Five Rebuttals vs One Rebuttal

[Stinky The Clown]

So the official Democratic Party rebutter, Joe Kennedy III, got the spotlight and has been the one discussed by the media.

That's a good thing.

Four others decided they had to say something, too. Personally, I think they were unnecessary **at this time**. I would be ABSOLUTELY opposed to any of them speaking while the official rebutter was speaking. But they spoke.

Today, the chatter is that Democrats are searching for a message and a spokesman. Yada Yada Yada. Media Doing What Media Gotta Do.

My question to the DU cognoscenti, however, is more pointed. Was it a good idea for all these people to speak? This is not about stifling. Each one of them was perfectly free to do as they chose. But was it a good idea given the fact that we are completely out of power, we are watching what could well be the start of a giant blue wave, and early indications point to us taking the House and maybe even the Senate.

Do we need one leader now, or is that just for presidential politics? Might we be better off, in fact, without one clear leader? A part of me says now is the time for new cream to rise to the top. Another part of me says we need seasoned leaders to guide us forward.

I guess, on balance, I see us better without one clear leader. I think the real "leader" is the collective national energy behind any blue wave that rises.

Anyway . . . . your thoughts?

[ismnotwasm]

1. I think Democrats presenting from different viewpoints is good

The Democratic Party leads the way to diversity, and so, needs to show that it’s open to Democrats from different backgrounds and ethnicities, rather than show a fractured Democratic message, I love the fact we have this, I think it is unifying. I also think it’s healthy for the Democratic Party.

[loyalsister]

2. maybe there is too much for one person to cover?

I see it like Congressional debate when different members of Congress address the different elements of a bill. Having a lot of Democrats in the news is a good thing.