Letters to the Editor
-
@ PaulAndrewKirk
I agree that the Democrats refuse to run on big issues (though I'd pick a bone about Moynahan and Feinstein being ideal).
They should have any election locked up, but instead they accept the GOP's world view and then try to work within it.
Democrats:
"Yes, the private sector is always better than government -- but there are good things about the government..." When did government stop being "of, for and by the people" and corporate boardrooms become "the people?"
"Yes, more money for military is always good, but we can budget for our broken schools, broken health care and plan for a peaceful world while at the same time spending more on war than the rest of the world combined." Why not take on defense spending? Past Democratic capitulation has made this a tall political challenge, but it has to be mounted if we really want to reach a future we can enjoy.
"Yes, Bush's 'war on terror' is our number one priority, but..." Again, giving the GOP their election issue (and it's little more than an election issue given that this "war" has made us less safe and broke).
"Yes, democratic nations who don't play ball with our corporations are 'dictatorships' and dictatorships that do play ball are 'allies,' but we should engage in more diplomacy..." This is always so disheartening, but predictable. Again, Democratic weakness here has made turning around such bullshit a tall political order, but we need to get to work someday if we want to talk about the US being some kind of freedom beacon without lying.
What does this have to do with Obama and Clinton? For me, Obama does a better job at moving away from the GOP frame (for example, as someone else pointed out, he demagogued less about the South American dust up between Columbia and its democratically elected neighbors). Clinton, on the other hand, seems to be using the GOP frame as a weapon against her party's other candidate. Obama is not perfect here, by any means. But at least his compass is more in agreement with mine.