It's your prioritized bullet point list, stupid!

First, I apologize in advance for the fact that I have the bad habit of of scanning, getting pissed off, and then venting my own personal take on things rather than actually reading what politicians, my peers, or the media actually have to say.

But man, those kids over at YouthBloc certainly do know how to have a heated debate...wait.  Am I one of those kids?  Or do I just appear on the sidelines, being not-so-ardent a supporter of anything in comparison with my co-contributors?

In my defense, this point doesn't really go so much to the substance of the latest YouthBloc debate so much as to some of the caustic sentiments thrown out between friends.  So who cares what they were actually talking about...

Anyway, my good friend John loves to say things like "Democrats ignore SUBSTANCE at their peril" and (quite facetiously, and I can hear the sarcasm in his HTML) "we should end racism THEN worry about ending a war that by now has cost us 1 million lives and 4 trillion dollars, and after that we'll worry about getting health care to those who need it, and then we'll figure out this economy thing."

When in doubt, the against-the-wall BlueVoter invokes the hero of the party: future First Gentleman William J. Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid!"  

Well, there's a Democrat who's not afraid to talk substance.  Or, at least, it seemed like substance, when compared to Obama's "HOPE AND CHANGE!" or Mrs. Clinton's "EXPERIENCE AT 3AM!"  Yeah, hope's good.  I like hope.  And experience, yes, that helps in the highest position in the United States of America.  But John's point (particularly directed at Sen. Obama's recent race speech*) was that all of these lovely abstracts sound great, especially to the young, disenchanted voter, but the truth of the matter is that there are many real, pressing issues, especially in this election year (decade?) that really ought to be trumping the touchy-feely unquantifiable ideals being gushed by our respective candidates.

It's the economy, stupid.  It's health care, stupid.  HEY YOU IDIOT, THERE'S A SODDING WAR GOING ON!  Oh yeah, and we're still mired in the same miserable race situation we just can't seem to wipe away.

One of my early criticism of the H. Clinton campaign was the average voter's argument that "Well, I liked Bill Clinton as President, so I'm supporting Hillary."  At which point I think to myself, "Are you joking?"  You think that Arkansas Bill and New York Hill are going to function the same way in the White House?  I honestly can't envision a worse analogy between Democrat Presidential Candidates.  Bill was grassroot.  Hillary is part of the well-sabo'd machine (Barack falls under the latter category as well).  Bill was good-old boy (Harvard and Oxford be damned); Hillary is as big city as they come.  (Hmm...yup, Obama).  It's almost as hard to envision Hillary acting in the same manners that Bill acted (for better or worse), were she elected.  Honestly, I feel she would do less damage to the world's perspective of the office of the President than her husband did.  I disagree that her policies would be right down his line.

I like to remind my Billhugging friends that, though unequivocally better than either Bush, Clinton's presidency was not so grand that we'd like to see a Female spinoff version of it.  Lewinskygate notwithstanding, Mr. Clinton's missteps cannot be overlooked: Somalia, the Balkans, his continuing not-so-subtle-as-we'd-like continuation of Bush Sr.'s Iraq policy, and the Three-Strikes and You're Buggered** Criminal Policy were not gold stars in American Political History.  Billhugger says to me "BUT HE BALANCED THE BUDGET!'

Well, yeah.  he did.  For a whole minute or so.  Just like he said he would.  Because It's the Economy, Stupid.  

So what happened to that?  The obvious and seemingly proper response: Bush Screwed it up.  9/11 screwed it up.  The terrorists screwed it up.  Whatever.  Anybody notice what the Bush administration is doing with it's lame duck term?  Is it all about the terrorists?  All about the war?  Well, the speeches are.  But at the same time, he's looking to push his tax cuts into permanent status.  Get the USA-ABOLISHCIVILRIGHTS (er...PATRIOT?) act made permanent.  He's looking for legacy.  We're looking at Clinton and Obama bitching.  

Bush understands only too well that he is the Lamest of the Lame Ducks.  That's why he's about pushing his policy accomplishments (handed graciously to him during a period of intense tragedy at which all we wanted was someone who was going to solve all of our problems and give us puppies and a world free of Islam).  He's after Legacy.  What was Bill Clinton's legacy?  A slightly more peaceful Ireland?  The fact that the world remembers the Fellatio President?  A well-intentioned but frightfully flawed crime bill that has been misused since the ink dried?  Well, it certainly was not a balanced budget.

As much as I hate to ever, ever, ever tell John Brooks that he's right, it is true that the Democrats' love of broad, sweeping feelgood statements has, is, and will continue to get them in trouble, and it is in fact time to start pushing the immediate issues.  But here's the standard Richetti Caveat: we need to solve problems, but we need to do it long-term.  Solving all the problems with big, bold moves won't do us any better than ignoring them in favor of the more esoteric "issues" before us.  

The Democrats, presuming they can survive the primary season(s) with enough dignity and cashflow to take the election in November, need to start planning how they are going to fix these problems on a longer term than their administration lasts (especially given our inability to elect more than one Democrat in a row).  Fix the economy, and put something in place that will keep the economy as fixed as it can be within the power of the President.  Fix health care, and do enough to ensure that it won't all be flushed as soon as the Red States win again.  And, for the love of God, get us the hell out of Iraq.  

*Newsweek called it the greatest speech in recent history, and in the same sentence suggested that it could effectively end Obama's campaign.  Silly Newsweek.

**Notice I'm using the Joss Whedon theory of profanity: words are non-offensive to Americans (the only ones who care) if used only in Britain (where nobody cares).