The backstabbing is one of the reasons that I prefer Dean over Rosenberg. I'll be ecstatic with either choice, but either candidate is going to run into this when they try to implement their reforms and it seems to me that the chairman will need to have as clear a mandate as possible for those reforms. Dean's chairmanship would send this message as clearly as possible. Rosenberg feels to me, fairly or not, like a compromise to those who would stand in the way of them and muddles the message of reform. But, like I said, Rosenberg is a close second to Dean for me and I would be completely happy to see Rosenberg as chair and Dean running again in '08.

The ability of this site to have discussions of this caliber is why I consider it one of the best sites around.

As for Dean or Rosenberg: I have confidence that Dean will fight for what he believes. I have no idea what Rosenberg would do and do not get much of an impression about him from anyone - other than that they don't mind him as an alternative to Dean. That doesn't seem like much of a recommendation to me.

Gail,
Rosenberg has a reputation as a tough customer and he has been working with Kos on much of the "reform" agenda that we've been talking about. He used to be a member of the DLC (ewww...), but he split off from them a while ago for, from what I understand, were the same problems that Deaniacs have with them. He also endorsed Dean early on in the campaign. I'm a big time Deaniac and I'd enthusiastically endorse Rosenberg if Dean weren't in the running.

I think what a lot of people forget about Simon is that he had a falling out with the DLC over Dean in 2003. The DLC types feel he sold out to be a player and if anything, they would like him as chairman about as much as Dean. This is why I am supporting Fowler: he carries none of the baggage of Dean or Rosenberg, and all the reform stuff the bloggers want.

Donnie's only problem is that his finance chair is being investigated by the Bush [in]Justice Department for in-kind contributions to Hillary's 2000 senate campaign. Maybe this will make him tighter with the Clintons though, and cause those Clintonistas to come to his aide. I see Fowler as a consensus reformist candidate who would not piss off any part of the party unnecessarily (other than the consultant class, but it is pretty necessary to piss them off).

Dean's a better choice than Rosenburg then, because Dean has a big powerbase outside the party establishment....and Rosenburg does not.

DaveB,
Personally I want to repudiate the DLC. They've been sandbagging anyone who didn't tow their line for a while now and it needs to stop. If we want reforms enacted, the chair needs to have a clear mandate that the party wants them. A consensus candidate just muddies the water.

Since November 2nd, the snakes have been on their best behavior for the most part.

Not so sure about that. They are desperately seeking an alternative to Dean. There is a report that Clinton even felt out Wes Clark for the job. It is a safe bet that whoever emerges as the consensus anti-Dean candidate will be beholden to the "snakes" because they cannot get the job without their support.

These "snakes" have been around for decades and have been far more successful at undermining and discrediting progressive and liberal policies than taking on the right which they mostly decline to do. We might have been better off to tell them to "piss off" decades ago as I can't see how our cooperation with them has done us any good.

Right now it's almost impossible to know who to trust among the elected DEM officeholders and high level voices in the Party. Almost all of them are clearly more interested in self promotion more than the promotion of Democratic Party principles. Dean's behavior in the past two years seems to put him on the other side of the equation, and right now that is better than the alternatives who are either known "snakes" or too unknown, too untested that the question can be answered. Better to go with the known than the unknown.

Yuval, your last sentence is the key. Dems could bring J.F. Kennedy back from the grave as Chair and the Insiders would be backstabbing to keep their power. If "their" power is all that matters, then the Dems will go nowhere. How many years of being out hustled by the GOP should we endure before we take a bold step ?

Dems could bring J.F. Kennedy back from the grave as Chair and the Insiders would be backstabbing to keep their power.

If the Dems brought JFK back I'm sure they would be backstabbing him. He'd probably be a Republican.

Where does Rosenberg stand on such issues as even handedness in the middle east, etc.?

If the Dems brought JFK back I'm sure they would be backstabbing him. He'd probably be a Republican.

Sorry, but no. I really doubt that JFK would have anything to do with the right wing, christian conservative/corporate conservative kabal that is the modern republican party. Do our trolls even watch the news any more? I don't think your party is who you think they are, my friend.

Yuval, I think your argument is flawed. The fundamental question is "Why are these folks opposed to Dean?"

The answer, I believe, is that Dean is a reform Democrat. If their opposition were merely to Dean as an individual, they would have collectively gotten behind Rosenberg or Fowler. Instead, they've been trotting out a succession of their own approved alternatives.

My concern with Rosenberg is that he is still very much a "big money" Dem. His fundraising prowess is not grassroots-based, but deep-pocket-based. The only way to move away from a corporatist Democratic agenda is to put grassroots funding on at least an even footing with the big money crowd.

As an insider, I can tell you that many of the inside-the-Beltway Democrats absolutely loathed Dean (with uncharacteristic passion) from very early on.

They hated him because he was a threat. That's why Dean is the best choice. Those losers need a good spanking.

I have no firm opinion but feel Dean has name recognition (for independents, greens, average american)...over Rosenberg. I prefer Dean at this time just for many of the same reasons others have posted and feel the benefits noted outweigh the negatives that have been raised. Just My 2 cents fwiw...which is not much!

Well, my observation is 99% want Dean. Marie, I agree with you that our cooperation with the snakes has done little for the Party. Look, here we go again. Let's not do this or that because we might piss someone off. I am at the point that I do not care who I piss off (including friends). If many of the inside-beltway loath Dean because he is a threat, that should tell you everything you need to know.

One very important question: Can Dean replicate his fund-raising success if voters know that Bush is a lame duck? Maybe. Maybe not.

It's important to realize, though, that Dean's success was a hybrid of people fed up with Dem insiders and people who would donate every spare dime to be rid of Bush.

If, say, McCain is the alternative next time around, doesn't it seem like Dean's magical appeal to the rank-n-file will be significantly diminished? And if so, does he start to look less attractive as Chairman?

Matt Davis,

A couple salient points that might answer your question.

1. Dean formed Democracy for America in March 2004. In the succeeding months, DFA raised something like $5 million for Dean Dozen candidates, along with the direct donations of DFA members.

2. There are more members of Democracy for America right now than there were in Dean for America at its high point.

We haven't gone away. We're not just "Anybody But Bush". We're reform Democrats, Independents, and others who see the need to fight the Republican machine and save American democracy.

Local (Santa Monica, CA) note on DFA.

At the second meetup after the election about fifty people showed up at the DFA meetup. More than half had never been to a meetup before.

From the DFA blog:

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

"As we prepare for the next election, I think it is vitally important that the Democratic Party choose a leader who is able to do several things well:

— The DNC Chair must be a proven fundraiser.

— The DNC Chair must be an inspirational leader who will rally our base of supporters.

— The DNC Chair must be an articulate spokesperson for our party and ready to fight for our Democratic ideals.

— The DNC chair must have expertise in managing a large and complex organization.

— The DNC chair must have vision and the ability to utilize new techniques and methods so that we can win both the House and Senate majority less than two years from now.

Howard fits the bill."

Who else fits this description? No-one!

I am pro-Dean. I do not view my pro-Dean stance as being equivalent to anti-Rosenberg.

Anti-Roemer? Absolutely.

If, as Marie suggested, a Clark chairmanship is a possibility, I oppose that strongly, too.

But let's not let our preferences for a particular guy blind us to the possibilities that other good candidates might possess.

There is no silver bullet--be it a policy or a personality--that will bring us out of the Wilderness. I think Dean and Rosenberg show promise, and we should be willing to gather behind anyone who shows the signs that they recognize, like Dean and Rosenberg, that they "get it."

Now is not the time for us to be insisting that those who are unwilling to move left leave the Party.

From the DFA blog:

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

"As we prepare for the next election, I think it is vitally important that the Democratic Party choose a leader who is able to do several things well:

— The DNC Chair must be a proven fundraiser.

— The DNC Chair must be an inspirational leader who will rally our base of supporters.

— The DNC Chair must be an articulate spokesperson for our party and ready to fight for our Democratic ideals.

— The DNC chair must have expertise in managing a large and complex organization.

— The DNC chair must have vision and the ability to utilize new techniques and methods so that we can win both the House and Senate majority less than two years from now.

Howard fits the bill."

Who else fits this description?

This is EXACTLY why I support DEAN.

It's the argument that is undermining the whole party -- the idea that if an idea or person will be attacked, we should dump the idea or person, rather than stand up to the attack.

Uh, don't get me wrong, but isn't that the same as capitulation to the opposition? Really -- if all I have to do to defeat you, your ideas or your candidates is to attack them, woopie! Field day! "I" win!!

No, I'd rather have the BEST candidates and ideas we can put forth, and then face up to these Rovian tactics.

Let the slither reveal the 'snakes' and then let's dump THEM!

-- and yes, I understand the impulse to be responsible about it, that instead of dumping them maybe we should find a way to change their minds, or otherwise keep them in the fold.

But I'm not sure that we can afford to keep folks who are working against us.

Anyone still want Z Miller, for instance? I'd be very happy to dun him out of the party.

I love Dean and I believe he loves me but I'm not sure. He hasn't called lately so maybe I bummed him out over some small detail like: the wife has to go!

Let's talk about something cheerful like Prince Harry's latest fuck-up so we can all feel better that we're not Brits. His Nazi costume caper is a comfort--to know that UK have their own embarrassment. Harry is their Bush. Of course, all the royal family adore our man in the OVAL OFFICE.. The Nazi presence in the family trees of both--ah, and the inbred extreme stupidity and arrogance of both dynasties.

Howie won't make DNC chairman because his wife is Jewish. Get it? Hey, we have a political system that CAN'T WAIT UNTIL ARNIE OF CALIFORNIA becomes President, like in 2008. To hell with Jeb, the Neos want our Austrian superman, staaaarrrpower!

Hitler's 1000 year Reich keeps rolling along!

Yuval Rubinstein wrote:

"...telling the status quo elements within the party to piss off is a dangerous gambit, given the precarious political position we find ourselves in."

Laurence J. Peter, who originated the Peter Principle, is known to have said, "Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status."1

I say: piss off status quo elements within the party.

"...however much disgust we may feel towards the status quo Democrats, certain elements are both able and willing to stab us in the back for their own selfish ends, which is something to keep in mind no matter who becomes DNC chair."

You know, I live in Chicago. My precinct guy came to my house twice even though I was already registered. He greeted me by name at the polling place. He sent me a doggone Christmas card. If there were organizations like that in all fifty states, we could tell the inside-the-beltway-hissy-fitters to lick some envelopes or do something useful for a change.

We either do as Kennedy suggested today and return to our progressive roots, or we perish.

Part of the debate over this is what do we mean by reforming the Democratic Party with the DNC chair.

If we're talking about finding donors, I think most of these people mentioned thus far will bring in money. Any one of them, really.

If by reform we mean institutional changes that bring in more grassroots organizing now that old sources of organizing, such as the unions, are shrinking in number, then Rosenberg and Dean would both make fine choices.

However, if we are only talking about finding money and changing the ways in which we organize, then all we are talking about really is the party machinery. We're talking about institutional issues, not political issues. We're pretending there is nothing inherently wrong with the party's message, which to the Republicans and America seems to be, at best, me too! Me too! Not a winning message, as we've seen over the last two presidential elections and the last three mid-terms.

There is another component that could be considered reform. That is sending the message out that we are now the opposition party, that the Republicans have taken things WAY too far right, gone right off the reservation of common sense really. If all we're talking about is money and organizing, we're not addressing what's really wrong, which is a lack of really standing up to fight for our ideals in the American political arena. The DNC chair can be about sending the Republicans a message, as well as organization and money.

Roemer? Message: More of the same, with money.

Rosenberg? Message: New ways to organize, with money.

Dean? New ways to organize, with money. And, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore! (With apologies to the fine film, "Network.")

Dean's message is a threat to those who don't want such a message, to those in office in some places that could conceivably lose their seats with such a bold message. I believe we're going to lose those seats anyway, eventually, with our current message of appeasement and compromise. Why vote for a Dem if all he or she is saying is they are on board with the president? I believe that what made the presidential race close this year was Dean, who drove the debate far to the "left," really just back to common sense. He made the Dems take an alternative stance. It helped us. Dean's bold message, I believe, may cost us some seats in a few places, but it also will gain us more seats elsewhere.

If you think we can reform without dealing with our lack of a message, then by all means, work to make certain Dean doesn't get selected as DNC chair.

Right now, we've got next to nothing. No control over Congress, the federal judiciary nor the White House. I fail to see how Dean could do any worse. There's nowhere to go but up with Dean.

Yuval Rubinstein has the least helpful way of anybody around the liberal blogs -- at least that I've seen. Calling Dean a snake and then-- given a softer explanation of what's really a slander. .... I'm not big Dean fan though I did vote for him. I just don't find Rubinstein's tatics cute or clever.

