<p>I didn't follow the primaries really at all so I am not knowledgeable about this, but your comment about Lieberman intrigues me. Clinton was pretty religious (southern Baptist, right?) and that did not seem to turn the party off at all. Unfortunately, I think it is okay to be a religious Christian in either party (just maybe not too dogmatic in the Democratic party). Being a religious Jew is still going to make someone unelectable in a very large proportion of the United States population. No one would publicly admit it, but there is I think huge antipathy toward the Jews among the religious right.</p>
<p>"Red state voters took one look at Theresa H.K. and said, "These are not my people."</p>
<p>I don't think Theresa (whom I actually rather liked, for her refreshing and unapologetic moxie) played a part in Kerry's image problem, so much as the legion of entertainment industry drum beaters.</p>
<p>I think many in middle America took one look at all the celebs (who virtually put their own careers on hold in order to work for a Kerry presidency), and thought, "What's wrong with this picture?". If ever there were a group of constituents occupying the fringe left of the democratic party, it is the Hollywood crowd. As a group, they definitely present a, "not like us" image to the average American. And while they are admired and somewhat worshipped within their own singular niche in American culture, they also often give off the decided stink of excess, and moral decadence, an image that does not play well within a political context. Just as a close association with the likes of Falwell, Roberts, Gingrich, and Limbaugh causes an image problem for a Republican candidate, close ties with Streisand, Eminem, P-Diddy, and company, does nothing for a Democratic candidate.</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter was never accepted by the Democratic Party powers-that-be. I would say that the Massachusetts wing of the party despised him. A lot of that was a "cultural" inability to understand his born-again faith. Some of it was that he didn't have much use for Ted Kennedy, either!</p>
<p>Clinton overcame many of the same objections on the strength of his charisma and voter appeal. But, I don't think the party poo-bahs really understood his appeal -- the ability to relate to common folk. He really set the standard for how you can simultaneously present many Democratic ideals (inclusiveness, tolerance, civil rights) in a populist, rather than elitist fashion. Especially in his first campaign, he presented an effective message of change in Washington. The Democrats have no choice but to go that route from here on out, since they don't have any power in Washington. It's pretty easy to play the "outsider card" when you don't control the White House, the House of Representatives, or the Senate. Kerry did not, and could not, make that case this year because he was the quintessential Washington insider.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Just as a close association with the likes of Falwell, Roberts, Gingrich, and Limbaugh causes an image problem for a Republican candidate, close ties with Streisand, Eminem, P-Diddy, and company, does nothing for a Democratic candidate.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Exactly. The real challenge facing any political party is to keep their fringe base satisfied (because you need their money), but maneuver them into the shadows so that you can campaign as a moderate.</p>
<p>The Republicans figured this out in the backlash against the "Gingrich revolution" when they lost a lot of moderate voters to Clinton. They've done a pretty good job of shoving these people into the shadows. For example, I don't think Rush Limbaugh has been invited to White House for photo op lately.</p>
<p>The Democrats really haven't even tried in the last two elections.</p>
<p>"Being a religious Jew is still going to make someone unelectable in a very large proportion of the United States population. No one would publicly admit it, but there is I think huge antipathy toward the Jews among the religious right."</p>
<p>I don't think so, Patient. Conservative Christians tend to recognize and honor the shared biblical heritage, and are among the staunchest supporters of Israel (see: Bush, G.W.). There may be antipathy toward the reflexive <em>political</em> liberalism of so many American Jews, but it has nothing to do with their faith/heritage. I think Lieberman would be a very viable candidate....if he could just do something about that voice.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, I fully agree with you about Bill Clinton's gifts. However, once he was in office the Republicans geared up and systematically went after him throughout his presidency with one accusation after another, many of them outrageous. There are still people out there who believe he is a serial killer. And that was the same ruthless propaganda machine that was responsible for the phrase "flip-flopper" and for the swiftboat veterans. Add that to Rove's playing the gay marriage card and I am not sure even a Bill Clinton could have been elected this year, although a friend tells me Clinton advised Kerry to tell the South he was in favor of states' rights on that issue and Kerry refused.</p>
