Just to be clear, I’m talking about Bill, not Hil…
But so what? The press would trip over themselves trying to give him air time, which could only be good. He’s supposed to be the consumate politician, which is what you want. Plus, it’d probably make it difficult for Hillary to run. If the Democrats nominate her next time, they deserve to be the minority party for eternity. No matter what you think of Hil’s policies or record, she’s just a lightning rod for everything the Pubs were able to muster to their side this time around.
Oh, and make sure that there are no interns associated with the job.
I think that pluralism and a real opposition is good for the system, so I probably ought to explain in detail precisely why this is such a poor idea. But I just can’t bring myself to – it’s too precious!
So I’ll tell you what. You guys go ahead and choose an over-educated northeastern liberal to chair your party. A guy who had as his primarly appeal to the Democratic faithful his deep personal antipathy toward someone whom I guarantee you will not be running for President ever again. You do that. I’ll design tax shelters for Bricker’s 2006 and 2008 winnings. Can you put alcohol in a Roth IRA? What if it’s really, really good alcohol?
Howard’s not that liberal. He tends more to the libertarian than to the left. He’s a pro-gun fiscal hawk and a social libertarian. He’s anti-war but that’s not a “liberal” position.
Clinton wants the UN job, btw. I doubt he’d want to chair the party.
No way will a someone who can’t speak French get that job. And do you think Bush is going to nominate him? Come on…
Maybe he wouldn’t want the DNC chair job, but the Dems need someone LIKE him, if not him. They need someone who lives and breathes “southern” or “rural” or “western” or, better yet, all three. Dean is great for enegizing young urban, idealistic types, but that’s not what’s needed now.
I’m sorry but your original question made me laugh so hard I had tears in my eyes. Dean’s problems are not limited to a single Yee Haw. He does not project himself well at all. When he was on the talk show circuit in the last weeks of the election he looked like something out of a Monty Python skit. He slides his head back and gets this goofy smile on his face every time he attacks the opposition. He only needs a bowler hat to complete the picture. There hasn’t been a credibility gap this big since Dan Quayle. You might as well get Bagdad Bob to run the party.
It doesn’t matter what you or I think. It’s what the public thinks. Perception is everything. Dean might be the smartest man on the planet but the image never makes it to the camera. You can continue your pursuit of him in this capacity but you should not be surprised by the amount of Republican support in this regard.
As a side note, This has been the ugliest election I’ve ever witnessed. I will never get use to the raw disrespect people have shown for the candidates or each other. If you want to be taken seriously in a debate than referring to President Bush as “Chimpy” does nothing to advance your position.
I agree Clinton won’t get the job, but only because no official from a gov’t with a permenant seat on the SC will. Also, Bush doesn’t nominate people for U.N Sec. General.
If Clinton doesn’t want the job as chairman (and I think he might turn it down so as to preserve his image as eldar statesmen), then how about Tom Dascle. He’s from a red state, available, associated by many with the nations reaction to 9/11, seems charismatic and also something of a reminder for Dems of this election, and thus a good person to get them energized to fix what went wrong.
Dean is way too far right. If the Democrats want to attain a long and sustained run at controlling the way America goes they are either going to have to do one of two things. 1) They need to either convice the bible belt of America that their religious ideals are similiar to their own, or they need to bring themselves to a more conservative stance. My choice for either would be Bill Clinton and for damn sure keep Hillary out of the political picture.
Not to mention the political benefits of placing a Democratic ex-President in the position of criticizing U.S. foreign policy for a living. The Republicans wouldn’t lose a national election until the sun went red giant. Hell, people could blame the Republicans for the sun going red giant and they’d still vote for them after a Clinton term as Sec-Gen.
Happily for Democrats, Clinton is not an idiot and would quash any attempt to recruit him post-haste.
Well, what if (as polls indicated) Democrats DON’T share the same religious ideals? Pro-choice, pro-stem-cell research, ok with same-sex marriage, etc… those are some of the reasons I voted Democrat. I think the Democratic party faces a massive challenge given the fact that (again, according to polls) the deciding factor in this election was moral issues. Oh, and all us Kerry supporters are pagan non-churchgoers who will surely meet a gruesome, fiery death in the pits of Hell.
Someone please explain to me why religious belief = moral values. Better yet, remind Bush that there are some extremely religious terrorists out there.
Heck, it might be better if the Democrats went all-out left-wing and stopped trying to pander to the right-wing. Now, that would be an interesting run-off.
It would be interesting, but not because there would be much doubt of the outcome. The fact is that a national party has to be willing to appeal to a lot of different groups, some of which may hold contradictory values. There’s a lot of talk this election of “turning out the base”, but if all Bush did was get the vote of every evangelical christian and rich business man, he would not have won the election. He won because he was better then the Dems at reassuring people outside his base that he was for them as well.
You blame the Dems of pandering to the Right-wing, but the Repubs pander just as much to the left. Look at the medicare bill, which is an almost totally Repub effort to expand entitlement spending. No-Child left behind increases federal control of schools, these were the two most major pieces of (non-tax) domestic legislation passed during Bush’s term.
Good point. I don’t know what I was thinking there…
But Bush certainly would influence the US’s vote on the UNSG. I guess in that sense we’re just one vote in the General Assembly. Is the SG confirmed by a vote of that body?
