Headline says it all:
Democratic hopefuls snub party moderates
WASHINGTON - Bill Clinton will be there. So will 300 officeholders from more than 45 states. But one thing will be missing when Democrats gather in Tennessee this weekend to discuss how to appeal to moderate, independent-minded voters in 2008: the Democratic presidential field.
Not a single one of the eight presidential candidates plans to attend the Democratic Leadership Council's summer meeting, a snub that says less about the centrist DLC than it does about a nomination process that rewards candidates who pander to their parties' hardened cores while ignoring everybody else.
"They have tunnel vision," DLC founder Al From said of his fellow Democrats.
(Continued below the advertisement)
(Continued from above)
The Democrats continually make the decision to listen to the far far left supporters because they scream the loudest and the shrillest, all the while ignoring their core base.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, political operatives convinced themselves that there were a dwindling few of these so-called swing voters, and that the only way to win elections was playing to "the base" — the most dedicated Republicans and Democrats. They were wrong. The political middle is as significant as ever, with voters in a mood to swing due to their frustration with both major parties.
That raises a challenge for Republican and Democratic presidential candidates: How do they win their parties' nomination without appearing hostage to the kind of base politics that turns off swing voters?
The DLC would like to help the Democratic candidates, but none are listening. While no Democratic presidential hopeful wants to be associated with the centrist group, most of the candidates will be in Chicago on Aug. 4 to attend a convention of liberal bloggers.
Well, WE never claimed they were the bightest bulbs in the package and they once again prove that point.
Seems John Kerry still cannot form a comprehensive sentence.
Democratic Leadership Council President Bruce Reed said yesterday that Sen. John Kerry's famed flip flopping explanation about $87 billion in Iraq funding was cringe-worthy.
That man doesn't understand that the best thing he can do for the party as a whole, is to NEVER speak in public again... heh
[Update] Obama and Hillary keep going back and forth against each other.... kinda amusing. This follows up yesterdays back and forth between them too.
"I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue.
"The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.
"Now, they may not like what we want to hear -- so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what's necessary to protect them -- that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic spadework has to be done ahead of time.
"The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous.
Then of course Hillary:
*** SECOND UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign has now released this statement from Richard Holbrooke, who served as UN ambassador in Bill Clinton's administration: "As she has said many times, Senator Clinton believes we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy after the cowboy approach of the Bush years. She has said she would initiate serious, responsible dialogue with nations with whom we don’t agree in order to further the national security interest of the United States. But she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations."
In this case they are shooting each other in the head.