<p>I think the "gay marriage card" is largely a myth. The states that put the anti-gay marriage initiatives on their ballots were just that, states, and they were reacting specifically to the Massachusettes initiative. Not the federal government, not Karl Rove. Yes, Bush said he would support a constitutional amendment in defense of traditional marriage, but no one thinks that's anything more than a symbolic gesture, like the support for an anti-flagburning amendment that pops up every few years. Neither have any chance of becoming actual amendments to the Constitution. Bush also said he supports civil unions for gays. David Brooks nails this issue in today's NYT, using Pew research data.</p>
<p>Without the Bush campaign making this a national issue, it would have been easy otherwise for the rest of the states to leave gay marriage to MA, NY, etc., and not link it to the Presidential campaign. The Bush campaign made gay marriage a Presidential issue by advocating the amendment, even though Bush recently came out in favor of civil unions and Frist backed off on his support of said amendment. </p>
<p>As an astute letter writer to the NY Times noted recently, since 9/11 many people in this country have felt that their deepest values and entire way of life were at stake, and the gay marriage amendments are one way of affirming the importance of traditional institutions they hold dear. I thought that was an empathic analysis, not a condescending one as Brooks claims. </p>
<p>Re the amendment, I don't hear that "no one thinks that's anything more than a symbolic gesture." Having been a guest at a gay wedding recently, I'm hearing that people are scared, hurt, and angry.</p>
<p>This is a good analysis of why Bush won. It covers each area of the country with loads of statistics. It might help put things in perspective about other areas of the country beyond your own. The statistics on the education of Bush voters vs Kerry voters were the most striking to me. There are several paragraphs in the middle of the article that cover statistics for those of you who don't want to read the whole thing.</p>
<p>"scared, hurt and angry" describes more than just gay couples, of course. But just try, for a minute, putting yourselves in the shoes of a gay couple who have loved each other for years, who may be getting older, may be facing sickness or an uncertain economic future without health insurance, etc. They have probably--as gay couples are wont to do--helped out generously in their community, taken care of their neighbors, been viable economic contributors to the community. How do you think they feel, to be told by huge percentages of the voting public that their desired union is morally inferior and SO horrible that it must be outlawed--there is no polite way to put it--to those of the, in some cases, far less loving heterosexual couples around them? And, how would their marriage hurt anyone? That's what I truly do not get. Better to focus on the really harmful aspects of heterosexual marriage these days, like domestic violence. Think of all the money that has just been spent on these campaigns across the country that could have been poured into schools, etc. It is just nonsense.</p>
<p>I still think that this is just a gradual social evolution and that one day people will look back at us as Neanderthals who just didn't have the benefit of conclusive scientific research that homosexuality is no more deviant than having red hair or nearsightedness.</p>
<p>I have a question on another subject. And it may just be that I don't know the answer because I didn't watch the last election very closely: what happened to James Carville?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>However, once he was in office the Republicans geared up and systematically went after him throughout his presidency with one accusation after another, many of them outrageous. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Of course! That's what politicians do to their opponents. Haven't you noticed the Democratic propaganda machine? They've certainly "geared up and systematically gone after Bush throughout his presidency with one accusation after another, many of them outrageous." Heck , that could almost be the trailer for Far 911, don't you think? (Michael Moore = Rush Limbaugh)</p>
<p>One of Clinton's most effective voter appeals was a call for the end of "gotcha" politics. That is a hugely resonant issue with centrist voters.</p>
<p>lizschup, that is a paid-subscriber-link only, so we can't see it. Perhaps you could cut and paste those middle paragraphs?</p>
<p>this from David Brooks:
"But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?"</p>
