What has been on my chest is perhaps quite simplistic.  This is fairly long, and I apologize for it.  I'd shorten it if I could.

a)  What is this election about ... for the country, not for us, as individuals?

Is this an election on the repudiation of conservative philosophies?

Is this an election on war weariness?

Is it an election on the economy?

Is this an election on the repudiation of Bush?

Now, clearly, it can be a combination of all three.  But is there an overriding factor at play here?  For Democrats, the ideal would be for the first one to be dominant theme, but I doubt that enough change has happened over the last few years to see such a dramatic shift in national thought.  The rest all tie in together, and 2/3 leads me to believe that this election is largely going to be a repudiation of Bush more than anything else.  Which leads me to

b)  The fallacy of assuming.

Admittedly, I don't know as much as many of you.  I know there's a lot of anger over the past 8 years, a lot of anger over tactics and so forth.  That said, I tend to believe that a big problem over the last 2 presidential elections has been the inability to frame the issues.

Why do we assume that "issues" voters will vote with us?  Why do we assume that said individuals will have the long term outlook on what we believe right?  These are dangerous assumptions to make, and if this is an election on the repudiation of Bush, then this leaves us in a more perilous situation than we are acknowledging.

I know plenty of conservatives, and while they like Hillary, and find Obama intriguing, they would never vote for any of them.  It isn't due to the character aspects.  It's to their belief on the issues.  For all the anger we vent towards the right, we often times hold similar perspectives of bias, but use the justification of "right" to exonerate our beliefs.  We expect that our issues should resonate, and that they should step to the forefront.

I just wonder if this is as true as one thinks.  Look, I'm a liberal.  I believe our policies are the best long term ... and short term.  Are we able to sell that short term vision?  That's the primary aspect to focus on.  That vision hasn't been there.  The Democrats have the right economic policy for the rural areas, IMO, but we are often stymied in our attempts to enter those battlegrounds.

I think one of the worst options made out there is the idea of a core or a base.  It assumes that individuals vote based solely on a specific set of issues in national elections to an extent.  I find this type of thinking to be flawed, and I wonder how much a role it has played over the course of the last 8 years.

What does the currernt excitement mean?  I hope it means that we are making traction with our message, but I'll be honest - I get frustrated at listening to our leaders talk, to our policy analysts talk sometimes.  Can we sell this message?  The beauty of the Democratic Party is often our complexities, but it is this complexity that often reflects poorly upon us.  The Republicans have been able to, with more consistency, sell a message on the short term future, IMO.

Now definitely, all this occurs in cycles.  For a long time, the Republicans were lost.  In the broad spectrum of things, the last 8 years, well, the last 14 to be exact, hasn't been that long of a cycle.  It takes time to find a voice and to sell a vision.

this leads to

c)  Leadership.

It is often said that the greatest leaders are often the ones right next to you (or something like that, there's been versions).  Online, it seems that liberals seem to be counting McCain out right now.  I'll be honest - he seems like a likable guy.  Image is everything, and here's a guy that's cultivated an image, although it isn't necessarily true.  He feels like the guy that you wake up in the morning, pick up your paper and say hello to while drinking a cup of coffee.

Yes, sometimes we want our leaders to be these strong, charismatic individuals.  Other times, we (and I use we as the country) may lean towards leadership that feels comfortable.  Can we defintiively say that at this point in time, in this critical juncture in history, with so much turbulence in the world and at home, that it is one way or another?  I'm not sure we can.  Experience is a factor.  I like Obama, but that's why, when I made my decision of who to support, I leaned towards HRC, as I wonder if this is the right time in history.  There is a huge collision of issues and forces at play, forces that will shape the world.  Now, all that said, sometimes all an individual needs is an opportunity.

Can McCain parlay his image and sell short term benefits?  That's what it comes down to.  For the majority of citizens, the actual impact of the Presidency is often not felt throughout a term.  Let's not count McCain out on being able to sell that vision with the image he has cultivated.  Let's not assume that we can break down this image in a few months time.  Assumptions will kill.  

Finally

d)  The War on ... well something ...

Why do we assume that the liberal war plank is what the country wants?

There's a lot more liberals now than in 2001 that are anti-war.  Sometimes reaction in of itself is the best antidote.  I am not justifying the war.  That's been debated to death, and will continue to be debated by the left and right and I do not want to go there at all, though I have my views.

But rather, I am asking why we assume that the liberal war plank will be accepted so readily?  Sure, McCain sounds awful ... but can we sit here and honestly tell ourselves that there's no way McCain's message isn't going to resonate with part of the population?  I have a hard time believing so.  Short of it is, yes, the country wants out.  But ... if the message is sold wrong, I wonder if the country will react poorly to the idea of leaving.  It's a slippery slope with more diverse views than you would find on liberal blogs, I think.

There's a whole bunch more, but eh, just wanted to get some things off my chest.  Now, I want to conclude on a couple things.  This is not meant to blast the blogosphere at all.  I'm just looking to see if there's something I'm missing.    I hope that American liberalism can one day truly be left of center (probably another hot topic, although I dunno).  But there's so much confidence and, well, without offending anyone, cockiness, on the blogosphere.  Does anyone worry that the electorate will look at the last 2 years and wonder if Democratic leadership can do anything?  I like Pelosi and Reid enough, but I don't think anyone would say that the Congress has succeeded in implementing it's vision and limiting Bush's.  The fact that our nominee is coming from Congress is also a concern.

Um, I wish I could conclude this in a way to tie everything together.  I'm just looking for thoughts.  This is a crucial election as we must get a Democrat in there, for a bunch of reasons, but one key thing for me is the Supreme Court.  Stevens has been holding on for so long.  We may not have anyone retire in the next 4 years, but it would position us better come 2012.

I guess what I'm saying is focused back on policy.  Is this vision going to resonate?  I still am wary of hearing our Democratic politicans talk at times.