Howard Dean New DNC Chairman?

[adios]

From what I can gather Dean's going to get the nod. Saw a piece where Dean stated that the Democrats needed to learn a lesson from Newt as they need to differentiate themselves over the major issues from the Republicans. Newt's strategy pre 1994 was intended to attract more coservative independents and Democrats to the Republican point of view. From what I see, Dean wants to move the Democrats more to the left but as far as I can tell the Democrats already have the left in their fold. We'll see how Dean does.

[andyfox]

In retrospect, Dean's story might be the most interesting one from the 2004 election. He was annointed by the media as it's darling, and considered the Democratic favorite. Yet he was immediately trounced by Kerry in the first primary and never recovered. When he got emotional following that first defeat, all of a sudden he became a laughing stock in many of the same media outlets that had built him up in the first place.

We've all kind of looked at the election as: Bush was vulnerable and Kerry blew it running such a bad campaingn. But, from another viewpoint, Bush was riding high, seemingly unbeatable by any Democrat. It was Dean, in my judgment, who first energized the Democrats. They wouldn't have come as close as they did to unseating Bush without him. As bad a candidate as Kerry was, he almost won and Dean's early rise was a factor in making the Dems competitive.

Dean is a good public speaker and does well, IMO, on the talk show circuit. And he's something of a "star," instead of the usual "who' that?" who chairs the parties. If indeed he's the chairman, he may surprise people and turn out to be a good one. The Dems will need one if indeed Hillary is going to lead the ticket in 2008.

[adios]

Actually Dean does well in front of the camera for the most part and FWIW I think is generally more engaging than McAuliffe (a hell of lot smarter too IMO), and pioneered funding his campaign via internet contributions. I think Dean started to fall in Iowa when he came off as a "hot head" in responding to questions from a Republican in a town hall setting before the Iowa vote. The post Iowa election rant gave the media an opening to scuttle his campaign (call me a cynic). Funny that during the Kerry campaign, I remember some Democrats longing for Dean. Still I think moving the party farther to the left isn't the key to winning more elections for the Democrats though. I actually look forward to seeing Dean as DNC chairman and consider him a breath of fresh air when compared to McAuliffe. We'll see how Howard does as he has to do a lot of work to make inroads in the 2006 elections. He should keep things interesting.

[Broken Glass Can]

It is time to break out the champaign folks:

Chairman Dean: Democrats gamble with their future (http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=50340)

HOWARD DEAN appears poised to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In response, Republicans are poised to break out the champagne.

All four of New Hampshire’s DNC members have pledged their support for Dean, who has said he would support New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary status. Here and nationally, Democrats who back Dean say he is an impressive grass-roots organizer and would invigorate a party that has suffered a series of important defeats at the polls and is in dire need of new energy.

Energy Dean has in abundance. Credibility with non-Democrats? That remains to be seen. In a poll taken just before last year’s New Hampshire primary, 40 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of Dean, while 57 percent of Democrats did. Dean’s appeal has always been to the left-wing core of the Democratic Party. His crossover attraction might not be there.

If Democrats elect Dean their chairman, it will be a clear indication that the party’s heart belongs to the left and that the nomination of John Kerry was merely a ploy to convince middle America that the national party was on familiar terms with the military. Democrats went with Kerry because that’s what they thought was expected of them, but their true love was Dean all along.

A Dean chairmanship would be, as one insider put it to us recently, a “Hail Mary” pass. It is highly risky, but the party has fallen way behind by playing it safe, and many Democrats now think it is time to go long. Whether the gambit succeeds or fails, one thing is for sure. “Hail Marys” are a lot of fun to watch.

[Utah]

The problem I have with Dean is that he is a huge phony. He was a moderate in Vermont. However, his handlers told him he couldnt run a moderate campaign so he choose to be the anti-war candidate. His whole campaign was just an act.

I would have liked him a lot if he had true convictions. However, I just see him as another politican scumbag liar.

[zaxx19]

Born Rich, check

Educated at elite prep schools and Harvard, check

White, check

Male,check

Middle aged has been hippy, check

Seems like a natural choice for the DNC.

In all seriousness the GOP has to be licking its chops at the prospects of this happening.

In one corner the far lefties- Pelosi, Dean, and now Kerry touting a new more confrontational approach to politics dealing with the GOP.

In the other Hillary spouting off anti-abortion and pro-faith drivel to appeal to the moderate elctorate.


" A house divided cannot stand" - A. Lincoln

[Utah]

There is nothing wrong with being born rich, male, white, and then being educated at the best schools.

[nicky g]

Can't you be antiwar and a moderate? It was a pretty big issue to put it mildly, should he just have kept quiet about his feelings on it?

[adios]

Good post. Yeah he could be a moderate and be anti-war. Also, even if Dean didn't have strong convictions about the war one could argue that he was at least one person who represented those that did have strong anti-war beliefs while not necessarily exploiting the issue.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't you be antiwar and a moderate?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course.

