We, the netroots, need to start thinking about a consensus candidate.

[crispini]

95% of DU'ers agree: We don't want Hillary as the nominee. I agree too, but her money and her "star-power" means that she is going to get a LOT of media attention. Right now she is the "juggernaut" and other candidates are "little guys" in comparison. She will be tough to beat. I hope over the next few months our support on the netroots starts to coalesce around a viable alternative grassroots candidate. Otherwise, there will be a fractured, divided field, and Hillary will do very well.

As things shake out, over the next four to six months, we here on DU and elsewhere around the net need to start thinking about who the best alternative candidate to be the frontrunner in Iowa / NH / Nevada / SC will be. And we need to make plans to support that person.

If Al Gore jumps in, that decision will make itself. The Net loves Al (and please, click on my sig if you agree, ha). BUT, if he does not.... then we will be in a LOT better shape if we can agree to back ONE PERSON and put all of our contributing, phonebanking, and activist resources behind that person in Jan/Feb of next year.

Now, this is probably a radical and crazy idea, and I'm not AT ALL saying that we have to do this NOW. What I am saying is that IF the netroots can start to clarify our choices and think about a favorite nominee, and gel around one person by, say, July/August of this year, we will be able to throw ALL of our energy into one campaign, and have a distinct impact on the primaries.

And, gang, we all need to be saving up our pennies and vacation time for a trip to a primary state, 'cause if your primary is late like mine, unless you get your boots on the ground somewhere else, you don't get a vote. But HEY, with Nevada and SC in the mix, at least not ALL the early birds are going to be frozen hells. :D

I call dibs on Vegas. :P

[Horse with no Name]

1. Excellent idea

Of course, I expected nothing less.:hi:

[crispini]

4. haha!

:hi:

[burythehatchet]

2. Democrats + Consensus does not compute

The essence of being a democrat is to disagree.

[crispini]

6. I know Will Rogers said it, but I think it's time to lay that meme to rest.

It ain't good for us, and look on ALL the things we DO agree on. I bet you and I could sit down here today and make a HUGE list of things we agree on: environment, social policies, war, etc. Fact is, that we Democrats just like to talk, and it's more fun to talk about the things you DISAGREE about than the things you AGREE about.


Never doubt that a
small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens
can change the world.
Indeed, it's the only
thing that ever has.

-- Margaret Mead

[Flarney]

3. "Hi" from Columbia, SC

Here I am in the heart of "GOP Country"...just wondering why we have an early (and therefore important, right?) Dem primary in one of the reddest of red states. Anyone know the reasoning behind this?

Thanks!

PS. Al Gore. :-)

[crispini]

5. Welcome to DU!

:hi: And the rationale is easy to explain. In choosing the two new early primaries, the DNC wanted:

1. More geographic diversity - the South.
2. More political diversity - you are probably more moderate Democrats down there.
3. More racial diversity - I see SC is 30% African-American (edit: per Wikipedia, FWIW.)

And, yes, you will have a key role in determining the nominee! Aren't you lucky! Look forward to LOTS of political ads, lots of visitors, lots of media, and lots of important people coming by for rallies! I hope you are hooked up to your local Dem party organization. They'll need the help. Take your vitamins and hang onto your underpants 'cause you're going to have a wild wild ride! :P

Edit again: I love Al too! :D

[Demeter]

7. I Think Our Next President Will Be Nancy Pelosi

and not just because BushCheneyCo is thrown out own its ear before the elections.

She is the highest ranking, most experienced, truly governing Democrat in office today. She will earn the office, even if she doesn't want it.

[PATRICK]

8. Hmmm

Until you got to the word consensus it seemed pretty clear. Hillary does have a natural strength that is hers to lose as far as the primaries are concerned. She does not have the hatred and the big money against her as she would in a national election. The more progressive will indeed split that part of the natural primary base and the activist volunteers and the ability to unite against a frontrunner.

She dreads the frontrunner label, but she has it in many automatic facets, some moreso than past early favorites. Uniting early against her will be impossible, undesirable for the spirit of a primary, and slow as the race becomes more fractious. The sudden onslaught of primary and delegate totals are another automatic factor.

The ironic thing here, in emulating the centrist Dems own moves is that it is also based more on dread than hatred or total disagreement with the frontrunner. A centrist strength in our usually strongly populist primaries where activists mostly vote and campaign, does not mirror the strong negatives that will unite against Hillary once the national campaign begins. She is one of the unhappy few who can blow the race and steal defeat from the jaws of victory. That is also part of her automatic baggage. Many better candidates can split the vote so this consensus strategy is as much based on fear as anything else. It sound very familiar, like the people who lobbied Cuomo not to run and ended up with Dukakis.

Plenty of time if you trust a better candidate with the right amount of success will emerge. Hillary can get slaughtered in the debates. The first Senate campaign debate was against a rude idiot. This time she will be on the defensive or with exceedingly high expectations. I suspect no matter how well she apparently does the air will start going out of the balloon and there is nothing in her talents or stands or record that can stop it. You don't have to join the "hate Hillary" bi-partisan movement to make that assessment. She is dedicated to poor judgment on key issues and ways of governing. I'd much sooner try any progressive candidate at all.

Frontrunners can run rabbit for the pack, stimulating the race, focusing on the kinds of choice, liberating the decisions by their fading. Or they can bring the whole party down. That is because, now as in many past cases, that status is an accident of name recognition, party machinery and some heritage of the past preceding years. If it were a case of a popular giant above all others, such as if often conferred upon a successful first term president, like a FDR(how long ago!) it would not be seen as the danger it is.

To start arguing for Edwards, Obama or Gore, or several others worthy of the office is just going to take the lines we are already painfully familiar with and may create the very havoc one might seek to avoid that would consequentially give Hillary a cakewalk. Also there are candidates jumping in who are no more progressive than Hillary who may be more influential in causing her problems. In the end, this time, except for the very green Obama, I think everyone will be on an even keel. Somehow the seesaw last time when Kerry faded then Dean back to Kerry did not benefit anyone else. This time it will be more of a horse race with most of the field and the workers having more experience the second time around that no one had during the Gore nomination.

However, the burning life or death question is to get rid of the dangerous pResident we have right now.

[crispini]

9. Lots of meat here...

I like your image of the frontrunner as rabbit.

I agree that some of this will happen naturally as the cycle continues.

I disagree that the dislike of Hillary is "based more on dread than hatred or total disagreement with the frontrunner" -- I think that people here really disagree with lots of things about Hillary, her stance on IWR and on NAFTA coming immediately to mind.

And, yes, I agree that the fear of splitting the vote is where I'm coming from here, and it's very easy to imagine happening.

Your last sentence, of course, is a whole 'nother thing. ;)