I protest.

"No difference."

Toward the end of the campaigns I began hearing again that "there's no difference" between the two candidates, that Democrats and Republicans are, again, two sides of the same coin and voting for one is the same as voting for the other. This was from people that should know better, relatively well-informed people with Ph.D.s and not just the average twentysomething. Being, as I am, pretty well-informed, I was at first astonished, but then I began to consider why people might think this. Certainly part of it is that if ones sources of information are CNN, MSNBC and Fox News (all of which have become jokes among those who pay attention to the information available on the 'Net), one remains woefully uninformed. Unfortunately, these people don't even really know that other sources of information exist. Just the other day a quite liberal woman of my acquaintance read this weblog and was surprised at the amount and depth of information presented. While mine is not the best blog to go to for information, her reaction made me realize that it's infinitely better than anything currently available offline. Even, unfortunately, places like the LA Times or the Washington Post.

Why did these people claim that there was little if any difference between Kerry and Bush? Because the media that was their only source of information presented it that way, and, far worse, because Kerry himself didn't and Democrats in general don't do enough to differentiate themselves. For over ten years, now, Democrats have been edging further and further right, trying to paint themselves as "moderate" or even conservative while the real Republicans drag the discourse even further to the right in response. It has become blindingly obvious that Democrats as "Republican Light" is an abysmal failure. Even worse, the drift has begun to alienate the more progressive among us. This was amply demonstrated by Howard Dean's success. He was able to differentiate himself by casting himself as more progressive, as more a Democrat ("the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party") even though he's not particularly liberal!

Atrios was right in "Random Thoughts" when he wrote,

Going forward, the only way for the Democrats to pick up substantial seats in 2006 is a) if everything is a disaster (possible, but not something I hope for) or b) they manage to convey to voters how they are different than Republicans. This difference exists, but rhetorically the Democrats have been more interested in blurring the lines than making them clear. Clear differences do not always mean extreme differences - this is not about lurching left or right or whatever, it's just about making the differences clear in an easy to understand fashion.

It really is easy to distinguish a Democrat from a Republican when the Democrat actually stands up for his or her principles. I don't think that anyone will mistake Nancy Pelosi for a Republican, and she is certainly not an appeaser, either. Unlike Tom Daschle and, I'm afraid, Harry Reid, she has not hesitated to call Bush a liar and incompetent and she consistently stands out as a real Democrat in a House dominated by Delay and his thugs. (Although I do think she is living in a fantasyland if she thinks that Bush will actually honor his promise.)

Of course, Nancy Pelosi is in the tiny, tiny minority among Democrats in Washington. The entrenched powers in the Democratic Party don't want strong leaders, since they would detract from the power of the existing leadership. It is long past time to show them the door.