Who is the face of the Democratic Party? Who should it be?

Great Debates
1

If one were asked to decide which individual most represents the Republican Party in the public mind right not, it would be George Bush, of course. It’s less clear who the public belives represents the Democrats. Possibilities might include Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore. Nancy Pelosi has the potential of becoming the face of the Democrtic Party, given her new House Leadership position. ISTM that of this group, Bill Clinton would be #1 in the public mind. YMMV.

When Newt Gingrich was the face of the Republican Party, that wasn’t so good for Republicans. He had a lot of negatives, which hurt the entire Party’s image.

Bill Clinton has a lot of negatives, making him less than ideal. Do you think there’s a better person for this role?

2

When I think “Republican”, I think John Aschroft. When I think “Democrat”, I think Janet Reno.

3

Al Sharpton just announced on Fox News that he may run for president in 2004. I would assume that positions him as one of the faces.

4

Al Sharpton! Lib, adjust your medication immediatly. You’ve just crossed over into…the twilight zone! Al Sharpton! Oh, my stars and garters! Al Sharpton!

Not a chance. Not a prayer. Barbara Streisand will be the Republican nominee first. Jane Fonda will be nominated to head the Defense Department. Judge Judy will be Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court, and I will be Queen of Romania.

Al Sharpton! My day is made! Thanks, pal. I needed that!

5

The face of the Democratic Party? I’d say that’s putting the cart before the horse. Currently, I don’t think the party has a face. Arguably it could be Bill Clinton, but living in the past can be dangerous for the future. Hillary Clinton is an illogical choice, unless you’re just another rightie trying to demonize the Democrats by fear-mongering based on the prominence of a strong woman. Dick Gephardt is history; no way would that pseudo-Republican have any shot at being the face of the Democrats. Tom Daschle’s moment in the sun is over; it won’t be him.

The Democrats don’t need to worry about a face right now. Currently, the party is in utter turmoil, and it needs to work out what it stands for before it gets to the superficial stuff. With several of its former stars nursing whiplash right now, there will be many who will become active and try to take their places. By my estimation, booking a hotel room in New Hampshire and Iowa won’t be easy until spring 2004, when the primary and caucus are over, respectively.

Once the Democrats get their act together, a face will emerge. Nancy Pelosi will be a prominent figure, no doubt, but I’m not sure she’ll be the face until she’s been in place for a while. (That’s presuming, of course, she gets the Minority House Leader position, which I predict she will. Harold Ford is like another Dick Gephardt, and we don’t need that.) If Al Gore continues to give more speeches like the one he gave on Iraq, he could reëmerge as a star, and possibly as a candidate the Democrats could get behind (even if the media can’t.)

Other candidacies have been energized by the vacancy of Daschle, Gephardt, and Roy Barnes. Howard Dean might be one to watch this time, if not in the future. Bob Kerrey and Bill Bradley are other possibilities And it’s safe to assume that if Iraq blows up in our faces, the pro-war Democrats will be roadkill; Lieberman, Dodd, Edwards and Biden, to name a few. If the war turns out okay, the pro-war crowd will be the ones who will lead for the 2004 nomination.

But as far as the current leadership goes, that’s not something the Democrats will (or should) worry about. They’ll fix their lack of direction and get back into gear. Nancy Pelosi will be an energizing force, but the “face” you’re asking for will emerge when the Democrats finally have a presidential frontrunner.

And I’ve got a thing for girls who wear glasses. Not so much purple cows, though.

6

This morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer included an article indicating that Ed Rendell might be a candidate for just that position.

Pro: Just elected governor of Pennsylvania by a wide margin (taking the position away from the Republicans) - four of our last five presidents were formerly state governors. Former (and popular) mayor of Philadelphia, so he has plenty of experience “running” large goverment entities. Former district attorney (so he can tough on crime). Smart, charismatic, and a great vote-getter and fund-raiser.

Con: Often says what he thinks rather than what is politically wise (as DNC chariman during the last election he said on network television that Gore should concede the Florida results before Gore had decided to do so). Not a favorite of the unions (while Philadelphia mayor he was frequently on the other side). Loses his temper too easily.

