George,

I would like to respond to Ben Thacker-Gwaltney's call for a discussion about statewide Democratic prospects. First, I think we should develop a Democratic candidate training program, such as the Mel Carnahan Institute in Missouri, which offered training last year. It focused on two different groups, the activists and the candidates, and brought in both local, state and national level Democrats to meet with the potential candidates and campaign managers. A Democratic training program could complement training with the Sorensen Institute by allowing more intense discussions of Democratic goals.

Second, the state party should be encouraged to communicate with local parties more frequently. The state party was a brief presence during the Mark Warner and Creigh Deeds campaigns, but my impression is that the state party isn't communicating to the local party chairs too often. It would be helpful to receive more information from them, along the lines of Mitch Van Yahres' emails, which were really valuable to receive this session. I haven't checked the state website for a while, but it wasn't too exciting when I did.

Part of the problem is a lack of inexpensive state-wide events for people to attend and for the party to publicize. I attended the 5th District Convention (which revealed many areas for statewide improvement) but some of the $100 plus dinners didn't make it to my priority list. Meanwhile, if we wanted to be making inroads in rural counties we should be meeting at free community events -- fairs, skeet shoots, openings -- since going door-to-door in those areas is more problematic.

Most important, we need to respect the people running for office. The 25th District candidates were all wonderful candidates. Yet for a state office there is the belief that if someone loses they are less viable next time, so people can be discouraged from risking a run. This isn't good for us -- I believe they should be applauded for running and that we should see those losses as preparation for another time. It's not easy getting out there. Why should their own party be picking them apart before investing in the time and discussion necessary to improve their chances? We need to ask the candidates themselves what their suggestions are, and they need to be able to ask for honest assessments. When I've become alienated from a candidate it hasn't been because they entered the race.

Campaign finance reform is crucial. If the price tags were lower, maybe the state party would take more risks. John Warner and Virgil Goode are going unopposed. To me, the public at least deserves another name on the ballot. To others, another name is a waste of time without being a serious contender with money. But isn't getting the message out to the general public sometimes almost as valuable as winning? And we aren't getting it out, on Enron, on drilling issues, on the social impacts of current decisions.

JOB OPPORTUNITY: What's so good about Goode? He's done more flip-floppin' than a trout in a rowboat. Let's use our right to hunt and fish and lift him straight out of the Washington pond. Vote (your name) this November.

Alexandria Searls (electronic mail, March 14, 2002)

Editor's Note: In January of 2001, Bill Wood, the director of the Thomas C. Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia, also spoke of The Future of the Democratic Party in Virginia.

If anyone wishes to begin a write-in campaign for the 5th District, now that it looks as if Virgil is turning Republican, I would be happy to assist with it on my web site. Some have imagined that Virgil Goode is stranger than fiction, in case anyone wants to put forward a fictional character to write-in;)