Kos Writes

It's never too early to start fighting for the leadership and the soul of the party. Two things that Hillary will wreck if given the chance. Kos correctly states:

While Republicans spent the past four decades building a vast network of small-dollar donors to fund their operations, Democrats tossed aside their base and fed off million-dollar-plus donations. The disconnect was stark, and ultimately destructive. Clinton's third way failed miserably. It killed off the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party and, despite its undivided control of the party apparatus, delivered nothing. Nothing, that is, except the loss of Congress, the perpetuation of the muddled Democratic "message," a demoralized and moribund party base, and electoral defeats in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Hillary still represents these interests and politics, which have been fatally damaging to the Democratic party. This is why, like Kos, I do not support Hillary, instead I would rather back someone who has demonstrated some backbone and leadership, like Senator Feingold. Such a candidate is electable because standing by your values counts for something, even if people disagree with them. On the other hand, being bland and trying to sell out to everyone does not go very far with anyone, except if you subscribe to the "must appeal to 100% of electorate to win." And even then, as Kos points out, Clinton never won more than 50% of the vote.

Here's an interesting point that just came to my mind. Although we love to, and I am guilty of this as well, praise Bill for his charisma, he never won more than 50% of the vote, AND look at his opponents: George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. Wow. If that was all we could scrounge up with Clinton against those guys we should have realized in 1992 that there was something seriously wrong with the way the Democratic party was working. Better late than never I guess.