‘Titanic’ problems plague savior-seeking Democrats
GEOF WOLLERMAN
gwollerm@mscd.edu

      If you’re not following the slate of 2008 Democratic presidential nominees—like the Three Wise Men following the Star of David into Bethlehem—you’re probably not a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, and you probably couldn’t care less about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, or the Democratic National Committee. And, unlike members of these deliberative bodies, you also probably bear no political gold, frankincense, or myrrh with which to welcome the next chosen savior of the Democratic Party. In fact, if you’re like most disillusioned Democrats these days, you’re tired of bearing anything, and are starting to ask not what you can do for the party, but what the party can do for you.

      And yet, you might also be asking, who’s on this latest list of potential saviors? According to a recent poll, conducted by Financial Dynamics, “if the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were held today,” Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York would be the overwhelming choice, followed by the two Johns (Kerry and Edwards, respectively), Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, Gen. Wesley Clark, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Virginia Governor Mark Warner, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Unfortunately for Democrats, the latter half of this list has as much national name-recognition as runners-up on the latest episode of Survivor.

      However, listening to voters lately, one gets the impression it’s not about who is going to run, but what ideas they’re going to run on. Listening to Hillary speak at Brown University earlier this month, one also gets the impression the best ideas the Democratic Party has these days are “leadership” and the ability to make “tough decisions.” For the record, I’m not sure which is more bland: Hillary’s rhetoric, or the monotonous voice in which she spews it.

     In spite of ideological timidity—or perhaps because of it—the Democratic Leadership Council will hold “a national brainstorming session” here in Denver July 22-24. As reported in the Rocky Mountain News, leaders in the Democratic Party referred to Denver as the “capital of the New West,” and chose the Mile High City for its “political strategy-fest” because, according to Al From, head of the DLC, “Colorado is a crucial swing state in national elections,” and “exactly the kind of red state we must win…to be returned to national power.” Mayor John Hickenlooper hopes the event will help Denver land the next site of the Democratic National Convention, though it’s questionable whether the convention will trump our status as host to the next season of “The Real World.”

      A new book, Crashing the Gate, by political bloggers Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas, helps to explain the Democratic Party’s sudden interest in the 38th state. For those who don’t remember, in 2004, “Colorado witnessed a Democratic tidal wave that swept out entrenched legislative Republicans, despite a heavy pro-GOP tilt of the national electorate.” Colorado Democrats owe this success not to the national Democratic Party, but to a group of private, “innovative” fundraisers dubbed the “four horsemen,” who “spent over $2 million on a shadow campaign—separate from the Democratic Party—for get-out-the-vote and registration efforts.”

      It sounds to me like the Democratic Party is simply interested in saving face in Colorado—preventing the “four horsemen” from becoming its apocalypse—rather than expressing any genuine interest in our state.

      The DLC, DCCC, DLCC and DNC are all going to be dead in the water unless they can adopt, and adapt to, grassroots fundraising.

It’s the same fundraising that propelled little-known Howard Dean into the national spotlight in 2004, and it is the new paradigm of national politics. The GOP realizes it—Democrats need to realize it, too.

      Winning elections isn’t the only thing Democrats need to do. They need to come up with, and articulate, specific policies that address the big issues of the 21st century. But, longtime liberal firebrand Molly Ivins doesn’t see much hope in the usual suspects.

      In a column in the March issue of The Progressive magazine, she declares she “can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold
who is even worth considering for President.

      The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.” While pointing out that “Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them,” Ivins offers up three of her own: “extricating ourselves” from Iraq, “full public financing of campaigns,” and “single-payer health insurance.”

It’s a good list to start with, and one I think most Democratic voters can get behind, but the party has a long way to go if it wants to woo voters in 2008. Simply standing aside and letting the Republicans implode is not going to impress anybody.

      If Democrats can’t come out of their corner swinging soon, voting for them in 2008 is going to feel like traveling on the doomed Titanic—a trip this country can’t afford.