Kaine: Deeds Demonstrates Why Dem's Shouldn't Run from Obama

Monday, August 9, 2010

I strongly agree with Tim Kaine on this one.
In an interview with The Hill, Kaine said House Democrats who do not run with Obama's agenda risk alienating their most energetic supporters."If you distance yourself from the president, you can pour cold water on the excitement about what he is doing," said Kaine, who alluded to Democrat Creigh Deeds's problems.
Deeds lost a special election in Kaine's home state of Virginia last year after distancing himself from Obama, who had won Virginia's electoral votes in the presidential context just a year earlier.
"I can tell you this. Everywhere I go, every last community I visit, there are energetic supporters of this president who are excited about what he is doing," Kaine said.
Along these lines, I think this story is relevant. The bottom line is that most Democrats who are going to lose this November are moderate-to-conservative "blue dogs" in the 49 districts carried by John McCain. The vast majority of Democrats "from the Democratic wing" of the party are going to be re-elected. So, the question is, does it help the "blue dogs" to avoid appearing with - or not mentioning - President Obama? I'd argue strongly "no," in that the "blue dogs" aren't going to win any Republicans or Tea Partiers to their sides, regardless, yet by dissing Obama they're going to reduce enthusiasm among the Democratic "base."  In other words, it's a "lose-lose" for Democrats in swing districts to stay away from Obama.  Don't believe me? Just ask Creigh Deeds how refusing to say he was an "Obama Democrat" worked out for him.UPDATEThis is stupid too.