Way to go Democratic Leadership. Not only have you done a disservice to the whole Democratic Party by the sorry excuse of a campaign you ran, you have legitimized Bush’s first term by losing the electoral vote and the popular vote. The members of the Democratic Party demand answers of how we could lose this election when we out spent the Republicans, not to mention amount of dissatisfaction with the way the county was headed and how the Bush was handling Iraq.

WE DEMAND ANSWERS!!

tall2z

1. Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Remember that there are Democrats on all levels of government (muncipality, state, federal). Daschle and Kerry represent (well, used to) the federal gov't as senators. Like any CEO that's not getting it done, I suspect Mr. McAuliffe will be ousted very soon.

2a. No shadow cabinet here, although the President can select whoever he wants from any party to help him out on this team.

3. The primaries are a long, drawn out process by design. Back in the old days the nominee wasn't known until the party's convention, but now he's "selected" well in advance. Therefore, the convention is now relegated to nothing more than a big cheerleader rally.

Dan

> Who leads the DEM party?

I suppose, when the president is DEM, the president leads the party itself. When the president is not, it is probably true that no one leads it, although there may be someone whom is considered to merit its leadership.

> Shadow cabinet

Nothing like that here.

> Kerry and Edwards step aside ASAP so that challenger can create platform...

The primary process will have to take place all over again, with individuals seeking the party's nomination. The platform is created by vote of the delegates to the party's convention prior to the election. It is not by created by the candidate.

> Why did it take so long for Kerry to be nominated as the candidate?

Primary elections take place in each state, and the candidates have delegates pledged to them as a result of those elections. Those delegates then may vote for the candidate at the party's convention. A candidate must receive a certain number of delegates at the convention in order to be nominated. The voting of delegates is not rigidly deterministic, and if no clear nominee emerges upon the first balloting at the convention the delegates may be free to vote for other candidates upon subsequent ballots. At least, that's how I understand it.

Thanks, it sounds complicated.

Someone said on another site that it might be Schwarzenegger Vs Clinton in 2008 if the REPUBLICANS can change the law. I don't see it myself as Schwarzenegger seems quite a "centered" REPUBLICANS but I suppose he has to be in California.

John Kerry lost b/c John Kerry's views are way out of line with mainstream America. He is a weak, wobbly, pro-abortion, moral relativist, internationalist, who has no interest in fighting the war on Islamic terrorism.

Americans, thank God, are smart enough to see through his facade. John Kerry is now merely a footnote in American history. His popularity was restricted to the liberal enclaves on the east and west coasts. The vast majority of America, as last nights results show, eagerly rejected John Kerry.

It is a great day to be an American. And if the rest of the world, namely Europe, is upset, who cares??!! The Europeans have capitulated and surrendered to terrorism. It is a weak and dying continent. They will pay a heavy price for their weakness.

Mr. Brit, Daschle was the Senate minority leader. He leads the committee charimen who submit legislation for votes. He can also use his influence to help other Democrat Senators to form strategies to block discussion or actually voting on legislation. He can't control maverick senators but was generally the "funnel" for his party. Kerry was selected as a candidate by the states local parties in their primary elections. Each state can set their own rules. The reason it took time to nominate Kerry is that if all the states had their primary elections on the same day, they'd be overlooked by the candidates who are running. Personally, as a liberal Ohioan, I favored Kerry's ideas and think he's a bright capable guy. But I have to agree with the reverend, Keey and his like disregard others' views and gut passions. Abortion is one I definetly think Kerry has no clue as to how it's perceived. Liberals long ago were generally those who thought out the best interests for those who couldn't fight, pay, or speak for themelves. They generally had the communal responsibility for virtues of fairness and evenhandedness. Also had the masses provided for in their legislations. As I see it, the unborn child fits into the category liberals would've long ago spoken for. It is wrongly considered as a conservative viewpoint but I can't accept it. The idealism has been abandoned by democrats in general. Most these days vote for the individual but reflect just by who they are wishes on topics of abortion as generally abhorant. I personally can see how "choice" can be viewed as a positive here. But I really can't figure out how others like Kerry can't see those who see it the way I do. As repugnant to the nth degree. He might be dismissing those who share my view but that won't get him over the top.

I'm curious to know what that is exactly... We have people who support democratic views year round-- sending in letters... meeting.. discussing issues and those sorts of things..

The British Shadow Cabinet is made up of opposition(Conservative) Members of Parliment that sit in the House of Commons with the Prime Ministers(Tony Blair) (Labour) Goverment.

There usally a Shadow Secrectary of State for each Secrectary of State (eg Education,Health,Defence...)

This is the current one and they are lead by the conservative Leader Michael Howard

http://www.conservatives.com/people/shadowcabinet.cfm

The Liberal Democrats alsp have one too but the Consevatives currently are considered the Opposition

http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.shadow/section.parliamentary#LDSCM

I don't know, but don't let what happened here happen to you!

Please accept our apologies for some of the responses that you have received. Thank you for your support. In fact, I believe that those responses that address morality and issues that simply do not pertain to government due disrespect for our constitutional guaranteed separation of the church and state, which is being eroded by the present administration. These views are not shared by the majority of enlightened or informed citizens in this country, who are, on balance, respectful of others' views. In fact, it is a fringe who feel this way, but they are a very vocal fringe. They apparently believe that morality and religion trump compassion and a social contract. These are only my opinions, but rest assured, we are not all like this.

I have many questions about our "voting machines," which, being owned, run, and operated by large corporations likely had more of an effect on the outcome than the rejection of Senator Kerry.

Again, I apologize for the mean spirited comments.

