Dems Just Need To Tell Better Stories

James Carville has finally figured out what's wrong with Democrats - they don't tell good stories:

The problem with Democrat campaign speeches is “litany,” and they need more narrative like Winnie the Pooh stories, political consultant and pundit James Carville said.

At a speech sponsored by the Northwestern College Democrats Thursday evening, Carville told the audience that Democratic candidates can’t succeed by shouting out to every group in a crowd. Instead candidates should tell stories with the three elements of any good story — setup, conflict and resolution.

“No Kumbayah crap,” Carville said.

Actually I always thought it was the lack of ideas, plans, or strategies for the future that was killing them, but I could be wrong. If they only told better stories the voters would flock to them.

Apparently voters also don't like candidates that are too smart or too factually right:

Using Al Gore as an example, Carville said being a smart candidate is not enough.

“It’s actually possible to be wise, right and strong,” he said.

But Carville added that no one in Washington likes anyone who is right too often. Howard Dean’s accurate assessment about the failure of the war in Iraq helped kick him out of the running for president despite his passion, Carville said.

And I always thought the voters ran from Dean because they thought he was crazy. Who knew?

There are other Dems getting into the advice act these days as well. William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, are warning Dems to stay away from the wacky lefties who so desperately want to run the party:

"The groups that were supposed to constitute the new Democratic majority in 2004 simply failed to materialize in sufficient number to overcome the right-center coalition of the Republican Party."

Since Kerry's defeat, some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy more like one pursued by Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove -- which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."

But Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.

On defense and social issues, "liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. (Truer words were never spoken...at least by a Dem - HC) To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."

Everybody seems to have ideas about what the Dems needs to do to win, but I still don't hear any firm plans or strategies for running the country, just strategies to get elected. Where are the Dems who are working on those plans?

Here's what Galston and Kamarck think a Dem should do to get elected:

Their recommendations are much less specific than their detailed analysis of the difficulties facing the Democratic Party.

They suggest that Democratic presidential candidates replicate Clinton's tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party's liberal base by approving the execution of a semi-retarded prisoner, by challenging liberal icon Jesse L. Jackson and by calling for an end to welfare "as we know it."

In other words, deny your true beliefs and pretend you're something you're not. Good plan.