| Author |
Message |
    
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 12:37 pm: | 
|
Take heart, I won't begin this thread with a link to a long, dull partisan article.
With all the political ineptness the Repubs showed in 2005 and with all the rhetoric and assaults thrown their way since the election, I am just curious who most of you look to as the leader of the Democratic party. I am asking this not from a partisan position but from a fan of politics position.
Looking at it objectively I'd say their leader continues to be Bill Clinton. What are your thoughts? |
Paris Hiltonberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6812
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 2:02 pm: |
|
dean & Kennedy... |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 782
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
ma sheehan!  |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14629
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Al Sharpton. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 106
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
We meet agin...and if there is anyone, still, I think it is Bill Clinton. For better or worse.
I think Clinton could be a bit of a king maker this time around- as long the king isn't the queen (Hillary). A moderate, smart governor from a small state- Democratic Leadership Council type- could emerge and get a boost from Clinton while reminding people of the big lug. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5210
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 4:52 pm: |
|
First you have to buy off Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, then Clinton can make a king. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1550
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 7:04 pm: |
|
Paul Hackett |
SO Ref
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 1507
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 7:35 pm: |
|
So, is the point that the Dems have slipped because of their own lack of leadership as opposed to a long list of Republican accomplishments? Uh, OK.
W's reign will rank right up there with the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. Be proud. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 698
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 8:12 pm: |
|
SO,
That wasn't my point. I'm just politically curious as to whom most of you Dems consider to be the "Philosophical Leader" of your party. I knew this would quickly deteriorate but I am truly curious. And to be fair, if you take POTUS and the VP out of the equation, I have the same question for the Repubs. But since, it is hard to remove the current admin (no pun intended for you impeachment freaks) I posed the question for the Democratic side. As I stated earlier, Billy Boy still carries the mantle in my opinion and would probably be in his 4th term by now if it was possible. Of course the 1992 election between him and Reagan would have been fun to watch. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1937
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 8:55 pm: |
|
does it matter?
who was the Dem leader in 1990? |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8713
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Bush is president. And he's a total moron. So who wants to be a "leader"?  |
Paris Hiltonberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6814
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Dave it's not cool to cool people "morons". |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 815
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 10:16 pm: |
|
It's a fair question, and one that I (as a Democrat, for the time being) would love an answer to. I think the leadership position belongs to whoever gets results. Since Clinton was the last one to get any (results, you perverts) I guess he still has it. But he hasn't done much for the long term health of the party in quite a while, if ever.
Having said that, I think the position could be Dean's. If Dems end up doing better than expected in House and Senate races, and it can be attributed to the infrastructure that he has been working behind the scenes to build, then he may well prove the leader the Dems need. He continues to be an outsider relative to the "wait and see" TV Democrats, who are generally too scared to either strongly back him or strongly denounce him...but as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.
Most of the general public has written him off due to the BS media narrative since "The Scream" but he hasn't let that stop him. And if he brings home the electoral bacon, he goes from lightning rod to beloved party eccentric in the eyes of the status quo Dems, whose approval he will need before he can relegate them to the dustbin of history. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 108
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Madden, I just don't see it. Dean lacks the stature, and I don't see him doing much more than being an eccentric.
There is actually a decent bench in the party, but no one has broken out yet. I agree with Southerner: I think Clinton fills that void. I also think he knows it and that is why he is being such a grown up of late. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10752
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 4:31 am: |
|
The simple answer is there isn't one. If the Dems are going to have a chance in 2008 someone has to step forward and lead what has always been a fragmented party into nominating people who are electable. Clinton has some status, but, interestingly, the Dems lost power during his term in office and he is essentially well to the right side of the Democratic party. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3052
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Good point, Bob--Clinton ran against his party more often than not, and did nothing to build a party legacy behind himself. It was always about Big Bill. His enormous personal popularity allowed him to reach over the heads of his own party to the people, much as Reagan could do. But he left a vacuum behind--note how he damned Gore with faint praise when Gore ran for Pres.
Bushie has not done all that much to build a legacy, either, and so there will be an interesting settling of the dust for both parties in the next two election cycles.
I have a feeling that some major international event or unforeseen domestc issue (hurricane, flood, SC overturning Roe) will reshuffle the deck before 2008 and make some contenders look better and others like dopes. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 7:51 am: |
|
I think its the new Senator from Illinois, Osama Baraka.
Cheers |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3231
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 5:34 pm: |
|
So, for that matter, who's the Republican leader after Bush? (Can you believe it, the guy's going to leave one day?) |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 710
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 7:06 pm: |
|
tulip,
The point is the Repubs are holding serve. The Dems have to unseat them not the other way around. And I guarantee, during 2008 you will see Bush and Cheney using their position and all the perks to campaign for the Repub candidate as well as the candidate himself or Riceself. The Dem will be out there all alone unless Slick's ticker lasts long enough to help his wife.
I'll agree the Repubs don't have a clear cut leader but they are the majority party no matter how much you libs want to contest 2000 and 2004. So all they need to do is field someone who won't pull a Dean and unless the Dems come out with a great candidate then it will be a wash and we'll have a repeat of 2004. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5079
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:21 pm: |
|
Actually, Tulip asks a very good question.
It's inevitable that the Republicans would "scatter" after the 2006 elections, since there will be various candidates and factions getting ready for the Presidential election.
But, they seem to be a little ahead of schedule, no?
Just look at recent activity in Congress -- The severe criticism of the Administration, from the top down, of the response to Hurricane Katrina;
- The move for hearings regarding the NSA warrantless intercepts, and whether FISA was violated;
- The very strong criticism of the port deal - to the point where the President is threatening to veto a bill that the Republican leadership may support.
Now, I'm no expert, but there's a chance that many Republicans are un-hitching their wagons from the Bush star - "cutting and running", if you will. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5224
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Congress will scatter or hang onto Bush depending on their polls, local constituencies and politics, a bunch of things.
Bush is the leader of the Republican Party. It's a fact. He has the pulpit, brings in the money which goes to candidates and the RNC answers to him. I don't recall Democrats running to jump in the picture with Clinton after Monica broke in the 1998 midterms except in black districts even after he signed welfare reform. The reason Dems didn't lose big was because Republicans -- like Democrats today -- thought saying "we're not Clinton" was enough. It wasn't. You need an idea to win (Gray Davis being the exception). |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 713
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Nohero,
Good point but what you will see after the midterms is typical leading up to primaries. It doesn't signal anything other than the VP isn't running. We all know the election for 2008 will be decided between the conventions and election day. The bloody noses from the primaries will be long healed by then. Now, I agree, the party who has a clear cut winner the earliest will have more time to concentrate on fundraising than winning primaries. The Repub side of things will indeed be interesting and Frist and McCain will go at it. But unless you Dems go ahead and crown Hillary, I see Gore just chomping and Edwards can't wait to campaign unhitched from Kerry.
I think the primaries will be a wash for both sides and then the real campaigning starts. And the Repubs learned a lesson in how Gore handled an incumbent of the own party. Gore kept Clinton on the sidelines and that killed him. Clinton would have brought in dough and votes. After the RNC you'll see Bush and Cheney campaigning hard for the Repub even if it's McCain. The alternative is to let the Dems win and the one thing conservatives agree on is we don't want that. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page