A unified Democratic party?

I'm a little behind schedule. My plan today was not to blog at all, having done something good yesterday. But I missed yesterday--fighting with the air conditioners, setting up my wireless network, among other things--so I'm doing a little catch-up.

In fact, my plan is now different entirely. I was going to write about all the Dean news of the past few days, and whether or not it will in aggregate help or hurt him. I think he is only helped: People saw the Paul Dean thing and the "Meet the Press" thing for what they were. The announcement was huge, and his speech, "An American Restoration," is sure to become a classic. I even liked--yes, it's true--Dean's "breaking into the country club" line. Anyone who thinks he did not do it on purpose is underestimating him: the line and the image would have been lost on everyone, never would have seen the light of day, without his son's having legal troubles. Now it becomes absolutely the perfect metaphor for the campaign, and, since he knows Republicans will never touch the arrested-kid-for-booze issue, he's totally safe now using it.

But, on to my topic for the day. There's so much good out there in the Democratic field that it's a little frustrating to think about the lost opportunities the competition among the nine is creating. For example, John Edwards gave a wicked good economic speech the other day at Gerorgetown. He absolutely lays out the Democrats' rationale for repealing the Whopper's tax cuts and imposing fiscal discipline. But no one will ever hear about it, because the leading candidates won't mention it. There's nothing in it to ridicule, so the other eight will stay quiet about it.

Just like most of the nine aren't slamming (or praising) Dean's health care package, at least not the way they did Gephardt's. No one's bashing (or, for the most part, lauding) Graham for his attacks on the Whopper's intelligence issues (no, not that intelligence, silly; the spooks and spies kind). I could go on, but that's enough to make my point. Now, there are exceptions to all of these--like Kucinich, who will take on anybody--but by and large the best ideas get avoided positively and negatively by all the candidates.

So why, then, can't we get the nine of them to sit down in a room, and, as these unassailable positions get established, have all nine decide to support them?

Wouldn't it be great, for example, if every single Democratic candidate came out this week to say that John Edwards is right when he says that "what’s holding our economy down is the callous view of a few at the top in Washington and in the corporate world that the values that got us here can now be left behind." If they all agreed that whoever wins the nomination will pursue the course of action Edwards recommends (my favorite part: "the wealthiest one-third of one percent of taxpayers – those who claim capital gains and have annual incomes over $350,000 -- will pay the same rate on capital gains – 25% -- that two teachers who earn $35,000 pay on their incomes," mostly because it's about me! [the teacher part, not the wealthy part :( ]).

And if the nine could all agree on a health plan (most of them seem to be like Dean's; Gephardt's and Kucinich's are further afield), on a national security policy, on a way to campaign to our diverse membership (like Dean's "this president is dividing us" rhetoric)--in short, if we could write a good, specific, goal-oriented and detail intensive platform that everyone signs on to, then our message could be clear, sustainable, and, most importantly, unified.

Does anyone doubt that we will all unite behind the eventual nominee? As often as I hear "Anyone but Bush," I feel certain that we'll elect a Democrat, whoever it is. I've already put in too much for too long on 2004 to throw it away if Kerry or Gephardt takes the nomination, no siree. But I think I would feel better--and Democrats could campaign better--if they pooled the best ideas so far into one common platform.

What would they fight about, then? Well, the same stuff they're mostly fighting about now: electablity, "backbone," character, charisma, experience, overall message. They're not debating, really, the relative merits of their health care plans (except Kucinich, who will settle for nothing less than single-payer); they're not debating (much) the merits of repealing the Whopper's tax cuts; they're not debating the necessity of a balanced budget to maintain the programs for the poor we as a country have come to depend on; they're not debating the repeal of U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.; they're not debating the importance of judicial appointments that will uphold Roe.

Let's just settle all of that up, then, and get our message out now. Because, as Dean says, the Democratic agenda wins every time. Sure, something like this may make for a less exciting horse race, but this isn't the race to focus on anyway.