Whoa there, democrats...

Heads up... This is one of my posts where I digress from my normal menu of complaints about men, my job, and the ridiculously freezing cold Ohio weather. I'm going political for the next paragraph or too. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Now, on to business. In times of adversity, it's natural for us to get a little jumbled up and forget our goals. Case in point: the Democratic party. We ran the wrong candidate, we got our asses beat, and now (in between continuing to bellyache about 2000 and opening our "i'm sorry" form letters from the Kerry campaign) we're starting to look ahead to 2008. There are a lot of rumors flying around about who we'll groom for the end of the Bush dynasty. And this is when it gets a little scary. We're bitter about losing, and in a hurry to get through this administration and move on to the next one, but we need to proceed with caution. Before we start tossing names around, let's think about what we really want from our next president.

What pisses me off about the Democrats is their lack of a clear party platform. I might not agree with Republicans, but no one ever accuses them of not making their agendas pretty clear. We know what the Republicans want to do: push forward in Iraq, put more conservatives in the Supreme Court so as to preserve (or re-instill) the "morals" of our country, increase military spending, protect gun rights, give tax breaks, solve the oil issue by drilling in the wildlife refuges. Ask a Republican if he's proud to be a conservative, and you'll get a pretty strong affirmative. They don't apologize for it. So why do we?

Democratic candidates are very nervous about making their agendas clear. They are so afraid of pissing off middle America with "liberalism" that I think they manage to alienate their left-wing base. Are Democrats pro-choice? Sometimes, sort of, but we prefer not to bring that up in speeches or debates that swing voters might watching. Do they want to raise taxes so that federal funding for welfare programs and health care will be adequate? Yes, but we prefer not to actually say that out loud. Gay marriage? Well, even though most of the US gay population belongs to our party, we can't say yes, because we'd lose too many votes, so let's split the difference and say civil unions are ok. Was Iraq a bad idea? Yes, even though most of us voted for it. See what I'm getting at? All we seem to be consistent on, as a party, is making sure we stand at the opposite side of whatever Bush wants. That, my friends, does not a succesful political party make. We need a clear platform, and a candidate who can be proud of his or her left-wing roots and yet have the personality and eloquence to appeal to the South and blue-collar Americans without talking down to them. Remember Clinton? I mean, before the whole intern-blue dress-cigar nastiness. He was a liberal, but he was also a good-old-boy. Someone we'd want to have a beer with. Kerry? Do you think Kerry actually drinks beer? Come on.

I keep hearing Barak Obama's name tossed around for 2008. This is exactly what makes the Republicans laugh about our party: our biggest hope for the future is a freshman U.S. senator. Don't get me wrong--I've been talking about Obama for a while, and I'm positive that his time will come. He's smart, personable, and and incredible speaker. He defines multicultural America. But he hasn't paid his dues yet. I don't think we should be looking for the next Mr. President. We need to get our act together as a party first. Let's not jump the gun and do what we did this time around: get so excited about bumping out the right that we put the cart before the horse and forget to shape a clear party platform. Then maybe we can run a candidate with some conviction.