Responding to my post, Ed Kilgore wrote:

As for the "politics of contrast," which Armando has repeatedly used me as a foil to promote, yes, of course, absolutely, if you don't explain to voters why you're different from the opposition, you can't expect to win many elections. But just as obviously, there are legitimate questions about where to draw contrasts, and how much contrast is necessary. If contrast is the only thing that matters, then Democrats should just distance themselves as far from Republicans as possible, regardless of public opinion, principles, actual consequences, or common sense, and I doubt Armando or anyone else really thinks that makes any sense. He has his point of view about how far Democrats need to go to "contrast" themselves with the GOP on Iraq, but that point of view, however passionately and articulately advanced, is just a debating point between people who agree on the basics, not a self-evident position held by anyone who wants "contrast."

(Emphasis supplied.) I accept Ed's point that the issue NOW is how, how much and when to contrast Democrats from Republicans is now the consensus view. But Ed must admit it was not always so. On Iraq especially, Ed's former organization advocated shying away from contrasting Democrats from Republicans. Similarly, blurring contrasts with Republicans on some social issues like choice has also been strongly recommended by the DLC, Third Way and other New Democrat groups.

Ed argues semantics, instead of substance here. Because he knows that in fact on issues as diverse as choice and Iraq, many, if not most, New Democrats, have argued for anti-Contrast. As a narrative for the NATIONAL party, as opposed to the regional and state Democratic organizations, this has been folly. The Democratic Party became a party that stands for nothing.

It is time to recognize on the key issues of the day, the Politics of Contrast is the winning strategy now. Maybe in five years it will not be. But today it seems clear to me that it is.