Centerfield

...he's right, of course.

I don't understand what's happened to our leadership. I mean, Clinton WON, time after time. Isn't that worth noting? In fact, Democrats with those kinds of ideas tend to win. Democrats that just have daggers out for Republicans tend to lose. In fact, Daschle's politics changed pretty dramatically from Clintonism to paranoia when Bush came in to office? Why? Was it Florida?

I am beginning to be alarmed that Dean, even though he probably understands these things, doesn't seem to be executing or encouraging in that direction.

Clinton understood that to get things done when outnumbered, you have to sieze and implement the policies that a majority likes, even if it doesn't fit the party line. If you just stay in strict opposition, you don't move forward, and can easily move backwards.

When one party has the House, Senate, and White House, it may seems attractive to just obstruct. After all, the majority will get all the credit for anything positive. If you have one of the three and can move things along, then YOU get the credit.

I think we'll find ourselves in much better shape overall when we once again have splits in Congress, or an opposition Prez in the White House. Divided government is good. And it requires compromise. If you look over our history of positive movement, you'll see almost NONE of it came when one party controlled all of Congress and the White House. Only when they have to mix it up and cut deals do we tend to come out ahead.

You know who's in really good shape to return us to a Clintonian spirit of centrism? Hillary.

And a big Centerfield welcome to the Official Friends of Hillary Fan Club!

Clintonian centrism is precisely the strategy that has earned the progressive wing of the Democratic Party's ire. Chris Bowers had a very interesting series of posts recently in which he attempted to deflect that rage onto the Blue Dog Democrats. I doubt he'll be successful—the true believers are too eager for doctrinal purity and won't be happy until they've turned the Democratic Party into the UK Liberal Party (with just as much influence).

I would truly like to praise the comments made by Tully, Dave, Jami,and Jon. You are soooo right. I. for one, am a proud Southern Moderate Democrat and I totally agree with you all (well I do have to disagree with Jami in one regards I think Gov Warner of Va should be the 2008 Democratic candidate but with Hillary as the the Vice President candidate) President Clinton was the most popular President in American history. We had a growing economy, a budget surplus, a rebirth of people taking responsibilty for their own actions. DEMOCRATS WON!!!!!. I don't understand why the liberal left continues to go back into the past. We don't need a new winning strategy, because we already have one.......The DLC and Clintonism

Bill Clinton was the most popular president in American history? Huh? Where did that come from?

I think Clintonism is a good base and I agree that the liberals are making a mistake to reject it. For one thing, liberals assume that they can emulate conservatives and win. They can't for the reason that there are a lot more conservatives than liberals in this country. Liberalism per se has never been particularly popular even when there have been popular liberal presidents.

But I do think Democrats have to go beyond simply picking a middle ground between liberal and conservative. They need a more distinctive voice than just saying we are less extreme than Republicans. For example, what is the Democratic view of foreign policy other than being against Iraq? What is the Democrats' view of health care other than saying we need more people to be insured? Frankly, I think the Democrats need to establish an alternative to the Republican view of government; that doesn't mean it has be a return to the New Deal (as the left would like)but it needs to be more distinctive than it is now. For example, if Democrats are going to favor free trade, how are they going to compensate for the inevitable disruptions?

I liked Clinton's administration. I voted for him specifically because I thought he was a moderate and I was right. (Although if you talk to conservatives on some of the blogs, you will be shocked by how many see him as nothing but a typical lefty. And the lefties see him as a conservative.) I thought he did a good job in sort of holding the dike against the right wing. But in the long run, Democrats need more and it makes no sense for them to stake out ground that the GOP already has by saying we can do it better.

To me, this means making protection of the middle class a priority; expanding health care coverage, expanding the role of government to solve social problems, etc. Yes, this is a left of center agenda, but it doesn't have to be radical and what's the point of having two parties that offer no real choice?

Another thing. There seems to be an assumption that the Democratic liberals are "extremist" in the same way that the religious fundamentalists are extreme. Obviously, some are more extreme. But I don't consider libralism itself to be extremist--very few, if any, liberals advocate socialism or unilateral disarmament. (I don't count people like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky.) I don't think Paul Krugman, for example, as annoying as he might be, is an "extremist." He is a liberal who has a very strong dislike of Bush. But he is not advocating an end to the market system or anything like that. So I think it's a bit unfair to sort of lump the Dems advocating more liberal policies with the religious fundamentalists that want to rewrite the Constitution to make this a Christian country.

MWS, I agree with you that Clinton was a moderate (and yes he ranked higher than Reagan as being most popular) But the reason why Clinton was popular and was able to win and then be reelected was that He along with the DLC were able to produce solutions to the problems that affect every-day Americans. This, I believe, was one of the reasons the democrats have lost twice in a row. It is that they know what they are against but they don't say what they stand for or offer an alternative to the Republicans. Take Social Security for example The Democratic Party hasn't come with a program or solution the the problems facing it. Clinton was quoted on Fox News that the dem's need to produce a solution and it should use private savings, but not private savings accounts that Bush wants.......Moderates both democrat and republican must take the lead.......the "neo-cons" are having a field day.......I still like a Warner/Clinton ticket in 2008