The Democratic Party continually insist on weak, meek non-leadership and thus David Gregory on Meet the Press had a good old lynching party with the aging majority leader last Sunday.
If the Democratic Party truly wants to accomplish ANY of Obama's campaign goals and policies, than the Democratic Party needs to elect a stronger leader than Harry Reid. The Dems need to pick a majority leader who has better communcations skills, who is more outspoken with a more determined type of character, like Chris Dodd for instance. Harry Reid only knows how to stammer about and defer to the will of Republicans time and again, even when his own party is in control of the Senate. Reid has been utterly incapable of demonstrating any substantial backbone, which will be absolutely necessary to accomplish any of Obama’s new policies in the short window of opportunity that Obama might get at the beginning of his new term in office.
Harry Reid certainly knows how to turn tail and run everytime the going gets tough. So frankly, Obama is going to be an ineffectual 44th President if the Democrats fail to find some way to ask Reid to step aside. Senator Reid has far too many limitions as his Meet the Press appearance so clearly demonstrated. Reid weakness is going to cost Barack Obama his ability to get things done and thus Obama's legacy might well end in just four short years. I don't know why Dems love weak leaders, who consistently demostrate poor commucations skills and genuine lack of backbone as both Harry Reid and Tom Daschle have flagrantly exhibited during their terms as majority leaders. Such cowardice has truly cost the Party some sever losses in the past, not only for themselves but for the people of this nation as well.
This from the WaPo.
"Oh, great question," Reid said with relief, his voice hoarse and face flushed, presumably from the fever he'd been running all week.
This was supposed to be a year of triumphs for Reid. Bolstered by the addition of at least seven Democrats to his caucus and an incoming Democratic president, Reid enjoys a stronger hand than any Senate leader in almost 30 years.
Yes, Reid enjoys a stronger hand than any Senate leader in almost 30 years, but even with that all power, Reid will never be up to task at hand. If the Obama Administration insist on standing on principle, and that, for whatever reason, the Dems simply can't bring themselves to replace Sen. Harry Reid, nothing worthwhile will ever be accomplished during Obama's entire time in office. The nation may want change but Harry Reid is always going to be too timid and lethargic to push for that change, as Reid has NEVER stood his ground since becoming majority leader, so this isn't something that Reid is going to start doing now, either. One of the Democrats biggest problems right now is a real and desperate need for strong communcation skills and finding someone with the determination to get things done.
I have wonder why Obama wanted Howard Dean to leave the DNC (strong leadership) but still want Harry Reid around (weak leadership). Is it because Obama is all talk and no do and intends to be NO DO during his entire time in office? Why did Obama get rid of Howard Dean and yet show no interested in finding decent leadership for the US Senate before his term? This truly begs the question of if Obama's "change" is nothing more than a spin doctored meme designed to buy votes and nothing else? So far Barack seems like he is only interested in as big a fig leaf to the public as the Bush Administration used with all the hyped up talkd of WMD, mushroom clouds and aluminum tubes to promote a lied about war in Iraq.