Everything Will Be OK As Long As We Win

The news that Clinton went ballistic during a closed-door meeting with superdelegates at the CDP Convention, so much so that Art Torres had to apologize to one of them, and then walked onto the stage and told everyone to "chill out" and that the extended primary won't cause a rift in the party is pretty revealing. I believe Clinton DOESN'T think there will be a rift in the party - as long as Hillary is the nominee. And that internal logic must seem pretty iron-clad to him.

This is pretty much the same with Harold Ickes, who expressed to TPM yesterday that the party is "sturdier" than the "hand-wringers in Washington" think, and then went on to do some championship-level handwringing:

"Look what the Republicans did to a genuine war hero," Ickes said, in a reference to John Kerry.

"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks," Ickes continued. "I've had super delegates tell me that the Wright issue is a real issue for them."

In a reference to Wright's controversial views, Ickes continued: "Nobody thinks that Barack Obama harbors those thoughts. But that's not the issue. The issue is what Republicans [will do with them]...I think they're going to give him a very tough time."

I'm EXTREMELY tired of these two characteristics of Clinton-era Democratic politics: the Clintons putting themselves ahead of the party, and the constant defensive crouch. I actually heard a very similar idea in talking to a superdelegate who's committed for Clinton at the CDP. Rather than worrying about what the Republicans are going to do, how about confidently expressing what the Democrats are going to do in the general election? I suspect that the Clinton camp is capitalizing on a natural fear from Democratic leaders. But it's so depressing.

Republicans are not electoral wizards. Let me say that again. Republicans are not electoral wizards. Their last unequivocal electoral victory was 14 years ago. In 2006 Democrats took Congress by a bigger margin than the Republican Revolution ever had. In 2004 the spread was the lowest for an incumbent since Woodrow Wilson. 2002 was right after 9/11 and it was essentially a tie. We won in 2000 in Congress and the Presidency. We gained seats in 1998. We won in 1996 without much trouble.

To the extent that Democrats have blown elections, it's because they've been trash-talked into submission by internal fears of how Republicans will portray them. It's pointless and distracts from the offensive, politics of contrast strategy that is a proven winner for Democrats. I'm not worried that we're stepping out on a limb and choosing between a black man and a woman, either. As Yglesias eventually says, the fundamentals for Democrats are pretty strong so it's as good a time as any to break down barriers. I wanted Edwards but that wasn't for electability reasons but reasons of policy.

Republicans are in deep trouble and they know it. What can derail this is a weak, cautious, "what're they going to say about us?" approach that will reinforce the traditional message that Republicans use of Democrats as weak and cautious. When we are forceful and stand in contrast, we win. That's the bottom line.