Democrats

Frank Rich wrote On the Democrats in the latest The New York Review of Books:

"However much the Democrats might finesse differences on Iraq or any other issue in 2008, their best hopes for electoral victory still have less to do with their own ideas than with the sorry state of their opponents. Compared to the increasingly fractious and disheartened conservative coalition, the Democrats could pass for a model of coherence and unity. Compared to the Bush presidency, almost any conceivable Democratic ticket would seem a step up to the vast majority of voters eager to turn the page. The Democrats could yet lose the White House in 2008, especially if the general election becomes a referendum on the Clintons or race, but it would take the party's full powers of self-immolation to do so."

I read this a few days ago. Frank Rich surely wrote it much earlier than that. I am not so sure I agree that a Democratic victory will have less to do with our own ideas. Obama's campaign shows the strength of ideas. Clinton lacks nothing in the idea department - even if her presentation lacks Obama's flair. (Watching last night's debate on CNN, the opening made me think of something I read about The Who and Hendrix at The Monterey Pop Festival. Basically, Pete Townsend said no way to play after Hendrix. A brief look in Clinton's eyes brought home what it would have been like to have Jimi Hendrix as the opening act).

I am tired of bombast substituting for thought, and I suspect that I am not the only one in this country who feels this way. We, the electorate, can generally tell when we are getting fed a line. When we do get fooled, there is hell to pay. We know we got fed a line of BS by Bush, Cheney and the Republicans. For winning big we do need better ideas than the opposition. Winning just requires reminding the electorate of how badly the Republicans ran this country for the past seven years.