**Is Rahm Emanuel correct about the value of the Democratic Primary?

I don't usually agree very much with Rahm Emanuel, but last night on Charlie Rose show, he made a few good points. The campaign between Hillary and Obama is actually not particularly dirty by political standards in many other communities and is unlikely to significantly impact Democratic chances in the fall. And, the contest between them is actually a good thing because it is a contest of ideas and solutions and the quality of both their positions will be improved by the testing and also if either becomes President, the testing process will help prepare them for the presidency.

He also said that neither should try to "parallel park" their way into the presidency. By which he partially meant that discussing delegate and election percentages are not issues, but tactics and as such are not going to build good will for either of them in the coming general election.

They both need to do a better job of telling us what their real vision is and how their qualifications mesh with the vision and they also need to tell us how they will move us toward their vision of a better society, etc.

They need to provide us reasons why they should be given the mantle of power, etc. Neither is doing a very good job of that right now.

Emanuel also made the point that the Democratic primary is causing millions of new people to enter the political process and some older party members to be re-invigorated.

All seemed to make good sense to me. It also happens to be an awfully lot like what I have been thinking about all the "gloom and doom" of the talking heads. The marketplace of ideas and those promoting the ideas may be tough, but it can do a valuable service to society as well.

**Stay tuned, I may have to edit this if my recollection doesn't fit my notes on the program--- Doug Wiken

Comments

[mikesdak]

I apparently need to pay closer attention, because I haven't seen very much of this contest of ideas and solutions that was mentioned. Perhaps it requires more fortitude than I possess to dig through all the meaningless drivel to find it.

I confess that my motivation is not helped by the fact that those tactical numbers show that it would take either an electoral miracle or a convention coup d'etat for Clinton to win. The only suspense is artificially created,either by the media entirely for their own benefit, or by Clinton because she just can't imagine that she won't win.

[Douglas Wiken]

I think Rahm Emanuel's "parallel parking" jab was an indicator of exactly what you commented.

I am not particularly impressed with either Hillary or Barrack, my preference would have been somebody like Chris Dodd or John Edwards.

And, I am also still waiting for something from the candidates besides, "I'm so very happy to be here in Padunnk." Or, "We can work together from the bottom up."

They both beg the question, "How are you going to unscrew America after Bush and get the country back on the right track."

To an extent our candidates get by with blather because of the vacuous nature of the press and press coverage. Which horse is ahead today?