It was mentioned somewhere how Bill Clinton should be considered for chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Not that I get a vote or anything (I'm getting used to this vote-not-counting stuff), but I for one would certainly be all for that.
First off, one would have to wonder if Clinton would even take the job. I'm sure it doesn't pay like the professional speaking circuit does. But he lit the way once -- he served eight years as president, in the middle of what is now looking like 20 years of Republicans in the White House -- so maybe he could do it again. After serving as President, pretty much any job is a demotion, but he might take it, as it currently looks like the next few years of leading the Democratic party could be, um, challenging.
Clinton would offer a couple of obvious benefits as DNC chairman. The chairman of the party is usually not a high-profile position, but having a high-profile person couldn't hurt. Not to criticize current chairman Terry McAuliffe or anything, but he doesn't elicit excitement, even from many staunch Democrats.
Democrats, are, by our nature, rather fickle creatures -- we don't follow anyone's lead very well. But if anyone could unify us and capture our attention, Clinton could do it. His almost-celebrity status would raise the national committee's profile. And he could certainly raise money from the base.
Suggesting Clinton for the chairmanship is not an indictment of McAuliffe. But under his watch (since 2001), we can't pretend like things have gone great. Now, this latest election can't be pinned on the DNC; assuming we actually lost fair and square, the issues defining the 2004 Presidential election go deeper than strategy calls.
The Democratic party may (may) be at a crossroads -- should it move farther left and further define itself as a clearer (it's not already clear?) alternative to the Republican party, or move more towards the center and try to steal some of the Republicans' thunder? I won't go too deeply into those two diverging theories at this time, but Clinton-as-leader would probably lead us closer to the latter strategy, as he campaigned as a Southern "New Democrat," moving slightly to the center on some issues.
Possibly a drawback to Clinton-as-chairman is the possibility that it would better position Hillary for a run for President in 2008 -- something I must say I'm against, like others. But it might be worth taking that risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment