If the Democrats lose in November, I'm sure she'll [Clift] find plenty of reasons to blame Democrats, but it won't occur to her that the reason people didn't vote for the D's was because the party listened to people like her and campaigned like a herd of neutered animals instead of listening to their hearts, their minds, their constituents and their leaders who were prepared to take a stand for what we believe in. No, they'll blame the "extremists" who want a safety net and a sane terrorism policy --- and leaders who defend the constitution. It couldn't possibly be that their tired, stale reflexive passivity is to blame when half the base fails to turn out because they just. have. no. hope.Like Lynne's post below regarding why-oh-why anyone would vote for Bush, I've often wondered what it is about the liberal punditocracy that is so willing to find a reason Democrats are always wrong (and thus, why Republicans are always right). I certainly agree with Digby's assertion that Clift's point of view is quite representative of the "liberal" inside-the-beltway crowd, and especially that it's a chronically losing strategy. But I also know that Clift's not stupid. She knows Bush is in the 30's with popularity, Iraq is going poorly, and that the mood of the country isn't exactly on Bush's side. Hell, the Republicans took down Clinton with popularity polling in the 50-60's, peace, and the strongest economy in generations! So what gives with an interpretation that Feingold calling for censure is good for Republicans?
I'm a very lucky person with every allergy known to man but still happy to be enjoying a wonderful life living in the best place in the world!