The for-sure role of Democratic presidents since the Civil War has been to put the breaks on corporate or personal excesses of the ruling classes of this country, which has basically been the elites that runs big business. That is why Democratic presidents come to power with such high hopes and some deliver like Roosevelt while some don't like Johnson and Carter. Everything in between has been solid Republican or an occasional Democrat like JFK. Democrats feel good about '08, and they should, because the pattern appears to be holding up.

I say the Dems need to absolutely focus on one or two key issues such as universal healthcare or universal healthcare. This is such a sweetheart issue for the Democrats that I can't believe that I don't hear more about it from all directions. All I hear is lip-service on an issue of crushing importance to everyone and it even has a bogey-man in the name of HMO's, insurance companies, pharmaceutical, etc. The war in Iraq has run its course and is a non-issue, just ask the French. Give people a reason to vote for YOU rather than a reason not to vote for the other guy. Universal healthcare reform is such an issue and is waiting for someone to champion it.

What part of this do people not understand?

Hillary said yesterday that the surge is working in places like Anbar province. The casual way she said it tells me several things:

1. She is not anti-war, she is only critical of the war. That plays well with about 80% of the electorate. The other 20% are Salon readers.

2. She will push more diplomacy but she will also carry around a big stick. She knows the difference between diplomacy and protecting American interests.

3. Despite the lefty angst for Gitmo, wiretapping, FISA, etc. etc these policies will continue with minor mods because there is no practical alternative, but they will become less visible.

4. Gitmo will probabaly be closed but the prisoners will disappear into the CIA archipeligo. Don't think for a second that these guys will ever be released or tried in US court system.

5. She will invest all-day-long in more diplomacy, more effective PR, but despite lefty anguish, she will not sacrifice the methods or tactics used by the Bushies if she believes for a second that they will make a difference in obtaining intelligence RIGHT NOW.

The bottom line is that Hillary will make some tweaks to foreign policy but, despite what she may say, fundamentally nothing will change. She is very very pragmatic about these matters whereas Obama is very idealistic. Hillary is more like Joe Biden or a Sam Nunn.

I read the same piece that you did about the repug strategy of going after Kerry in 2004 because they were so fearful of Edwards (I think). This was disclosed in a seminar held at Harvard after the election. The repugs wanted Kerry to win so they could win (basically). Going after Clinton this past week is interesting because I think Hillary has a better shot than Kerry did to winning in 08. That is for these reasons:

1. She is not overly populist in her message. This rankles the lefties but she is positioning herself in the middle.

2. This idea of getting two presidents for the price of one is appealing at some level.

3. She has been critical of the war but she is not anti-war.

4. She has built ties to the military which is reassuring to most voters.

5. She will lighten up on many of the Bush anti-terror policies but she will also leave many in-place. Once again, this will drive lefties nuts, but she cannot be seen as soft on terrorism.

In some respects, Hillary wants to be like JFK who was an anti-communist liberal which would be oxymoronic in today's terminology. He took his cue from Nixon and McCarthy in the 50's by authorizing the Bay of Pigs invasion, sending advisors to Vietnam, etc, Berlin standoff, etc. Hillary sees herself heading up a muscular foreign policy with lots of diplomatic initiatives, many for show, but also carrying around a big stick.

I don't see Edwards/Obama going in any of these directions.

Interesting post.

What are the motivations behind the seemingly disappointing positions taken by the majority Dems since last November's election? The answer, I believe, is that the Dems do not want to be seen as soft on terrorism or matters of national security and if that means supporting the Patriot Act or keeping Gitmo open for another year, or so, they will do it. Absolutely, the worst case scenario for the newly elected Dems whether in the WH or in Congress in 2008 is to get caught on the wrong side of national security. I can almost hear the chorus from the repugs if some unpleasantness occurs following the 08 election and the Dems HAD unilaterally messed with what "had worked" for 7 years. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary understand this almost reflexively, even if Cindy Shehan doesn't. Now if the Dems can strenghten national security, then knock themselves out, but they have to very careful about dismantling some visible aspect of national security simply because some lefty pundit is uncomfortable with it.

This is simply a gut-check kind of assessment that reflects pragmatism and anti-populism.