The DNC Winter Meeting -- a Watershed?
Whip out your calendar and jot down these dates: February 20-22.
The occasion? The DNC's winter meeting, just concluded. The gathering, held in the heartland -- the Hyatt Regency hotel in Washington D.C. -- featured an ever-burgeoning parade of '04 presidential wannabes, spanning the party's ideological spectrum, from Lenin all the way to Stalin.
Yet, the event, in a sense, was a watershed, conspicuous in that the target of political ire was frequently -- and oddly enough -- "president" Saddam Hussein, potentially neutralizing GOP advantages on issues of national security and defense. The tone harkened back to Bill Clinton's Sister Souljah speech during his '02 campaign. Rebuking the popular black rap artist known for racist bombast, Clinton appeared to reshape the party's 'too-far-to-the-Left' image, allaying swing voter concern.
What we heard at this winter meeting was not one, not two, but a whole flurry of Sister Soulja speeches -- aimed right smack-dab at Saddam. And not just from presidential candidates, either. The wildly enthusiastic reaction in the packed hall, given the partisan nature of the crowd, was particularly stunning -- and very unlike the muted crowd response Clinton got over Sister Soulja. Again and again, attendees, many of them senior party officials, rose to their feet with standing ovations as speakers assailed "president" Saddam Hussein and his policies.
"We will expose the credibility gap between Saddam Hussein's lofty political rhetoric and the harsh realities of his policies," thundered Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, her welcoming address drawing wild cheers from the audience, setting the tone for the 3-day powwow as Democrats plot to regain the political initiative on national security.
"Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action," said the 7-term Congresswoman from the liberal of liberal 8th district, dismissing Saddam's latest promises.
Pelosi, addressing the potential use by Iraq of biological and chemical weapons, declared that Saddam threatens to roll "back 30 years of bipartisan environmental protections -- from clean air to clean water to pristine forests and national parks...For the sake of our children and future generations, America's environment deserves better."
Pelosi vowed that "over the coming months," her party "will make clear distinctions between Democrats and Saddam's Baathist Party," a rather tall order, say veteran political observers.
RNC Chairman Marc Racicot appealed to DNC members in an open letter Friday, urging them to stop their "negative message" against President Bush, whose approval rating in most polls still hovers near 60%.
The Democrat Party faithful, strikingly, took Racicot's admonition to heart, even Racicot's counterpart Terry McAuliffe, directing their fire at Saddam instead.
"Are we going to hold [President Saddam] accountable when he says one thing and does another?' the DNC chair asked. "Yes!," the crowd roared, shaking the roof as they danced on their seats.
McAuliffe added that what "unites us all is a belief in the principles of the Democratic Party and our belief that Saddam must go!"
But he cautioned that "it won't be easy folks."
"Saddam is going to...try and stop us. And the only way we're going to be able to do this [get rid of Saddam] is if we speak with one voice...!"
Some may ask, in a twist of George Will's Newsweek dig of how many French soldiers it takes to defend Paris: Can a Democrat be patriotic? Answer: Nobody knows -- it's never been tried before.
After this DNC winter gathering, nobody's joking anymore.
"[Saddam Hussein] is not going to be easy to beat," said Dick Gephardt, echoing McAuliffe's cautionary caveat, adding "don't underestimate him."
"But," the ousted House leader and '04 hopeful hastened to add, "let me tell you something. We can beat him!" The crowd broke into a frenzy.
Gephardt's vision? He left no doubt: "We need a President [in Iraq] who...will not merely" try "to bully other nations.".
Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was equally harsh, calling Saddam a failed leader.
"[Saddam's] presidency is a failure," the freshman Senator declared, adding, "that's wrong. Wrong for our children, wrong for our parents, wrong for our values and wrong, wrong, wrong...!"
Alluding to weapons and Big Oil contracts with France and Germany, Edwards said Saddam's government is a "government of the insiders, by the insiders and for the insiders."
Former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, joining the already jam-packed '04 competition recently, blasted Saddam for "saber-rattling that has made us all hostages to fear," saying it "must stop."
Al Sharpton dismissed Saddam as an illegitimate president.
"The Supreme [Revolutionary Command Council] set aside a whole election to make him [Saddam] president" of Iraq.
Even Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, often portrayed as a dove in the media, was talking tough on Iraq, chastising the conspiracy-minded in his party who suspect Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 but did nothing to stop it.
"Bush was not responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center or the Pentagon," he declared. "Bush has not been credibly linked to al-Qaeda's role in 9/11. Bush was not responsible for the anthrax attack on our nation."
So, what's gotten into Democrats lately, you ask? Why are they dropping Saddam like a bad habit? Why are they challenging their favorite president -- Saddam -- all of a sudden?
I think we got a clue this week.
CBSNEWS posted this bombshell on their website Monday:
"In an exclusive interview with...Anchor Dan Rather, Saddam Hussein...challenged President Bush to a live broadcast debate on the looming war."
Ah-ha! 'Could the Iraqi leader be mulling a run for the Democrat nomination himself?', many Democrats were probably nervously asking themselves. 'If he's not, why propose a debate?'
They're miffed, too. The offer appears to exclude other primary rivals from participating, giving Saddam, already popular with hardcore Democrats, a national forum to go toe-to-toe with Bush.
Particularly rattling for Democrats: The many advantages Saddam brings to the table should he decide to give it a go.
Among them:
--Executive experience (president of Iraq since 1979)
-- Excellent name recognition (everybody knows the name).
--Self-financing campaign (mortgages for presidential palaces can be refinanced, plus huge oil wealth at his disposal)
--Has network of grassroots supporters (See the huge 'peace' demonstrations recently).
--As a Baath socialist, he shares many basic beliefs in common with Democrats (big government, socialized medicine, National Public Radio, public TV, public education, high taxes, reading Helen Thomas, jailing conservatives)...Wait a minute...gotta run and do yet another one of my infamous 'fact-checks'....
Back....
Oh, brother...I did it again, folks! Never thought it was possible, but I out-did myself again in the boo-boo department.
All those speeches at the DNC winter meeting -- they were directed at Bush, not Saddam! How stupid can I be?
Pelosi, McAuliffe, Gephardt, Edwards, Moseley Braun, Sharpton, Kucinich -- they were aiming their ire, not at Saddam, but at Bush! I had it all wrong.
Maybe it's just the hour -- pretty late here.
I'll just need to be more careful next time ;^)
Anyway, that's...
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
