Jim Webb and the immediate future for the Democratic party

As I mentioned before, Jim Webb's response to the State of the Union Address kicked ass. This post will discuss what I found most significant about his response. What struck me most was not the fact that Webb's response was a strong and direct--not to mention appropriate and deserved--criticism of what the Bush administration has generally done and, judging from the SOTU, looks to continue to do. What struck me most was not the way in which Webb skillfully used his words to avoid being insulting or combative and yet very forceful. What struck me most was not the fact that Webb's response took a unapologetic stand against the Bush administration. No, what surprised me most was that Webb was chosen to speak on behalf of the entire Democratic party.

I am hoping that the choice of Webb signals a change in the Democratic party.

Basically, ever since 9-11 the Democrats, as a party, have done few or none of the things Webb did in his response. There have been a few exceptions such as Social Security, but by and large the Democratic party--again, as a whole--has not taken a timely stand against the Bush administration.

The best example of the foregoing opinion is the whole issue of Iraq. Now I know what some of you are thinking, namely that the '06 election campaign was a strong stand against the Iraq war. To some extent that is true, but why did it take almost four years for that to happen? And did the party as a whole come out as strong as Webb did? Take a look at what Webb said about Iraq:

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

*******

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable--and predicted--disarray that has followed.

Indeed, as shown over and over on this blog and elsewhere, there were many warnings and the disarray was easily foreseeable. And yet, which Democrats were pointing out these matters out before the war and during the 2004 campaign? They were few and far between (Russ Feingold and Joe Biden among them), and the party was not doing anything. More on that in a moment...

Webb also pointed out what the Iraq war has cost this country, including "[t]he damage to our reputation around the world" and "[t]he lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism." Again, was the Democratic party--as a party--talking about these things in the 2004 campaign? Not really.

As I have discussed before (here and here), Kerry and Edwards did almost nothing like what Jim Webb did, and to the extent Kerry did anything like that in '04, it was too little and way too late.

There was, however, one Democratic candidate who in '03 and '04 did talk about the same things Webb mentioned in his 2007 speech, but more on that in a moment...

Webb concluded his remarks on Iraq with the following:

We need a new direction.

Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh yes, it was from the aforementioned Democratic candidate in '04, Wes Clark.

Wes Clark said the same things before the war and through his campaign. And how was he treated by the Democratic party? Like crap, that's how. He was marginalized and ignored by the party establishment and by the media. He was called a Republican. He was falsely accused of being inconsistent on Iraq. [NOTE: I can back up every statement in this paragraph.]

There was another Democratic candidate who took a strong anti-war stance. His name was Howard Dean, and he was not exactly embraced by the party. He was also among those that said Clark was not a Democrat.

I will admit that I am still bitter about the '04 Democratic primaries, but that is not the main reason for the preceding rant. My point is that in 2003 and 2004, Jim Webb would have been given the cold shoulder just like Wes Clark. The party would have rejected Jim Webb's views, and the powers that be (or were) never would have let him speak on behalf of the party, especially in a response to a State of the Union Address. Go back and check the Democratic responses to Bush's previous SOTU speeches. "Underwhelming" is the best thing I could say about them. They had none of the characteristics of Webb's response, both in terms of content and delivery. I now wonder whether 1) the fact that Jim Webb was chosen to give the party's response, and 2) the content and delivery of that response does actually signal a change in the Democratic party.

This is a significant question. If Webb's response does signal a change in the party as a whole, it could have an impact on the Democratic primaries in general, and it could have an impact on Hillary Clinton's campaign. As I discussed on January 20, Hillary has a big problem on the issue of Iraq. If Webb's views become the norm for Democrats, Hillary's pattern of not taking a strong stand, not admitting that the war was a mistake, and trying to please both the anti-war crowd and Bush-type Republicans could prove to be a loser.

If there is a change in the party towards Webb's views and approach, it could have a major impact on the general election. It is way damn past time that the Democrats as a party quit being scared about taking a stand, especially on the Iraq war. Had Kerry taken a strong, no apologies stand in '04 I think he would have won. I said it then, and I'll say that it applies now: in order for any Democrat to win the Presidency, that candidate will have to differentiate himself--or herself--from the Bush administration. Moreover, I don't think the voters are looking for someone who won't take a strong stand. And the single most important issue is still Iraq. The Democrats as a party failed to do this is 'o4 by going with a ticket that was basically no different from the Bush administration in many ways. A repeat performance will likely result in another defeat in '08. If the party follows Webb's example, the result might be a win.

See, Democrats, it is possible to take a strong stand without seeming like you are whining or being unreasonable. Jim Webb did it. Now the rest of you do likewise.