Which Will Win? A Call For Unity Or A Call To Fight The Republicans?

While I understand and empathize with the ideological idea of unity and healing in our land, I have grave reservations about using it as a campaign strategy.

I can't a remember a winning campaign based on the idea of healing and bringing us together.

What I can remember is whomever the country deems as the toughest, steeliest street fighter in the campaign ends up winning the election.

I think both JRE and HRC are playing this correctly: they're taking it to the Republicans. Should Obama win the nomination, if he sticks to the unity theme, my fear is he will be ripped to shreds.

Republicans play this presidential game down and dirty. I want our nominee to be one step ahead of them this time, not always playing defense.

I'm kind of partial to courageous tough people working to do the best thing for the most people possible.

But, that's just me. :shrug: MKJ

"Nothing unites faster than a common enemy" Sad but true.

by putting him in conflict with his own message.

Our candidate needs to proactively fight the Republicans. Not just defend against their attacks.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive of each other. But just calling for unity and being optimistic and upbeat will not carry the day, we will also have to fight back and not let an attack go unanswered for one single hour.

But, just attacking without presenting an optimistic vision of where we want to take the country, without giving people hope for a better future, will not be a winning thing either.

I think you answered your question with the choices you gave: it's both.

but one without the other dooms us. Obama's talent, from what I can see, lies in stirring rhetoric, moving oratory and optimism. I haven't seen yet that he's an adept, smart political street fighter, something, imho, that both Gory and Kerry also lacked. Maybe those qualities will show up. I hope so.

HRC and JRE are both savvy fighters and are both waging positive campaigns, while also fiercely taking it to the Republicans. To proactively attack, instead of just playing defense, is what we've been lacking on the national stage.

This election has to be a referendum on George W Bush and the miserable record of failure that the Republicans have brought us. It cannot just be about healing and unity, much as we might aspire to just that once we've won.

I want him to hit front and center.

This "call for unity" horseshit is just that.

What I mean by that is that we need dreams, ideas, and plans that we are so dedicated to making happen we neither worry about fighting the republicans nor attempt to get any unity from them if they disagree. We need to focus entirely on our own agenda and crush whatever stands in our way. If the republicans stay out of the way we should have no fight with them.

Exactly the way she's prepared to lose the September war vote by stupidly saying anything was "working" in Iraq.

She needs to GO AWAY.

That is what she said. What a great way to take on the Bushes, she just gave them half the debate.

The Clintons are still the leaders in this party. They've called everything wrong since Bush took office.

They are worthless. This is a classic example of why. This was the damn dumbest thing she could have said, and now the rest of the party is stuck with trying to figure out how to fight against Bush's lies without calling the potential GE candidate a liar at the same time. Honest to god they are the problem the Dem Party has had, they are not the solution.

This is why Obama does absolutely nothing for me. His IS a unity campaign. No red states, no blue states, blah, blah, blah. He argues he can bring the country together better than HRC. So what? Does that mean he'll have to compromise with all the rethuglican criminals and not bring them to justice? Will he sweep their crimes under the rug for "the best interests of the country" a la watergate, or Iran Contra? The country is ALREADY UNIFIED. Hello?!? Shrub has a 25% approval rating and 75-80% wants the troops home right FUCKING NOW. We don't need a "uniter". We need an aggressive, passionate individual who will literally kick ass and take names. Someone to imprison the rethuglican criminals and their corporate criminals.

Obama's theme doesn't seek to portray this attitude at all. Just hold hands and sing cumbai ya. Yeah, he attacks alright--just happens to be attacking his democratic opponent instead of sticking it to the shrub and his corporate henchmen.

"We don't need a "uniter". We need an aggressive, passionate individual who will literally kick ass and take names. Someone to imprison the rethuglican criminals and their corporate criminals."

He's the only one I know right now who would be impassioned to do that. That is why we're so totally fucked.

:kick:

our freedoms by a handful of corporations and republicans. Recent senatorial and congressional actions show that being "nice" and "polite" are almost tantamount to doing nothing.

which is just fine with me.

His campaign manager has a reputation for ruthlessness. I'm confident he won't let the unity message leave Obama helpless.

i couldn't disagree more with the OP. To walk away from party unity is a huge mistake. As Lincoln correctly observed: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

The OP creates an "either/or" choice. Either we have tough, steely street fighters or we have unity. Black or white.

How about a third possibility: we can't win next year without unity and our nominee damned well better be street fighting tough!! There's no reason we can't have unity AND a tough nominee.

The OP is dead on about one point: HRC is a totally divisive force in the party. Some of her supporters try to paint DU as way outside the mainstream. If they don't understand that the anti-Hillary vote is going to be much greater than the Green vote in 2000, they are clueless. The intensity about Iraq and Hillary's endlessly vacillating position on Iraq is palpable among the party's anti-war left. The Hillary-is-divisive factor goes way, way beyond the narrow confines of DU.

Anyway, my direct disagreement with the OP is over the issue of party unity. Do we need to be tough? Your damned straight we do. But we also need some semblance of unity. Activists in the party, no matter how much denial there is about this, are also activists on the web. And the web is intensly focussed on the war and the party's failure to confront bush head on.

The party seems totally unable to develop a genuine "Big Tent" way to be inclusive of all its members. They better figure out how to hold a pow wow soon or there will be trouble next year. Believe it or don't.

For a more detailed analysis of this topic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3467626&mesg_id=3467626

Obama's call is for countrywide unity - democrats and republicans.

A great moral idea, but not something to base a campaign on. If he goes into attack mode, which he will need to preemptively if he's the nominee, he will be boxed in and called a hypocrite for violating the whole premise of his campaign.

And some forward thinking policy concepts. Think John Edwards. Or Barack Obama. Or Dennis Kucinich. Or Ron Paul. Or Mike Gravel.

This "us vs. them" crap is killing us. Healing our national divide is necessary and important. So I'm behind Obama on this idea. I'm frankly tired of hating Republicans. They are my neighbors and friends.

you get them to first stop hating gays and lesbians, the poor, single moms, people in need of stem cell research and atheists.

Then we'll reciprocate and sing each other's praises.