Electability and Hypocrites – the peanut butter and jelly of 21st century American politics

I know what you're thinking. "Two posts in one day? Dude, pace yourself." And yet, perhaps this is the pace that should be expected of me, especially when there is so much to say. Furthermore, don't call me "dude"; I think I've earned the respect to be called "sir".

Anyway, I read a few pieces that I just couldn't sit on. One, written by Jonathan Cohn focuses on Democrats' obsession with the notion of electability and how it affected the party's last two wide-open primaries. He remembers how the desire to nominate someone – anyone, really – who could conceivably defeat the Interloper in 2004 drove the rise of John Kerry and initiated reasons to reject all his competitors: Wesley Clark was a novice, Howard Dean was a lefty extremist, John Edwards was too inexperienced, Dick Gephardt was too closely tied to the old, wasteful Democratic Party. And yet, " the calculation of voters was curiously one-sided--measuring candidates almost exclusively in terms of their flaws, rather than taking stock of their attributes, as well". One could argue that Kerry's loss was inevitable:

If Kerry lacked the vulnerabilities of some of his rivals, he also lacked their skills. He couldn't win people over with charm or inspiration. And, while he had a bevy of nifty policy proposals, he had no grandiose, overarching message with which to sell them. So when the general campaign got tough, Kerry had no reservoir of public enthusiasm or support on which to draw. And, when the Republicans attacked what was supposedly his best asset--his record of heroism in Vietnam--Kerry didn't have the tools to fight back successfully.

As a useful counter, Cohn reflects on Bill Clinton's early campaign – a candidacy that would likely have sputtered at its onset if held to 2004's standards. After all, Clinton was the governor of an illiteracy-heavy state, had little international experience and was a documented womanizer. And yet:

… when the time came for Democrats to cast their ballots, they embraced Clinton anyway--for the very simple reason that he reached them in a way other candidates didn't. For some, it was his sheer charisma. For others, it was his ability to identify with the anxiety they were feeling. And for more, it was his serious discussion of ideas that held real promise for improving their lives.

On one hand, Cohn seems to caution against discounting Hillary Clinton's chances simply because we fear her ability to carry a general election. On the other, he clearly believes that the Democrats' best chance is to nominate a candidate who is charismatic and fosters idealism and faith (you know, the antithesis of Hillary). I suppose I will follow Cohn's logic on both ends; maybe I can no longer dismiss Hillary simply because of her low Q rating, just as I will be that much more fervent in my support for Obama, Edwards or any other candidate who seems to possess the ability to make me *want* to believe.

I realize I've approached the perilous 500-word barrier, but I would be remiss if I didn't also comment on the Democrats' plans for making the most of their new congressional majorities. The Washington Post reports that:

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Uh…Nancy? I love the big ideas, but what use is our idealism if we can't be held to our word? I don't want those Republican douchebags clogging up the wheels of change any more than you do, but we're the party that *doesn't* believe that the ends justify the means.

And how about this? Then Speaker Dennis Hastert wouldn't acknowledge Pelosi's 2004 proposed "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Now, Republicans are proposing – wait for it – a "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Who saw that coming?

Three years ago, Pelosi said, " the people's business would be well served" if Congress followed the principles behind her "bill of rights", "no matter which party is in control of the House." Now she will be put to the test; as much as I believe in her platform, I hope she also realizes this: hypocrites can maintain power in the short-term, but can easily lose the support of even the most historic national consensus with a brash disregard for integrity.