Prescription for 2004 Democratic Success?

Steve Soto:

Robert Borosage, in the January 13, 2003 issue of the American Prospect, makes a compelling case for rejecting a recent DLC-authored prescription for electoral success in 2004. Borosage presents a lucid analysis of what ailed the Dems in their lame 2002 efforts, and states that the DLC, through a confidential memo authored by Al From and Bruce Read, supports an approach that would force the party “to choose between energizing the base and appealing to swing voters”.

Although we do not have the DLC memo, in essence it seems to make the case that the Democratic Party needs to establish its credibility on national defense and security issues in order to appeal to swing and independent voters, even if such an approach continues to fail to energize the base. The DLC wants the party to focus more on these issues, and challenge Bush in these areas.

But Borosage provides a point by point critique of the From and Read prescription, and states that the successful Democratic argument in 2004 will come not from the DLC, but rather from Kevin Phillps, who concludes that the party must wage a “battle for the vast majority against the powerful few.”

The Borosage article is worth your time. It also lends itself smartly into a good discussion of which Democratic candidate would be best equipped to mount an effective campaign against Bush using the Borosage prescription. In such a scenario, the party must not only argue that Bush has demonstrated little vision and leadership on both domestic and national security issues, but also offer real solutions of their own to these Bush failings.

Which of our current and soon to be announced Democratic candidates can be a credible alternative to Bush in this scenario?

Posted January 05, 2003 02:43 PM | Comments (35)