Post 2000: The DNC Dilemma

[welshTerrier2]

I just received a call from the DNC asking me for money ...

The guy I spoke to was both articulate and knowledgeable on the issues ... not your typical phone bank automaton ... he was extremely interested in becoming a member of DU ... i hope he does ...

He got quite a lecture for his efforts ...

I told him that I was disgusted with the DNC ... You're asking me to contribute to a party that lacks any sense of direction or cohesiveness ... I have no problem with being a "big tent" party ... I understand that there are real differences that divide passionate democrats ... but the greater these passions are and the more critical the issues are that confront us, the greater is our need for coherent leadership ...

What does it mean to be a Democrat ??? What policies are you asking me to financially support ??? Are we supportive of what's been done in Iraq ?? Are we opposed ??? Democrats have been all over the place on Iraq ... Look at the Medicare debate ... even my own Senator, Senator Kennedy, had been a leader in the "great Medicare compromise" until he was so screwed by the GOP that he correctly spoke out against the bill ... he was conned ... he believed he could make a bargain with the devil and we lost one of our most cherished federal programs ...

Look at taxes ... where are the democrats ... what is our policy ... again, no leadership ... are we supposed to set our policy only based on which individual does best during the campaign ... introducing issues of electability and campaign strategy as a control over our party platform gets it all ass backwards ... the party should establish a process to define its platform ... candidates should, at least to some degree, be asked to "spout the party line" ... we are currently so divided that our chances are greatly lessened ...

And what do we think about McAuliffe's front loading of the primaries to get us a nominee as early as possible ... frankly, while the idea is not without some merit, in the end I think it will be very damaging to the party ... sometimes, taking your time to make a choice helps you make a better choice ... some states have even begun to cancel their primaries ... this will not help democrats ... and whether democrats like Dean or fear that he will be the next "McGovern candidate", front loading allows his very strong early momentum to carry more weight than it otherwise might have ... if Dean's vulnerabilities are exposed as time passes, it may become impossible to reverse direction ...

I've listened to many on DU articulately and passionately explain why they have refused to donate to our screwed up party ... frankly, i've done so myself on numerous occasions ... but that was then and this is now ... the time for sending messages is over ... the price has grown far too high ... this isn't to say we should not shout our message to the party leaders as loudly and frequently as possible ... but all who are fighting on our side must be supported ... ALL ...

I know many of you are actively supporting a specific candidate ... but if your candidate does not become the nominee, has your financial support helped the party as a whole ??? if democrats presented at least some commonality under the umbrella of a party platform, all contributions to individual candidates would further our cause ... i'm not so sure that's the case in our "all over the place, lack of leadership" approach ...

So, in the end, this Demo-Green or Green-o-crat or whatever, now has a new line item on this month's credit card bill ... it reads: Democratic National Committee ...

on edit:
btw, this was my 2000th post on DU ...

[auntpattywatty]

1. Clinton is supposed to be the leader of our party- and he doesn't

lead. Because he has as much as deserted us, we have not had a REAL leader for three years. I hope Dr. Dean will fill this gap. If Clinton is not going to lead, then he needs to get out of the way.

[Bandit]

3. If he has deserted us how is he in the way?

President Clinton (I presume you were talking about) has had his day in the sun. He is no longer the leader of the party. He is a strong voice but not the leader. We are trying to determine who that leader might be. We are in need that is apparent. It won't be much longer and we will know who that person will be and I truly hope that all Liberals will rally behind whomever that person turns out to be. Senator Clinton is also a strong voice and probably will assume the reins of leadership down the road a ways. We need unity at this critical time in history. We need a strong voice to show us what we represent because it is not now apparent. Some think if we mimic the Republicans people will like us better. It seems like the nation has taken a hard right tilt so they can't be faulted for that belief but if we compromise all of our ideology just to win then we have lost all.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Actually Tom Daschle is supposed to be the leader of our party...

So much for leadership.

[welshTerrier2]

5. no, no, no ... let's try this again ...

i'm afraid the posts that focussed on finding "an individual" to lead the party have completely missed the point I was trying to make ...

in fact, it's exactly the opposite of the point i was trying to make ... the problem we're having goes way beyond Clinton ... or Dean ... we are way too mesmorized with personalities ... and it's killing us ...

i'm afraid the posts that focussed on finding "an individual" to lead the party have completely missed the point I was trying to make ...

please allow me to reiterate what i said in the base post:

are we supposed to set our policy only based on which individual does best during the campaign ... introducing issues of electability and campaign strategy as a control over our party platform gets it all ass backwards ... the party should establish a process to define its platform ... candidates should, at least to some degree, be asked to "spout the party line" ... we are currently so divided that our chances are greatly lessened ...

ass backwards means that we constantly try to pick a leader rather than trying to pick a platform ... much of choosing a candidate has to do with the candidate's style, strategy and overall demeanor ... perhaps it shouldn't be the case but it too often is ... a more effective process is to set a broad, flexible platform under which candidates will be expected to cooperate ... this need not be dictatorial or tyrannical ... but it should lay out an effective approach so that each and every campaign helps spread "the" message ... if each and every campaign goes off to do whatever it wants, there is not a central "theme" that get repeated over and over and over and over ... worse yet, the messages we put out during these valuable "primary season months" often contradict one another ... we are spending way too much of this precious time shooting ourselves in the foot ...

so, whether you agree or disagree, please understand the point i'm trying to make ... democrats need to start with a clear platform ... and then we can choose the candidate that most effectively can implement that platform and breath more life into it ...

[blm]

2. Good reminder.

Democrats don't need to be led the way that Republicans do, and I don't trust ANY Democrat who demagogues for his own personal political gain with NO conscience for the party itself and the greater good of the country.

The Democrats always do best when they listen to those leaders who use their intellect and thoughtfulness as well as their hearts.