Yuval Rubinstein has the least helpful way of framing issues anybody around the liberal blogs that I've seen. Calling Dean a snake and then-- given a softening explanation of what's really a slander.... I just don't find Rubinstein's tactics cute or clever. IT's the kind of thing I really don't think we should be doing. I'm not big Dean fan though I did vote for him. But he stood up and he talked straighter and plainer than anyone else running. Is Dean the best guy for the post? This is a fight that has more symbolic than practical effect. What the Democratic party leadership has to understand is that the Democratic Party now contains a mass movement and that really changes what Democratic party is. It's going to be hard for anyone in the leadership position to understand because the full implications of it are implicate, not yet expressed. The the desire for real participation in the party is likely to keep expanding. A not great choice for DNC head is not going to really is not really going to amount to much.

Arguing about who should be the next DNC chair is good for the Democratic Party. (Excluding personal attacks and snark.) When we talk about our choices for DNC chair we are talking about what we want our party to be.

From all the discussions, articles and op-eds I've read, the consensus emerging is running counter to the immediate, post-election "we need to move to the right" reactions. This consensus is less about policies than about politics, though there is movement to be more assertive about the party's essential progressive nature.

After going back and forth in the idea, I like Dean for DNC for one reason. We need to send a message to the country, to the party and to the Democratic Dissaffected that we are not going to continue to roll over.

Normally, the DNC chair is an uber-hack with connections to money and machines. But 2004 is not normal. We are totally out of power at the national level. We have no way to send a message of vitality and aggressive opposition not to the Republicans (they don't care) but to our own people. We need to rally.

The Beltway Democrats don't seem to get this. Maybe it's not in the nature of successful career legislators. Maybe they are too comfortable in their sinecures. I really don't know the reason, but we shouldn't put our hopes on the people who sat on their hands while the Radicals demonized Hillary Clinton, eviscerated Bill Clinton, stole the election from Al Gore and smeared John Kerry.

The latest from Harry Reid is an illustration. He and James Roosevelt, Jr., are "calling on the group Progress for America, Inc., to cease running its latest television ad."

What the hell is wrong with Reid?

Why is he even talking to Progress for America? What good does he think will come of it?

Here's a suggestion: Run your own ads Harry! Set up Save Social Security for America. Tell the people that Bush and Progress for America are lying about social security. Put the real numbers in the ad. Tell them that the Democratic Party is going to make sure that the Republicans don't touch social security, that if they do, you are going to throw them out of office.

Get up and throw a punch!

But no, that's not going to happen.

We need Dean. And the fact that he pisses off the Democratic Deadwood is only going to make him and what he says more popular all over the country.

Mr. Sedona, you have misread Yuval. He does not think Dean is one of the snakes. He just thinks that Dean might give the snakes an excuse to continue being snakes.

Unfortunately, I think the Insider is right. You can't compromise with the snakes. You just have to beat them. We can't compromise with the Republican party right now and you can't compromise with the equally corporate democratic insiders.

I think Rosenberg is great wouldn't be upset. But it would be better just to get rid of the snakes.

That someone of Howard Dean's stature would take this job or sees this job as important is enough in itself. Howard Dean strikes me as the opposite of John Kerry. For Kerry it was always about himself. He couldn't help it. For Dean, it was always about fixing things that are broken. Must be the doctor in him.
I supported him, but campaigned in Iowa for Edwards. Southern dialects are good. That's why Fowler works on many levels. Can't we have both? North and South. Throw in Wellington for the West?

MontanaMaven wrote That someone of Howard Dean's stature would take this job or sees this job as important is enough in itself. Howard Dean strikes me as the opposite of John Kerry. For Kerry it was always about himself. He couldn't help it. For Dean, it was always about fixing things that are broken. Must be the doctor in him.
Yes, Howard Dean is for America, not for himself. That is the part I most admire about Dean and that is the source of his charisma.

The 2004 Dem Prez nominee race was a ego trip for all but Dean, who first entered to bring the issue of healthcare to the forefront of the nation. Originally, Dean didn't think he'd have a chance at the nomination, but his bold moves of opposing the Iraq War and chastising the Bush-lite Dems helped change Dean's fortunes from obscure Gov of a small New England state to a national hero for many.

Right now, the Dems don't have a central leader, who inspires them, so this DNC Chair race has become more important because the DNC Chair, given the right person, can be the spokesperson for all Democrats. Of all the candidates, only Dean has the charisma to rally rank-and-file Dems to help fight for core Dem issues. None of the other candidates can or will be able to inspire rank-and-file Dems to fight the Republicans for core Dem and American principles.