I'll tell you what I'm worried about in the 08 election cycle.

[Skidmore]

The Dems have a ton of sitting Senators with their names in the race. Pelosi seems to be committed to getting some real legislation cranked out to pass on to the Senate. Now, how many of these senators will be willing to take significant stands if they are watching poll numbers for primaries. I'd just as soon not have so many sitting legislators scrambling to be the presidential candidate. We have two years in which to try to get a working Democratic agenda before the American people and in the long run I fear that the opportunity to do this will get thrown under the bus as these people seek to undermine each other for ascendancy.

I think this is something that needs to be discussed.

[blm]

1. For example, look at the last 2 years. No to DSM inquiry, wouldn't lead Alito filibuster

even when Kennedy pleaded with them to lead, wouldn't fight Rice confirmation, wouldn't vote for a solid withdrawal plan last June.

[Skidmore]

Exactly, and exactly what kind of time can you put in

on voting when you are campaigning. I'm remembering a couple of crucial votes that could have had different outcomes if legislators had been present for the votes and not campaigning.

[blm]

4. Actuallly, that doesn't occur unless by scheduling trickery. Daschle would call

any candidate to get back for a vote if their vote would matter to an issue. If there was anything like a crucial vote, no way would a Senate leader not give the candidates a heads up.

Remember when Kerry did one of the Dem debates by remote because he had to get back to DC for a vote? THAT is how the GOP senate effed with him at the time.

[bryant69]

2. All Governers then?

I don't know that there's much we can do about that though, although I think a case can be made for an amendment denying senators or repressentative the right to run for President - seperation of powers and all that.

I'm in favor of throwing out our electoral system in favor of a pie eating contest - blueberry pies. Only downside to it is that it seems like Rush Limbaugh would have a good chance of winning.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BlueJac]

3. That is a problem.....

I think it will toughest for Hillary, she hates to stick her neck out on anything.

[elocs]

5. Not just Hillary, it's typical of politicians who do not have the courage

of their convictions. That is if they have any convictions other than getting elected or reelected. How many members of the Congress had their fingers to the wind before the start of the Iraq debacle? They figured at that time it would be politically expedient to be for the war, but now that public opinion has turned the other way, so do they. Having the courage to vote for what you know is right is the thing to do whether or not you are up for reelection.

[Connonym]

6. Excellent point

As much as we need the White House in 2008, the Democratics can't waste the next 2 years fence sitting and making nice. It's why I'd REALLY, REALLY like to see one single front-running Democratic candidate asap so that we don't have them all taking pot shots at one another. I think it would not only be good from the standpoint of reducing same-sided negative campaigning but also the sooner we have a candidate the sooner we can get name recognition pounded into the heads of independent voters. We, as a party, need to start acting like a cohesive machine or the rebublikkaners will bury us.

[TayTay]

8. That short-circuits democracy itself

in favor of a process that benefits politicians.

It is not better for the country to have one front-runner months and months ahead of any actual votes. This is bad for the very foundations of democracy in this country which relies on open-debate and on an education process that involves candidates talking to voters about a range of issues and a range of opinions on those issues.

We are too close now to a system that fosters pre-chewed choices on the voters. We need more raucous, noisy, messy, no-hold-barred debate, not less. This is what will benefit the nation, not just a single politician who finds public debate inconvenient and too noisy.

[Connonym]

9. I hadn't thought of it that way

I know I've often complained that by the time of the WI primary my choices have already been narrowed. To be honest, I guess I'm feeling panic at the thought of losing again and resigned that ANY Democratic candidate is better than a Republican. That really is throwing in the towel on the whole process isn't it?

To me, this is DU at it's best -- exchanging ideas and getting a perspective on my point of view that makes me question my opinions.

ETA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3171510&mesg_id=3171510 this post really sums up what I was feeling

[Skidmore]

10. I'm not concerned with the question of allowing the greatest number

of voices possible nor am I suggesting that democracy be circumvented for political purposes. I am suggesting that there is a flip side to this that may erode the policy efforts over the next couple of years and weaken the party overall.

[Rosemary2205]

7. Well if nothing else it give's Fux something to bitch about.

All the DEMOCRAT senators "refusing" to resign from the senate and never showing up for work so they can campaign. -- They certainly did it to John Kerry and it's going to be even worse this time.