Leftist dog the war and trade for Democrats

Daniel Henninger:

...

... The Vermont governor's quixotic 2004 presidential run did one big thing: It let the netroots out. It empowered the Democratic Left. Web-based "progressives" proved they could raise lots of political money and bring pressure, especially when allied with labor unions.

They didn't defeat centrist Joe Lieberman in 2006, but they drove him out of the party. They pushed the party's Iraq policy under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi into total, rejectionist opposition. In this world, the Petraeus surge is a failure, period. Thus, Obama calmly gives the surge little or no credit. Also in this world, trade and Nafta are anathema, as seen in the House refusal to pass the trade agreement with Colombia, the U.S.'s strongest ally in South America.

What the netroots has done is bunch up the party ideologically. While the Republican Party slices conservative ideology as thinly as aged prosciutto, the Democrats, in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, are all swinging a populist anvil -- with the left hand.

This pushed Hillary out of the Clinton comfort zone. She established her Senate career as a reasonable person, winning public compliments from GOP colleagues. Came the campaign and she finds herself onstage with wall-to-wall men of the ascendant populist left.

On trade, the Democratic Party is as far left as at any time in its history. Both Al Gore and John Kerry ran as economic populists, but there was nothing on trade like what we have heard in this campaign. In Al Gore's 2000 nomination acceptance speech, trade was the last issue mentioned: "We must welcome and promote truly free trade." His running mate was Joe Lieberman, also a Nafta supporter. Labor "held its nose" and voted for Gore.

The party next nominated another Nafta supporter, John Kerry, whose acceptance speech also reduced trade to a line, with a quick bow to "a fair playing field." There was talk that Kerry would cover himself by putting the ardently antitrade, prounion Dick Gephardt on the ticket. Labor lost that one, too, but with the selection of John Edwards, the party became more invested in left-leaning populism.

...

If you are selling a dream you need the best possible salesman to make it seem somehow possible. They found him in Barack Obama.

Hillary attacked Obama this week on exactly this basis -- for selling dreams: "And you know the celestial choirs will be singing . . . and the world will be perfect." In her world "none of the problems we face will be easily solved." In her world, the real one, mediocre pols must be worked and massive bureaucracies pushed to do the right thing. And you know what? She just might be good at it.

The bitter irony is that what the Democrats want is someone like the original Clinton, another figure who can make the old-time religion sound not like a government program, but personally uplifting. She can't. In the Cleveland debate Tuesday, even Brian Williams couldn't resist noting "a 16-minute discussion on health care."

...

The Democrats are about to get Mr. change for a nominee, but as Hillary points out, it is still going to be a hard sell when it bumps into practical problems like governing. George Bush has already proved you can't change the tone i Washington by failing to engage your critics. What Obama has shown is his form of engagement when challenged is snark and arrogance and that is not going to change minds either. When challenged the soaring rhetoric is no longer evident, instead you get the smart alec kid yelling something like the equivalent of "Oh, Yeah?" or "Yo Mama...." McCain will probably have more adult responses to this back and forth as yesterday's discussion on whether al Qaeda is in Iraq demonstrates.