<p>David Brooks and a few other Republicans have been beating this talking points drum and while I think there is truth in the statement, it is the wording that bothers me. It seems intended to further characterize democrats or "liberals" as out of touch, just as Kerry was characterized. Yes there was truth to it but it is not the whole story. I don't think all Dems are insular and I think the condescension he perceives is more of a disbelief at Republican's understanding of the facts. I agree with Aparent whole heartedly about the right wing spin machine. It is alive and well , much stronger than any Michael Moore movie or Hollywood star endorsement. It creates doubt , muddies the water and keeps good intelligent people from getting at the truth. When people can't get at the truth or don't take the time to look for it , I believe they vote on a combination of their deeply held values combined with a surface overview of the candidate. These people are easily influenced by all the clutter out there about personality, flip flopping, etc. etc. I am not discounting all of you well read, multiple degreed, CC posters- you acccording to the TNR article are in the minority of voters for Bush.</p>
<p>this from David Brooks:
"But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush."</p>
<p>this from Lizschup:
"I agree with Aparent whole heartedly about the right wing spin machine. It is alive and well , much stronger than any Michael Moore movie or Hollywood star endorsement. It creates doubt , muddies the water and keeps good intelligent people from getting at the truth. When people can't get at the truth or don't take the time to look for it , I believe they vote on a combination of their deeply held values combined with a surface overview of the candidate. These people are easily influenced by all the clutter out there about personality, flip flopping, etc. etc."</p>
<p>I think Brooks was talking about you, Liz.</p>
<p>I still think many people were voting on fear, and the comfort of the known versus the risk of the unknown in this scary world. </p>
<p>I was listening to a BBC program last night. One of the observations was that to some extent they were concerned that there would have been confusion and chaos if Kerry had been elected, in terms of what this would bode for the war on terrorism, the situation in Iraq, etc. They were advocating for a much more focused effort on getting the elections done and a rapid withdrawal of troops. I would imagine that will definitely happen on the British side as it has with many of the other so-called coalition countries.</p>
<p>I think the quality of "out-of-touchness" is well distributed at both ends of the political spectrum. It just takes different forms. </p>
<p>As for David Brooks, in my book he's a lightweight who relies on the clever phrase. I'd like to see both him and Maureen Dowd, a lightweight at the other end of the spectrum, replaced on the Times editorial page with columnists who dig deeper.</p>
<p>Driver, one of the nice things about this thread is that for the most part, people have been arguing ideas and not making personal attacks. We are all questioning, puzzling, etc. I am sure that I am guilty of being one of those intellectual liberals David Brooks disdains, but I truly am trying to understand the messages behind this election because they are many and complex. </p>
<p>I have voted for winners and losers in Presidential elections for over 30 years. I have never woken up, like I did this time, feeling hated and being afraid. I am trying to figure out how wrong or right I am about those feelings and what to do about them. Interesteddad has been really helpful. Your personal attacks are less so.</p>
<p>Go here:<a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/index-old.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/index-old.php</a> </p>
<p>It's the top link</p>
<p>Patient,
I don't see any hatred here, certainly no personal attacks from me. Lizschup took issue with portions of the Brooks article, particularly those that called lib/dems as out-of-touch and condescending (by the way...I saw no "disdain" on his part either...perhaps you're feeling overly sensitive this week.)</p>
<p>I took issue with Liz because of the remarkable irony of seeing her claim that a "spin machine" was what kept Bush voters from "understanding the facts." That these poor Bush voters were kept from "getting at the truth," or that they "don't take the time to look for it." That they voted based on "a surface overview of the candidate." These Bushies, you know, are "easily influenced by all the clutter," says Liz. But of course, none of this critique applies to CC posters...provided we have mulitiple degrees and are well read. As Brooks said in his article....condescending. Patient, if you ever think I've crossed the line in disagreeing with the CC clique group-think, by all means hit the "report offensive post" button. IMO, your post #336 was far more of a personal attack than anything I've put forth.</p>
<p>What I see as really frustrating is that I think we are too far apart to come together.
Kerry was way too conservative for me to be really happy with him, and there is a large groups of voters who feel the same way.
We are not changing our core values anymore than citizens who beleive the exact opposite are changing theirs.</p>
<p>I think this country is too large and too diverse for one party to have control, I vote for an independent state of Pacifica ( yes we are taking Microsoft, Starbucks and Nike- but you can have Boeing)</p>