This article on the Democratic Party website shows that Howard Dean is staging a full frontal attack on the Republican party. Recent evidence, however, suggests that Democratic lawmakers are not following his lead.
During the 2004 race Dean proved that he was more in tune with the base of Dems, and this is how he was chosen to head the party. However, the cats with the real power, those in Congress, have been slow to challenge their rivals across the aisle. Perhaps because they are guilty of the same corruption. But that's a different story altogether.
The 2006 election is more important than the 2008 presidential race. This November will set the direction that the country will take for the next six years. Why aren't the Democrats attacking when their opponent is down? Why did Kerry fail to do the same thing in '04? Why did Gore fail to use a similar tact in 2000, choosing instead to go after a weaker Ralph Nader when Bush was the real threat?
I accuse the conservative punks in the DLC of sabotaging the Democratic party and America's
hope for a future free of neoconservative hegemony. Bill Clinton was their only real star. He was someone who (as Tom thoughtfully observed) could sell Reagan-esque policy to the left and make them think it was the best thing since sliced bread. The party has no one else with that type of "lie in your face" charisma.
So what is going to happen over the next six months if the Democratic leadership doesn't pull together with a cohesive message that succeeds in energizing an already united base? They are going to phuk around and lose the whole kit and kaboodle.
Mao said "Politics is war without bloodshed." American Democrats don't seem to realize they are in a fight.