DEMOS

Let me act the prophet for a moment: the Democrats won't win this election (and maybe the next) unless Hilary Clinton runs. There are two levels of narratives which are important. First: the right is in power and holds the currently dominant world view with clear rights and wrongs and levers for change. This is something the left appears to lack (except for a loathing of all things Republican) Second: oppositions don't win elections very often, governments lose them. The level of authority it takes to realistically overturn a still dominant political narrative (rather than wait for it to run its course)is extraordinary. Hilary, by association with her nympho husband, possibly has that. This is electability and yes it is essential. Life is/will be my witness.

Maybe. There is certainly something in your second point: in Ireland (for example) the dominant political party (Fianna Fail) has only been out of office from time to time and never really out of power (due to a legacy of key appointees, legislative heritage etc. ). But there is nothing static about position within political weather systems is there? Yesterday's centre-right is today's centre. Grand narratives erode and leave only superannuating wreckage, agreed. But more importantly, from time to time we hit a tesseract -- and nothing in politics or society is ever the same. Who's to say that won't happen two or three years out from now? Don't be so doggedly deterministic... Invest in a little faith in 'people' :-)

The question whether a more mainstream candidate could harness the same kind of grass roots energy is an in interesting one; Dean has labelled himself 'from the Democratic wing of the Democrat Party', but is the real reason that he was able to generate such energy in his early campaign? Equally, is it the reason that this grass roots participation is not (so far) being translated in to a popular vote? It seems that the blogging/meet-ups/localised structure represent the main reasons for the early momentum, as they offered a genuine sense of involvement for those at local level, whilst providing the campaign with a vast network of local campaigners. In the same way, Dean's policies have not been his downfall in the primaries so far - he has suffered far more the way that he has conveyed his message. The screeching in Iowa was an electoral nightmare but perhaps more fundamentally his message has been too negative for the Americans to stomach. To take the war as an example, many Americans (and particularly Democrats) believe that that the war was unjustified/ill-judged, but are uncomfortable with Dean's angry, aggressive approach to the issue. Kerry and Edwards are being rewarded for offereing what is seen as a positie message for America, in the same way that Gore was punished last time round for distancing himself from what many perceived as the achievements of the Clinton administration. None of this really applies to whether Dean is sufficiently mainstream, but rather to the characteristics of his campaign. Could anyone (Dean or Lieberman) not fuse the Trippi-style organisational characteristics with a more media friendly, positive campaign?

Dean is being rejected by voters for several reasons. His policy positions are empty. He has criticisms but no proposals of merit or that reflect the interests of democrats. He has a loathsome personality. His human emulation program needs a rewrite. His early support came from an echo chamber that became increasingly distant from reality over time and collapsed when faced with the real world. His campaign chose the wrong issues to attack, did a poor job of making the attacks and spent stupidly in doing so. He squandered his war chest. He demonstrated the inability to function under pressure, a key character requirement for the job. He alienated his own party. Reich is wrong, a habit of his. Primaries are only about a plausible candidate. The policies and principles come from the people not the party or the candidate. The job of the party and the candidate is to listen and learn what people think and want, and then demonstrate that they have learned and know how to advance those issues. Competence is the test; a combination of character, job skills and talent. Listening isn't merely poll driven policy, knee-jerk reaction to whims for short term advantage. It is knitting together a useful and feasible set of policies that address the collective desires of a polity. Once elected to office a politician represents the whole polity, not just his own party, and has to consider the desires of all to formulate useful policies. This is why Reich is so wrong, is always wrong. He fails to understand the job of a leader to represent all the people.