In a mostly mindless piece over Democratic strategy for 2012, this stuck out:
Sen. Mark Begich, the junior Alaska Democrat who was given a leadership spot this Congress, said there has been a “lot more communication” between the West Wing and Capitol Hill in the new year.
Honest question: Why do Democrats insist on giving leadership positions to people who are the least well placed to defend core Democratic priorities? In the last Congress, for example, five of the Senate Democratic leadership positions were held by Democrats from red states. Likewise, Alaska is a reliably conservative state, and has supported Republican presidential candidates in each of the last 10 elections. Indeed, in its 52 years as a state, Alaska has voted only once for a Democratic presidential candidate: Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
Yes, it's true that the Democratic Party has a larger proportion of moderates than liberals, and they deserve representation in the party leadership. And, it's true that the party wants to promote its younger members. Still, it seems strange that Democrats -- even moderate ones -- would want to place more vulnerable colleagues into leadership positions. That said, I could be missing something here.
-- Jamelle Bouie
