http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattle...ives/121073.asp
Why the Democrats are afraid to nominate a true "liberal"
each day ends as another begins, each night you pray for something more and wonder what we're living for and curse it all as just a bore. -
"Good Morning Hackensack", by Tim Brickley and David Rheins (Tim Brickley and the Bleeding Hearts).
As summer ends and the races for the '08 presidential nominations quicken you'll start to hear from liberals disappointed that their candidates don't tack harder to the left. Whether the debate is about the Iraq war, health care or the economy, they'll complain that the positions of Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are too calculated, their policies designed to appeal just enough to the party's base without offending the mushy middle.
As the talented Indianapolis singer-songwriter Tim Brickley croons, committed liberals will "pray for something more." Why, they'll ask, won't a major candidate stand up and articulate a liberal agenda the Democratic base can enthusiastically back?
The answer is simple - history has shown that when the party has offered the heads of true liberals to the nation's voters they've had them handed back on platters. In the past 40 years America has elected only two Democrats (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) to the White House, and both were Southern moderates.
In 1972 Democrats nominated George McGovern, who was crushed by Richard Nixon. Nixon won 49 of 50 states and McGovern even lost his home state of South Dakota.
In 1984 they nominated Walter Mondale, who lost 49 of the 50 states to President Reagan (though Mondale won his native state, Minnesota).
In 1988 they nominated Michael Dukakis. Vice President George Bush won 40 states.
In 2000 Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote. Though Gore distanced himself from President Clinton somewhat during the campaign (to his detriment, many believe) Gore was seen as too "mainstream" by some liberal activists, who backed Ralph Nader.
In 2004 Democrats nominated John Kerry. Now you can argue whether Kerry was a true liberal, but the patrician senator from Massachusetts was perceived as such by many people. The 2004 election was fairly close. There aren't many lucid observers who believe the favored candidate of the left, Howard Dean, would've done any better.
Politicans (and political parties) have long memories. Mainstream Democrats remember how their "liberal" candidates have fared. That hasn't always stopped them from nominating another one, but it does explain why they don't completely embrace their left wing.
