Primary Gift To Bush?..(From McAuliffe)

q=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1080-2003Nov4.html

Primary Gift To Bush?

By David S. Broder
Wednesday, November 5, 2003; Page A29


There has always been a risk that Terry McAuliffe's decision to speed up the race for the Democratic presidential nomination would backfire on his party -- and now that risk looms larger than ever.

It was McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who urged the rules change that permitted other states to move their primaries and caucuses closer to the January contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. The predictable land rush almost ensures that McAuliffe will achieve his goal of identifying President Bush's opponent before the middle of March -- the exact time when the delegate selection process used to begin. McAuliffe argued that the Democrats should finish their nominating process as early as possible so that the party could rally around the winner and fundraisers could accelerate the effort to equip that candidate with the cash he will need to compete against Bush's millions.

It was not a crazy theory, and it might have worked if only the Democrats had found a legitimate frontrunner. If Al Gore had decided to try again, chances are he would have led the polls from the beginning and would have benefited if scattered rivals were dispatched before spring. In Gore's absence, if Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut had been able to capitalize on his role as the vice presidential nominee in 2000 and make himself the consensus candidate of the party establishment, he also might have been helped by an early primary calendar. But Gore didn't run and Lieberman hasn't been able to assert his claim. And Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might have mopped the floor with all of the Democratic aspirants, said, "No thanks" for '04.

The result is that the Democratic field is essentially leaderless, which means that whoever is chosen by March to carry the banner will be someone largely unknown to voters today. That is a heavy burden to carry into a race against an incumbent president.


...snip

If we have a charismatic candidate (Dean) who will hammer Bush on his lies and mismanagement of America the longer he has to do it the better. These media types who question every action of the Democratic party should be questioning this corrupt Bush cabal every damn hour of the day, I MEAN every damn hour of the day and if your not then shut the hell up Broder!

broderd@washpost.com

He reads his mail, and sometimes he sends back snotty notes.

Broder you ignorant slut,

btw, from now on that is going to be how I address Republicans.

there are leaders, Dean, Clark and DK is fast catching up even if he still is a second tier candidate

because we are not sheep. My God, we Dems have a surfeit of leaders, and that is something we're supposed to be ASHAMED OF?? I think it's fantastic that we have so many excellent candidates to choose from. Fuck Broder.

assume that the premise of a largely unknown having to carry the banner is true. Why would it be any less true if we had the primaries later? If we have a clear nominee by March, that person will have 7 months to get known as the nominee.

If we don't, it won't change the length of time between March and November. Why would a few more months of a potentially bruising primary help at all?