(This is my first diary, so be gentle-ish... mostly, I want to hear where people disagree with me... agreement is nice, but there are definite holes in my argument, so I'd like to see those... assuming anybody reads this.)
I had a revelation today about the Democratic leadership, especially in the Senate, and how it's holding back the party. I'm a bit iffy on Senator Harry Reid. When he shows up ready to fight, he's fantastic, but a lot of the time, he seems far too comfortable just listening and letting the Republicans get their way. I was thinking about this, when it occurred to me that he had something in common with Daschle: He was from a state where being radical could get you in electoral trouble. Daschle was from South Dakota, as you may recall, and he would sometimes use impressive rhetoric to fight the Republicans, but mostly he just capitulated to them.
Republicans, on the other hand, have their leaders from fairly safe states like Tennessee (Bill Frist) and Mississippi (Trent Lott). Thus, they can say pretty much anything they like, and be the forefront of the party politically, even if not every other Republican Senator is comfortable with the particular policy involved. Republicans lead from the forefront, but Democrats seem to be leading from the middle.
The same is true in the House. Nancy Pelosi, despite being from California, is a pretty solid moderate. She's not going to push for policy debates on universal health care or against a bad bankruptcy bill, because she doesn't feel strongly about these things, and neither do her constituents (at least, they don't appear to be putting her feet to the fire). The Republicans, of course, had Tom Delay and now another pretty far right Republican in Boehner (leaving aside the Speaker, Dennis Hastert, who's mostly just a slug playing follow the leader).
By having a party leader from a safe state, one's party is put in a position to more safely take more risks than a party led by a moderate from a potentially dangerous state who will be more, pardon the wording, conservative about taking risks. There are, of course, disadvantages to having a leader way out there on the policy fringes, but the only real advantage I see to having a fairly moderate leader is that the party, in theory, lessens its chances of being savaged by the press for boneheaded moves (like Frist's decision to push for a federal law affecting exactly one person on the planet, Terri Schiavo).
Right now, when the Democrats are looking to take back the House and potentially the Senate, they need a leader who's out front, though not necessarily incredibly radical, like a Barbara Boxer (CA)... hell Feingold would be great, if only the Senators weren't afraid to follow him. Not that I don't like Harry Reid, I just don't think his leadership style is the kind that will result in a tidal wave for the Democrats to take back Congress and start undoing a lot of the damage the Republicans did.
(Crossposted in slightly edited form at The Sleeper Cell.)