Neither one of them [Clinton or Obama] took the chance to do what Rudy [Giuliani] did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office. Is it really that hard? Giuliani's position is clear: more war, more domestic surveillance, more torture, and fewer civil liberties. And while it's true that the liberal position on making America secure is a little more complicated than the schoolyard version of foreign affairs beloved of Bush-era Republicans, it's not that complicated. So instead of complaining about how mean Giuliani is, why can't Obama and Clinton just tell us what they'd do?-Kevin Drum, on the tepid Democratic response to a speech by Rudy Giuliani in which the former NYC mayor laid out why a Republican should be elected president in 2008.
Whining just reinforces the message that Democrats are wimps. The real way to be "hard hitting" is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead...Until they do, Rudy and the Republicans are going to win every round of this fight.
Many of my fellow progressives tend to get themselves worked up when I agree with people like Kevin Drum. But the thing of it is, he's right. I aruged this point in 2004. John Kerry needed to play "Reagan" to George W. Bush's "Carter." Even at that point in his presidency Mr. Bush's weaknesses and incompetence were bubbling under the surface. A stronger Democratic candidate would have beaten him soundly.
The 2008 Democratic ticket can't make the same mistake. The country can't afford it.