Well, as Will Rogers once quipped "I'm a member of no organized political party...I'm a Democrat". People who are incapable of following a leader gravitate to the Democratic Party. Those who want a fuhrer gravitate to the Republicans. The party DOES NOT elect its leader. It should but it doesn't. In Congress the leaders are elected in caucus. But outside, there are only titular leaders. I'd say the Party Chairman is nothing but an administrator. He may speak for the National Committee, but he does not speak for the politicians.

The fact was the country was founded by people who hated parties. So that's why we have back-door parties.

Ok. I think I'm understanding this but ok who decides democrat policy between now and the election ... the chairman?

In England most votes in the House of Commons the party MP's are told to vote a certain way by their leaders (some rebel) does this happen in the US or are your guys allowed a free vote based on their opinion.

Lived in England for 8 years, watched Tories run your country, No one in America questioned your Lords, MP, shadow cabinet. I understand being informed, but how could you want Kerry so much if you dont understand the political system, and how things go on in DC or america? I watched the BBC, and saw how they reported the news...slewed...Ive read the Guardian on the Northern line from Camden. tell me about Blair? why dont you throw that puppet out??

I see no one has asnwered your qeustion very well so let me try. I studied both the British Parliamentary system and the US Congressional System.

Your first question about who is in charge of the Democratic party: In the US the head of the party is not as important as in England, because the head of the party is not necessarily the President. In England, the head of the majority party becomes Prime Minister. Since we do not have a Parliamentary system, the President (similar to Prime Minister but not the same) is separately elected and sits only as chief of the executive branch, not legislative. Therefore leadership in the party has less political meaning than in England and the leader or leaders do not necessarily set 'policy' for the government. The leaders of the House and Senate Democrats have significant power over the legislation that the Democrats introduce and support but not final say. Anyone can introduce legislation that sits in either house.

Second question: No there is no shadow cabinet. The 'loyal' opposition is the party with fewer seats in Congress and those with the majority of seats are supposed to converse and at least allow some input into the debates and legislative process. However, since 1996 when the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and later the Senate, they have shown no willingness to compromise or allow open discussion and debate within Congress. Isntead they have broken with long-standing US tradition and bullied the Democtrats into accepting an extreme agenda lead by Christian fundamentalists and neo-conservative arch right wingers.

Second question Part b:
In America the losers lose it all. Kerry has no further say in the government except as a Senator with the privelges a Senator has. However, he is perceived now as a 'loser' and someone else will be running against the next Republican in 2008. He may have ended his entire career by 'losing' the election but some 'losers' have stayed around for quite awhile afterwards and still accomplished great things. There is no need to select a 'leader' of the Democratic party until the next election is near, therefore he does not even need to step aside and allow others to build a policy platform. Policy platforms have less relevance here than in Britain even though each party has values and ideals for which they stand.

Question 3: We do not get around to selecting the next Presidential candidate until several months before the election and after a lot of serious campaigning goes on before the primary elections. The primary elections are when each party selects its candidate. If we started this now, it would mean four years of campaigning. As it is, the parties have determined that only about a year of campaigning is needed to get their message out in time to gain enough support for their canfdidate. Also, there is a lot of time between now and then during which likely candidates will 'emerge' as good contestants. Ideally the Dems select the one that is most likely to beat the Repubslican candidate. This cannot be determined at such an early stage with so much time before the next Presidential election.

I hope this helps and please ignore the ignoramus' above who felt you were impolite by asking good questions. They have no idea what the answers are and instead cover that up with insults. The right wingers are in a drunken haze of glory right now and feel it their responsibilty to denigrate anyone who shold even be curious and ask. I admire that you have taken the time and interest. You can be certain those who were impolite have absolutely no idea how the British system works and they are not interested in learning since they believe they know it all already. Its hard to teach someone something that already knows it all.

Jeff

The president, as jeff1252 observed, is the leader of the executive branch. His power is the most concentrated in any of the three branches of the American government. It is his responsibility, and his alone, to decide foreign policy. Interestingly, while he selects his own cabinet, his power is checked by the Senate, who must approve his nominees to his cabinet and may reject controversial nominees just as they may reject his controversial nominees to the judicial branch.

The legislative branch, if bound and determined to do so, can override the president's veto of legislation provided there is a two-thirds majority in both houses. A veto override allows legislation supported by tremendous congressional will to become law even over the President's opposition.

Until an individual comes to occupy the presidency, the cabinet has no meaning. The identity of who will be appointed to the cabinet in a new presidency is the subject of much speculation.

Thanks Jeff your comments are very helpful.

I apologise to anyone who's offended by my stated support for Senator Kerry. I'm not American but I feel America is the most powerful force on the planet, so who runs the place concerns me alittle.

The last post has me stumped as to the point it was getting at. Sorry.

Thanks
The Blair visit seems ... intresting from over here.

Do you think Bush will pander to his right wing supporters in the next term even though he doesn't need to push for re-election?

Blair seems to be pushing the idea of a more moderate Bush.

Is this just spin for Blair third term campain?

John KerrY, weak and wobbly? Who are you trying to kid?? The only reason people voted for Bush was because there are some arrogant rednecks in this country who don't know even half the truth behind the war on terrorism and try to make their own assumptions about it. Bush is a lying bastard who has turned our country, our America, the US of A, into a country who goes to war with the wrong country for the wrong reasons. And as far as "eagerly rejected Kerry", if you actually watched the election news, you would have known that kerry lost by 3%.

Giarc-
Not only the Democrats but the rest of the world was praying that John Kerry was elected, no one can stand George W. Bush, aka President Moron. We are as disgusted with him as the rest of the world. I hope that we can make it these next four years.

"The only thing necessary for the perpetuation if evil is for good people to do nothing."  ~Jane Elliott

Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair...

Love you Brits...love London ....and thanks for the your compassion!

Although your Brit PM needs to get away from the 'Shrub'...he's bad news.