_Democratic_Convention
We didn't win in 1992 because of "attacks." That's a myth. It's because Clinton drew clear contrasts between what he would do and what George Bush was doing. And the country got over reservations it had about Clinton and decided to give him a chance. Oh, and because Ross Perot drew 20% of the vote.
The convention with the most blistering attack against a competitor came in 1988, when Ann Richards landed the hilarious and famous "Poor George. He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/annrichards1988dnc.htm
It was a lacerating speech. She ripped the Republicans. And we lost the election, badly.
So, instead of whining about how you don't think the language on some of the signs is perfect, or that we do't attack enough, get out there and knock on some doors, talk to your neighbors, help introduce them to Senator Obama. That'll be more effective than your self-loathing and pitiful pleas for more attacks.
And if you can't do those things, then please go work out your problem in therapy and not on Democratic-leaning blogs. It's distracting, and doesn't help the cause.
“I’m telling you, man,” said one top Democrat, “it’s something about our party, the shtetl mentality.”
That's totally been the case on this site the last week. I usually love TPM, but I've gotten tired of the relentless whiny please asking when we're going on the attack, and I lost it last night when Josh made a post out of some reader e-mail (from a supposed "marketer") complaining about the "More of the same" signs.
The reason the Republicans so often win, and the Democrats lose, is not because we don't attack enough, but because we allow them to play into our sick tendencies for self-loathing. No candidate, or convention, is ever quite good enough for us Democrats. Al Gore, John Kerry, and even Bill Clinton (for you adults out there) -- none of them were ever quite good enough.
People, we have an incredible candidate in Barack Obama. Perhaps the best in my lifetime, who combines intelligence, political instincts, charisma and leadership skills like no other Democrat in a generation, maybe two.
His biggest problem is that so many Americans don't know him. I saw this in person when I knocked on doors for Obama in Muncie, Indiana for the May primary. Maybe you've seen the same thing with your friends, or your neighbors, who don't read TPM every day. And the Republicans are better able to land their punches (creating a caricature using Ayers, Wright, Rezko) if voters don't know who he is.
That's why Monday night with Michelle was so important. It'll be that much harder now to paint the Obama family as some exotic "other." It's why tomorrow night will be important.
And frankly, the "attack" mentality is silly. Go back and read the speeches of the 1992 convention. Were they red meat attacks on George Bush? No. Here's Clinton's speech (which got panned by the NY Times the next day):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton%27s_acceptance_speech_to_1992_Democratic_Convention
We didn't win in 1992 because of "attacks." That's a myth. It's because Clinton drew clear contrasts between what he would do and what George Bush was doing. And the country got over reservations it had about Clinton and decided to give him a chance. Oh, and because Ross Perot drew 20% of the vote.
The convention with the most blistering attack against a competitor came in 1988, when Ann Richards landed the hilarious and famous "Poor George. He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/annrichards1988dnc.htm
It was a lacerating speech. She ripped the Republicans. And we lost the election, badly.
So, instead of whining about how you don't think the language on some of the signs is perfect, or that we do't attack enough, get out there and knock on some doors, talk to your neighbors, help introduce them to Senator Obama. That'll be more effective than your self-loathing and pitiful pleas for more attacks.
And if you can't do those things, then please go work out your problem in therapy and not on Democratic-leaning blogs. It's distracting, and doesn't help the cause.
Advertisement
You're right that the site is too whiny.
You're right that in this recurringly self-destructive party, no candidate is good enough. I would add to that that no slight is too small to dwell upon.
People will doubtless respond to your post at some point by lecturing you about how great this cannibalism is, and how great fighting each other is.
I think attacking our opponents is constructive, and while I'm enjoying the convention, I do wish it were a bit more red meat. I don't see saying that as endemic of the self-flagellation problem, but rather, endemic of a desire to kick some ass, in blogs, in retail politicking, in fundraising, in everything we do. It is a constructive criticism, and a mild one.
Ann Richards' attack helped. Dukakis' passivity and failure to define the issue terrain in 1988 killed him, IMHO.
Anyway, thank you very much for your excellent post.
August 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink