The headline here is from Talking Points Memo, to which I reply DUH. Though I’m not picking on TPM, but instead utilizing the headline to make a larger point.
Democrats remain clueless as to what they’re facing in 2010.
This includes Pres. Obama, who obviously doesn’t get it either. You’d think what happened on health care, especially that ugly part about getting beat on message by none other than Sarah Palin’s “death panels” squeal, would have been the last wake up call that was needed.
Evidently not, because we now find out that Democrats have been caught flat footed by the “frightening” ramming speed of Martha Coakley’s challenger State Sen. Scott Brown. After all, Republicans couldn’t possible take away “Teddy’s seat,” now could they?
They missed what happened in NY-23. Democrats were too busy gloating back when the seat was won by a Dem for the first time in 100 years, as the PR went, to take away the other lesson, which I wrote about incessantly. That the Tea Partier who came within a hair of winning was a very late entry, untalented rube that couldn’t string two sentences together on camera.
Commenters chimed in after I wrote about the Coakley-Brown battle going on, all of whom seem more aware of what’s going on and the foreshadowing for 2010 than Pres. Obama and the Democratic leadership.
nzanh commented, in part: “…Is this such a shocker that this looks increasingly like a horserace? For months the writing has been on the wall. Independents have moved away from Obama and his programs. Many Democrats have expressed reservations about the Obama agenda. …. I don’t expect Coakley to lose but if she does, I won’t be heartbroken. If that is what it takes to shake the Democrats out their arrogance, so be it.”
guyski commented, in part: Complacency, arrogance and perhaps out of touch? A day after the final debate Coakley zips off to Washington for a fundraiser at a wine bar. … It would seem that a week before a election, that someone in a close race would be staying in her state and doing retail politics; shaking hands, kissing babies, trying to get on every single TV and radio station. I hope that she wins, but if politicians can’t understand the current political environment, then well…. And I won’t mention (too much, since I mentioned it several times) the use of Bush/Cheney in the debate, let alone her Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh political ad. It is no longer effective, if Democrats can’t understands this either, then well…
Noogan commented, in part: “Coakley just thought she was going to coast to a quiet victory; she was so out of touch with the mood of the country and even her state, that she, and the Democrats have been blindsided. It’s a very sad statement about this administration. The mood is decidedly anti-Democrat right now around the country–Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are almost universally derided on both sides in comments sections. …”
Imhotep comments, in part: Does anyone sense Party fatigue setting in? If you elect a Democrat and he follows the same war plan and foreign policy as his Republican predecessor what difference does it make who you vote for? When you vote for the Democrat who promises to “reform” the health care system and what you end up with is a bill written by big Pharma and the insurance industry, who cares who you vote for? When you vote for a Democrat who promises to close the Guantanamo military prison and signs an executive order to that effect and then reneges on that promise, who cares who you vote for? Does it really matter who you vote for if the same policies and plans are carried out by whomever, Democrat or Republican, is elected to office?
Reader “Imhotep’s” last comment repeats a theme I’ve been writing about for months.
It just might be that the fallen promises of Barack Obama’s first year could be the tipping point making loyalty to party extinct, including among Democrats, who are not being given any good reason to support the current politicians, who are not exactly delivering what we want. It also illustrates how important the first year is to a president, especially when people are hurting so badly.
There is another angle not being talked about. The tenuous support Obama had after the primaries from Hillary supporters was solidified further when he picked her for secretary of state. However, that was a long time ago and many Clinton Democrats and activists who jumped on board have now soured on Obama’s presidency, with the compromises on health care, especially on women’s reproductive health issues, but also on DADT, making loyal Clinton Democrats think again, some even registering as an independent or saying to me they won’t vote for him again. They’ll simply leave the presidential option blank the next time they vote, which is said out of anger, no doubt, but illustrates how dangerous health care compromises could be to Obama going forward. (I am not talking about myself, as there is no other choice beyond Obama when it comes to foreign policy.)
Unfortunately for Obama, he’s also losing original supporters that worked hard for him, who are also disillusioned, including unions. A potential 2010 strike isn’t out of the question.
So imagine how independents and non-partisans feel, with Republicans now gone from Obama’s wing for good.
Danger signs for 2010 abound. Democrats missing them all illustrates just how clueless they are.