People are not as dumb as they sometimes seem. Indeed, the Democrats should take heed of what this election should tell them. With the exception of the Bill Clinton years -- I still don't know how we elected him twice (actually, Ross Perot tells you how Clinton was elected the first time, maybe the second time some dirty tricks took place in one or more key states which Clinton won by the skin of his teeth in 1996) -- we are now into 5 consecutive Republican presidencies. If you take a long view of things, back to Lyndon Johnson, it becomes apparent that Democrats have a problem in the presidency.
Why do the Democrats have to programmatically be anti-gun? Why do the Democrats have to be radically pro-gay (civil unions provide the escape clause for gays, they don't need same sex marriage, same sex marriage is a radical activist's cause)? Why do the Democrats have to be anti-military? As one poster suggested, why can't the Democrats honestly represent the concerns of the worker?
Well, for whatever reason they do not, and thus they are condemned to lose national elections.
I agree it would be better to have a real alternative to a republican other than a rabidly anti-gun, rabidly anti-defense, super liberal, social engineering tax/spend artist.
I also agree it would be good to try to build concensus and seek cooperation in the important work of governing, but I don't think it will happen. The Democratic politicians are about gaining and keeping office (as may be the Republicans, the Democrats don't have a corner on self-interest and ambition), and that objective may not be well served by following the guidance of a Republican president and accommodating him in accomplishing good works. Better, perhaps, to obstruct and sabotage the good works of a Republican president and then blame him in the next election. Statesmanship and duty to the good of the nation are not common character traits in our politicians, I'm afraid, at least not among the Democrats.
