I don't understand why they want to play with this. Any parallels to the Gulf War and what worked on Bush Sr. are specious at best. This isn't about Kuwait. This is about ordinary Americans wondering every day whether that bridge they drive across on their way to work is going to blow up with them on it. Peddling social programs is for when people are feeling flush and pretty good about the country, and you can make them feel guilty about "the poor being left behind." Well, not even the poor want to get blown up or gassed. That whole pitch is just ill-timed and suitable only for use on the most liberal Manhattan Democrats. I'd also question whether the Democrats really want to be seen with Bill Clinton leading the charge. All that says is that they don't have anybody on their bench. It also allows the Republicans to run against Clinton, who fires up the R's base like no one else alive. If the Democrats want to save the GOP tens of millions in get-out-the-vote money, waving Clinton in our faces is the best way to do it. |
I assume that the Democrats recognize that this is a very high-risk strategy. Should they get themselves on record as the party of, "Never mind that war against terrorism, let's tend to things at home," and then there is another horrible attack, they will have erased themselves from the national agenda for a generation.