[ QUOTE ]
should he just have kept quiet about his feelings on it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. I like someone with true convictions even if I disagree with him. I really liked Paul Wellstone (from my state) even though I disagreed with him on every single issue.

I am saying that Dean's anti war rantings were fake and that they were born out of political positioning and not real convictions.

[nicky g]

OK, I see. How do you know what his true feelings on the war were?

[Utah]

There were widespread reports that Dean was going to take a neutral stance on the war at the start of the primaries and he was going to run in the middle. His advisors told him that he could never win running in the middle. Immediately, he became this big anti-war ribid dog.

I dont know if he was pro or anti war. I believe he was more along the lines of Lieberman. However, he certainly wasnt full of the vitriol that later appeared.

There was a video from years ago where Dean was saying that the Iowa primary was retarded and that he hated the disgusting pandering to the far left. Then **poof** here was doing the same thing.

[nicky g]

Interesting, thanks. I don;t think "anti war rabid dog" is fair, or that an anti-war position or Dean's campaign in general could be fairly described as "pandering to the far left;" it seemed to me that the media made him out to be a lot more lft wing than most of his positions suggested.

[andyfox]

Assuming what you say it true, so what? He's only going to be the party chairman, not the candidate. I'm never seen a party chairman on any interview show (that's the only place I've ever seen them) who didn't lie. Their job is to make everything the party and its candidates do seem wonderful, magnificient, truth, justice, and the American way.

They're all phony scumbag liars. THAT'S THEIR JOB. But if phony scumbag liar A does things I approve of, he's my man. If phony scumbag liar B does things I disapprove of, I'm voting for the other guy. I never understood how people could say I like so-and-so because he stands up for what he believes in. If what he believes in is horrible, then he's horrible. If a politician dissembles, but does good things, I'm a happy guy.

I don't think the party chairman makes policy anyway. He only publicizes it.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing wrong with being born rich, male, white, and then being educated at the best schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trick is, you have to pretend to be a "Texan" afterwards /images/graemlins/wink.gif


q/q

[andyfox]

"There was a video from years ago where Dean was saying that the Iowa primary was retarded and that he hated the disgusting pandering to the far left. Then **poof** here was doing the same thing."

Bush campaigned in 2000 against natin-building. Said it doesn't work. Now he's changed his mind. It happens. That was a policy change.

Dean's "change," if that's what is was, involved campaigning. The nature of campaigning involves pandering.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I never understood how people could say I like so-and-so because he stands up for what he believes in

[/ QUOTE ]
I would much rather be led by decent honest men who are after the best for those that they lead than to be led by scumbags that supposedly support the issues I favor.

I guess I never understood how someone would rather be led by a scumbag that simply supports my issues. Leadership is so much more than being on the right side of issues.

The scumbag will sell you out in a second.

[lastchance]

Pandering is the worst part of Politics.

People hear what they want to hear, not what they need to hear, certainly not the truth.

Voters expect the politicians to pander to THEM.

A politician who doesn't pander to his voters is going to be out of a job real soon.

So, everyone panders. And you may not want it, I may not want it, but the nature of democracy gives us leaders that pander to the voters, to us, at the expense of us.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Howard Dean New DNC Chariman?

[/ QUOTE ]

How unfortunate...

Poor democrats are on a dreadfully steep downward trend, and this means more power to the republicans, often just by default.

[zaxx19]

There is nothing wrong with being born rich, male, white, and then being educated at the best schools.

Absolutely true....

But there is at least a hint of irony in a democratic party that trumpets "diversity" , "multi culturalism", "economic Justice",.....then inevitably places the same specific type of person in leadership positions and as candiates for president over and over and over again.

Kind of like the Clintons resisting charter schools and voucher programs then sending their daughter to Sidwell Friends so she doesnt have to go to the notoriously decrepit, dangerous, and wholly inefficient public schools of Washington D.C where thousands of poor black kids must languish until the democrats get around to fixing them.

[BCPVP]

Pretty Please
Howard Dean, the DNC’s leading man.

Maybe we didn't ask nicely enough the first time around. When Howard Dean seemed to be hurtling toward the Democratic nomination in late 2003, we joined the bandwagon, running a cover emblazoned, "Please, Nominate This Man." We were being facetious, of course. We thought Dean would be a wondrous Democratic nominee for the Republican party, since he probably wouldn't have forced President Bush to break a sweat. Hence, our mock pleading. But all things considered, it is better that the Democratic party not slip entirely the surly bonds of reality, so we were happy that Democratic primary voters were sensible enough to reject the fevered left-wingery of Howard Dean.

