TGIF

It's been a busy week. Late nights at work, lots of practice in preparation for FOTN's first show, and sadly, the blog gets the shaft for the week. Post-show, the Bellows will be back on what passes for a regular schedule.

So, Michelle Cottle has a piece over at TNR on Hillary's little cuddle-fest with the pro-lifers (as opposed to all us good Democrats, who are solidly anti-life). The thrust is that Hillary has the right idea in trying to play to the moral-values crowd on the issues that get them going (gay sex and the like), rather than echoing the ideas of nu-guru Jim Wallis, who suggests that the Dems just need to sell their core beliefs of fighting poverty, peaceful internationalism, and fiscal responsibility in a god friendly way. Which isn't really all that hard to do. Cottle notes that while preaching about the Christian duty to fight poverty might be biblically on point, it's not going to have the rage-inducing, vote-outturning effect that dudes getting it on has. Plus, it would come off as, well, preaching, by those great disdainers of ordinary man, the Democrats.

Sadly, I think she's right, not that Dems ought to do as Hillary's done, but that if they don't they won't gain ground with moral values people, whoever they are. For some reason Republican voters get the moral proscriptions of the bible, but feel able to ignore the charitable, give-it-all-away message. I think it has a great deal to do with widespread belief in the puritanical, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps ideal, despite the fact that millions of Republican voters haven't been able to do any bootstrap hoisting, and instead toil in poverty, without health insurance, amid failing schools, and possibly now without that guarantee against utter destitution in old age, social security.

It is, frankly, a tragedy that the idealization of rural values has come to dominate national politics. In a society where economic vitality flows from urban population centers, those that work and generate ideas in those cities (rich and poor alike) are marginalized. The shrinking middle class of urban workers, blue and white collar, who have the good sense to vote their economic interest and leave people's bedroom habits to the bedroom are maligned as being morally depraved.

I think the Democrats' real potential savior here is John Edwards. Today in the Post, EJ Dionne has a column on how Edwards is positioning himself to be the voice of the Democratic core, or at least the non-craven poll watching voice of the Democratic party. Now, I'll freely admit that I liked the Clinton-esque, Senator version of Edwards much more than the class-warrior he became as a veep candidate, but I believe he is at heart a good center-lefty with some nice populist rhetoric. Much ink is spilled (and much hot-air blown, from the man himself) on the subject of his southern heritage, rural upbringing, and time spent in textile mills. Nonetheless, what Edwards is selling, is good at selling, is urban middle-class values. He just does it in a way that sounds like he's cozying up the corn-farmers of America (and I suppose he, like every other damnable Democrat that wants to win Iowa, does pander to the cob jockeys). Edwards is a Clintonite, selling success with a safety-net, but he speaks the language of red staters. What's needed to eliminate the red-blue divide, to get people to think about their economic interest, is someone like John Edwards, someone who can use style to quietly sell rural moderates on urban values. The big question is, how is this guy going to get a microphone in front of him over the next four years?

Not to belabor the point...

But, here's William Saletan saying what I was trying to say.