Old- but relevant, considering all the bizzare "Blame Nader and the far left" memes that seem to be floating around.
So who is for 3rd parties that cause DEMS to lose elections- some far left boogey man- or these guys? Both?
Who are the main obstacles- "crazy far left bloggers" or powerful, monied organizations that are in support of conservative, 3rd part candidates?
Is the problem "the far left" and moderates- or is it conservatives?
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=254149After this fall's power-shifting election, it was fascinating for me, as a strategist for Joe Lieberman's victorious Senate campaign, to watch Democrats struggle to fit the square political peg of the Lieberman comeback into the round electoral hole of the Democratic takeover. Here you had a pro-war, 18- year incumbent, rejected by his own party in the Connecticut primary, running as an independent with an ostensibly anti-war, pro-change, deep-blue electorate -- and winning the rematch against his primary opponent by a resounding 10 percentage points.
Of course, the Lamont partisans and the bloggers who wanted to purge Lieberman from the party will dispute that characterization. But once you cut through all the hyperbole and misinformation, it is clear that Lieberman was being targeted for expulsion not as a matter of policy, but of purity. He did not share the polarized Democrats' hatred and contempt for Bush and the Republican leadership, and he committed the unpardonable sin of actually working with the other side on occasion...
Our campaign took a 180-degree different approach, one that played to Lieberman's natural strengths and magnified the weaknesses of Lamont's polarizing strategy. We spoke to the entire universe of voters, with a particular focus on those who were turned off by the name-calling and game-playing and the partisan gridlock in Washington. We clearly connected Lieberman's extensive record of accomplishment for the state to his unique ability to rise above politics and work with Republicans to solve people's problems. And perhaps most important, we made a compelling case that Lamont's obvious inexperience and hard partisanship would hurt Connecticut...
Our signature ad, called "Blackboard," was a perfect foil to the relentlessly negative and overly snarky spots with which Lamont kept hammering us. It featured a typical school blackboard set against a clean white backdrop, with the words "Democrats" and "Republicans" written on it and separated by a line. The narrator asked, "How do you keep our nation secure? How do you provide better health care for our children? How do you save 31,000 jobs at the New London sub base?" Lieberman then walked up to the blackboard, erased the line, and said, "By reaching across party lines and standing up for what's right." This ad brilliantly distilled the essence of Lieberman's appeal -- and the difference between the two candidates...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
