The Ten Commandments of 2008 Democrats

[filkertom]

By way of dKos: Frank Luntz is not my favorite human being, but these hard and fast rules for Dem candidates apply across the board.

Besides these, can you think of anything you really need to hear the Dems say in 2008 -- or, for that matter, this year?

Comments

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

How about, "We bring these Articles of Impeachment..."?

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

I can think of a couple, sure.
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. In support of that, we present this bill making it illegal to outlaw abortions."
"We do not belong in Iraq. We never should have gone into Iraq. We are leaving Iraq. This year."
"9/11 was a tragedy. It is also in the past. We have to look to the future. The so-called war on terror will not be won with weapons. We have a new approach..."
"Petroleum is a dwindling, non-renewable resource. America will not be tied to this anchor, slowly dragging us down. We therefore present this plan to shift away from all petrochemical dependencies..."

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

Amen. So to speak. I'd also like to hear - in 2006 - that they fully intend to hold the current administration (and the Republican party as a whole) responsible for their campaign of illegal actions and corruption. This cannot be allowed to stand.

[adamselzer.livejournal.com]

Realistically, I don't need someone to say "we're leaving Iraq right now," or even a timetable. I just want someone who'll say it was a mistake.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

That list seems to have covered it pretty well. This is what I hear when democrats/independents/disgruntled republicans complain. I also would like to hear some commitment to accountability, a promise to prosecute the corruption and lies, and a solid, no wavering, no loophole end of Bush "signing statements" form of monarchy.

[droewyn.livejournal.com]

It isn't so much a specific statement I want to hear (although the above list is certainly a good start).

What I want is a candidate who has a strong voice, a strong platform, and the heart to back them up when challenged. Most of the Dems in recent years have been weather vanes, not leaders.

[singlemaltsilk.livejournal.com]

"As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win."

As someone who Worked. Her. Ass. Off. for a win in '04, and started working on '08 before Inauguration Day, may I just say how insulting I find statements like this?

[magicaltrevor.livejournal.com]

How 'bout, "NO!"

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

How about "Thank you for voting us into office"?

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

And I don't want to hear *anyone* say "Winning is everything. And the only thing." If they say that, they are not to be trusted, not to be supported, not to be voted for. Winning is necessary, yes, but not at the cost of one single principle, one single shady deal, one single stuffed ballot box. Winning is NOT everything. Winning *honestly* is a really good idea. If they can't do that, they're no better than the others (which is kind of a given in politics, I know, but I still hope that one day...)

Electability

[baronet.livejournal.com]

John Kerry campaigned against Howard Dead on the platform of "I'm electable". (and used his war experience as one of the reasons for that.) But when it came to the general election, Kerry didn't have enough issues of substance. I would mistrust any candidate who campaigned on "Elect me, I'm electable". I want a candidate to tell me what he stands for. If he really is electable then he won't have to tell me.