The term “new Democrats” is fraught with partisanship. At the presidential level, the term was first used to describe Bill Clinton and now refers to the so called moderate Democrats who support President Obama.
The new Democrats stand out in contrast to doctrinaire progressive Democrats who want the wars to end immediately, want the US military radically downsized, support race based affirmative action, want teachers unions to control the schools, want high taxes on the wealthy, support a “woman’s body” as an absolute value over a fetal life, etc.
While none of this progressive policy is extremist, the contrast between the doctrinaire progressives and the new Democrats is very worrisome. because of what has happened to the Republicans. The image of a political arena dominated by a doctrinaire Tea Party and a doctrinaire progressive Democratic caucus is not one I want to contemplate.
Of course “we” can not work with the TP. But, if we are to get things done, liberals need to leverage off of the huge majority of Dems,independents and the residual business Repubs who are more worried about the environment, China, corporatism, new energy sources, and education than they are in a fundamentalist battle over abortion rights, threats from the non existent caliphate, or even the role of unions in schools. These are variously real issues but if debating at the extremes becomes the norm, we all … all Americans, will lose.
Darcy Burner seems to me to have set herself up as a doctrinaire progressive, she likely wnats to replace Dennis Kucinich as a leader of that movement. That worries me and, in my opinion, makes her a very poor candidate for the 1st.
Here is one example of what worries me about Darcy. Her Netroots speech about abortion rights was factually wrong. I looked at the data and it is not true that 1/3 of women in the US have had an abortion. I do not think this is even true in ethnic groups where abortion is relatively common, but 1/3 is far from true among the women of the 1st .. Darcy’s putative district.
She is picking the wrong battle.
Here is another example .. Darcy’s stand on Afghanistan is far to the left of Obama and likely in conflict with the needs and thoughts of a District heavily dependent on Boeing and the US Navy. Where does she stand on the massive military rescission due at the end of this year if (as is likely) Boeing and Everett become targets?
As for corporate reform, that is one place Darcy could shine. She could ally herself with Cantwell .. except that Cantwell is supporting DelBene.