bobbieinok
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-05 11:59 PM
Original message |
| party historians: has there ever been such an ongoing, public discussion |
|
about choosing the DNC chair????......with meetings around the country??....and input from the grassroots??
isn't it usually that the nominal head of the party picks the DNC chair????.....didn't Clinton/Gore pick McCauliffe?????
|
| kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-29-05 12:05 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. I can never remember this much controversy.... |
|
Does that mean our Party is very divided?
|
| BrklynLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-29-05 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 2. Perhaps it means people are interested..... We are not going to let |
|
the insiders run the party without our input.
Thanks to Howard Dean we have gotten used to having our voices heard.
|
| nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-29-05 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 3. No it means the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party |
|
is taking over... and telling the DLC were to stuff it...
|
| Lone_Wolf_Moderate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-29-05 01:02 AM
Response to Original message |
| 4. Yeah, but who's the nominal head of the Party right now? |
|
Should Kerry pick? Or the Clintons? We sure as Hell don't want McAuliffe picking.
|
| Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-29-05 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
I think it means it's unclear who the head of the party is. Usually these things are handled behind the scenes with a few guys picking someone.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 09:08 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