7

Uhh, that was supposed to be “so he can talk tough on crime”. Sheesh - and I previewed it, too.

8

Currently?

I recall a lovely line from a famous pundit about the Democrats. It was Will Rogers.

9

andros—I know that line. It addresses the nature of the Democratic Party, which is more of a coalition of different interests—a “big tent,” if you will. And while the party’s leadership may have been in disarray at various times before and since Rogers’ death in 1935, the fact is its turmoil is temporary, like the Republicans’ turmoil was in 1930 or 1974.

In short: apples and oranges.

10

I guess I’m trying to figure out why a whole party has to have a single “face.” I mean, december, are you so single-minded that you cannot understand that there are a wide variety of people within a given political party? Just as a single bad action on somebody’s part should not tarnish a whole party (though I know you would like to make it seem that way when it comes to Dems), a single person cannot adequately represent the entire party.

11

In response to his own post, december suggests that

While you qualified that statement as an opinion, I’d love to know if you have any facts to back it up. Do you seriously* think that Clinton is the face of the party? Why?

12

I’m holding out for “Bob”, of the Church of the Sub-Genius.

13

Never happen, RT. Neither Dems nor 'Pubs have enough Slack that Bob would join them.

I would like to see Bob run on his own platform though. I assume it would be some sort of Slackocracy with maybe cookies as a consolation prize for the slackless.

Fenris

14

“Bob” is from the Midwest, according to the SubGenius training video I have. That means he has a home court advantage in anywhere from eight to thirteen states, depending on where you draw the borders of the Midwest.

If “Bob” decided to campaign, he’d sell his message of slack like he sells 'frop to the Eskimos. Every voter he would meet would immediately be sold on his message, and “Bob” is lucky enough that most of the voters he didn’t meet would still cast their votes for him, whether on purpose or by accident.

Remember: it’s okay for bobbies to vote—their chads are just as punched as anyone else’s!

15

And no, I’m not joking.

Jed Bartlett from the West Wing.

16

Try looking more generically. The Republican Party does have a generic face - a rich sixtyish white guy in a suit, yelling “Amen!” The Democrats, though, have a multitude of faces, of both genders, all colors, all ages, all backgrounds, including some rich white guys, too.

I take it, though, that the OP is asking about spokespersons rather than faces, though. That will become clearer as the candidates for the 2004 presidential and other nominations become clearer - the leading candidates tend to be the spokespeople, and by implication the public “faces.” But the identify of the nominees won’t be known for a little over a year, as the strongest candidates and therefore the strongest “messages” come out.

Al Sharpton? Be serious.

17

Yeah, finding one politician who sums up the majority of the Democratic Party is not possible, and hasn’t been for years. Possibly this has been done in the past under the tenures of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, but there really hasn’t been a strong figure who’s come forth and galvanized the Democrats. The faces of Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have never been Democratic rallying points—at least not for very long. Who else? Tip O’Neill? Ted Kennedy? Tom Daschle? None of these have been representative of the whole of the Democrats.

Of course, the Republicans haven’t really had much in the way of “faces,” either. Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich certainly do count, for what that’s worth. The Republicans may currently have a president who’s doing well in the polls, but I’d hardly say Bush is the “face” of the Republican Party. I like Elvis L1ves’ summary better: some faceless, fundy-esque corporateer. The Democrats, who naturally have no face due to an intrinsic, disarrayed “big tent” nature, are the party of everyone who doesn’t jibe with the change-resisting monolith of the Republican Party.

At the very bottom of it, the Democrats are a coalition of numerous parties that couldn’t get anything done if they had to do it on their own. That’s why it’s so damn hard getting a message for them to rally around. The prime mover in the Democratic Party will likely not be its “face,” but we’ll see. When a presidential frontrunner finally emerges, we’ll have an idea who the Democrats will rally around, but that person probably won’t be the Democratic rallying point.
Oh, and if the Republicans’ “face” is George W. Bush, well… they’re in awfully big trouble!

18

They seemed to do alright with that “face” a week ago…

19

I see december is following the “unwritten rule” that criticism of Democrats should always include mention of Republicans who had done something similar. :smiley:

20

I agree with Chaim. Bartlet is the most prominent Democrat around–and more liberal’n most of them, too.