But now he's back. And this time it isn't the supposedly unsophisticated Democratic caucus and primary voters who are swooning for Dean, but the party's insiders, the voting members of the Democratic National Committee. Freud could get an entire monograph on his theory of the "death drive" out of observing contemporary Democrats. The party is displaying an unquenchable thirst for irrelevance. Several theories have been advanced in the wake of Bush's reelection for the Democrats' troubles: a lack of seriousness on national security; an out-of-touch liberalism on social issues; an inability to sell its message in terms that connect with "red state" voters. The DNC is about to reject all these theories in favor of one of its own — all that ails the Democratic can be fixed by more of the same, only more so.

In his own northeastern liberalism, Dean makes John Kerry look like a figure out of the painting American Gothic. Dean's defenders say he governed as a moderate in Vermont. But moderation in Vermont is extremism in much of the rest of the country. And the fact is that Dean did not run as a moderate in the Democratic primaries, when he cemented his national image as a ranter against the Iraq war and tax cuts, even before his infamous Iowa scream. He was so far left on social issues that he pledged — riffing off of Bill Clinton's status as "the first black president" — to be the first gay president. DNC members counting on Dean to keep this all under wraps as he becomes a team player as chairman don't know their man.

But didn't he pioneer Internet fundraising? The post-mortems of his campaign in the media make it clear that the Internet activity grew up under Dean almost by accident, as a few web-savvy aides took advantage of the brushfire while the governor remained blissfully ignorant of the Internet and all its doings. Fundraising and organizing on the web are now irrevocably part of American politics. Kerry raised millions on the web. It doesn't take the supposed special expertise of Howard Dean.

How about organizational skills? Dean ran a laughably disorganized campaign beset by poisonous infighting of epic proportions. He flamed out in embarrassing fashion while running through $52 million in ways no one yet quite understands.

The appeal of Howard Dean is simply this: He has stood up at regional meetings of (generally left-wing) DNC members and delivered versions of his usual rants, prompting members to applaud and feel good about themselves as they bask in the old-time religion. That's it. As Dean said at the New York meeting, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," in a typically crude statement. The spectacle of his candidacy steaming toward the chairmanship makes a mockery of New Republic editor Peter Beinart's call for a return to the moral seriousness and maturity of the Democrats circa 1948. The DNC is looking as though it can't even muster the moral seriousness and maturity of the Democrats circa January 2004, when they relegated Dean to a devastating third-place finish in Iowa. The party's congressional leadership has half-heartedly tried to create an alternative to Dean, putting forward former congressman Tim Roemer, but he was doomed by his undue regard for unborn life and his past expressed willingness to modernize Social Security.

Of course, the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee will have a large say in the future of the party. Hillary Clinton seems to realize adjustments are necessary, moving center-ward on immigration and abortion. Say what you will about them, at least the Clintons have always been willing to accommodate American realities enough to win elections. But, in the meantime, there will be Dean, who would represent another step by the Democrats into the quicksand of outdated orthodoxies and self-pleasing emotionalism. We would prefer — since it would be better for the country — that the Democrats be the kind of responsible party they were during much of the Cold War, at least prior to Vietnam. But conservative Republicans will reap all sorts of benefits from a Democratic party resolute about wandering further into the wilderness. For that reason, contemplating the possibility of Dean as DNC chairman makes part of us want to beg, "Please, please, please, select this man."
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/the_editors200502020729.asp

My thoughts exactly!

[andyfox]

"We would prefer — since it would be better for the country — that the Democrats be the kind of responsible party they were during much of the Cold War"

Now that's a good one. The National Review was at the forefront of calling the resonsible Democrats traitors during much of the Cold War.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The National Review was at the forefront of calling the resonsible Democrats traitors during much of the Cold War.

[/ QUOTE ]

A case of the truth hurts?

[tolbiny]

"I guess I never understood how someone would rather be led by a scumbag that simply supports my issues. Leadership is so much more than being on the right side of issues."

Leadership means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

"I would much rather be led by decent honest men"

Having strong convictions has led to some of the worst leaders in history. Jimmy Carter as many have pointed out around here was a rather poor president- but he most certainly (IMO) was an honest straight forward guy (and also very intelligent).
Bush also seems to be a very "convicted" leader, and IMMO his biggest failing is his inflexibility. An unwilingness to work in ways to unite the country, and a distaste for anyone who opposes him. our best presidents have been men who wer able to adapt and adjust ot situations, those who knew when to compromise, and wne not to. A man who runs a losing cmapaign, but sticks to his "beliefs" in doing so is likely to be as poor a politician as you can hope for.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
party chairman.....who didn't lie. Their job is to make everything the party and its candidates do seem wonderful, magnificient, truth, justice, and the American way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
They're all phony scumbag liars. THAT'S THEIR JOB.

[/ QUOTE ]

For a minute there, I thought I wrote this post; I had to double check the Poster name!!! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Soon you will buying a gun and sticking it under your pillow. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif


-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If indeed he's the chairman, he may surprise people and turn out to be a good one. The Dems will need one if indeed Hillary is going to lead the ticket in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should think Hillary could run and be her own chairman at the same time;-)