I think Dean could be just the shot in the arm that the party needs right now. A feisty leader with a set of stones for once. He can be a bomb thrower, energize his base, raise monry and give Dems a face that they already like and who they feel gives them a voice against Bush. He’s probably not going to be a presidential candidate again so he doesn’t have to worry about political positioning or demonization by the right.
I think putting Dean in charge of the party would be a good tactical move for the Dems and a perfect way to use a voice who is liked by the party but who has been forever marginalized by the right wing American press.
What do you think? Should Dean be put in charge of the party, yea or nay?
Hee. Hee hee hee. Hee hee hee HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! BAHAHAHAHAHA!
"And in 2008 we’re gonna lose New Hampshire … we’re going to lose South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we’re going to lose California and Texas and New York. And we’re going to lose South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. Yeeeeeeaaaah!
That’s exactly what I mean by the right wing media, one awkward sounding yell in the context of a pep speech and he’s now simplified into a raving kook. Meanwhile, Chimpy does nothing but mangle the English language (while lying, I might add) and he gets a free pass.
I actually like Dean, but I don’t think he’s the right guy for the job. He sorta fell into the governorship, and was not really an experienced campaigner when 2004 came around. This is what I liked about him, actually, but it would make him a lousy DNC chair, as that seems like a job where things like political connections and smoke filled rooms play a sizable part.
Bill Clinton, health permitting, would be my choice.
The party chair needs to be a good organizer and behind-the-scenes sort of fellow (See Ed Gillespie). Dean strikes me as neither. He certainly has a place in the DNC, rallying a certain segment of the demmies, but Leon Panetta strikes me as a better choice.
Dean seems to lack all the qualities one would look for in a DNC chairman and has all the qualities one would not want.
He therefore is the perfect choice. Inertia and preconceived “in the box” thinking and attitudes are the main weights around the neck of the party right now.
My main problem with Gillespie is that, under his leadership, the Dems have been gutless. We need somebody with Dean’s courage and determination. Clinton has his share of rocks, but I think he’s a little too calculating in his approach to politics. He’d move the party to Republican Litehood on strictly tactical ground, maybe enough to de-energize the base. The centrists keep saying ‘Who else would they vote for?’ without realizing that Mr. Nobody is always there to grab his share of votes if no one else is really appealing.
I want a guy that can raise big bucks. We need money. Dean can be on Meet the Press and other such shows to show, from time to time, that the emperor is buck naked.
I think that’s the crux. I have no doubt that some Democrat strategist(s) will start advising “working with” Bush as he enacts the most radical portions of his agenda over the next 2 years, in order to neutralize some of the wedge issues the GOP likes to use against the Dems come election season. It backfired disastrously in the case of the Iraq war resolution, and it would backfire now. The Democrats need to plant their heels and resist, resist, resist, and Dean is courageous enough to do that.
Gaffes generally come in two types. Those which confirm previous impressions of a candidate, and those which have little or nothing to do with the previous impression.
The latter type is generally harmless, or at least minimally so. The former type is generally devastating.
So explain Dubya losing New Hampshire to McCain in 2000. He may have lost Iowa before the scream, but the media’s fascination with the yell made him lose everything else afterwards.
Bush’s garbled English does not reinforce an image that he is dumb?
Imagine if the media obsessively replayed every “Bushism” and subjected them to mockery and ridicule. Imagine if Bush’s “internets” remark had been held up endlessly as evidence that he was stupid.
That’s what was done to Dean with the “crazy” thing and the “I Have a Scream” speech.
The biggest problem the Dems have right now is appealing to the non-urban voters in Southern, Midwestern, and Western states. During the campaign, Dean seemed to be largely oblivious of how to do this, and the few attempts he made were laughable. If I were the Dems, I’d make sure that whoever was running the party next was someone who had an innate understanding of the “red counties” and how to appeal to them yet still be true to the Democratic core beliefs.
I personally like Dean, althoug I disagreed with some of his key policies. But then, I’m not a non-urban red county Republican…
Why not nominate Clinton for the task instead of Dean?
Clinton would be a horrible choice- you don’t want a DNC chair who’s going to overshadow all the prospective nominees of the party.
Dean might be a good choice. His initial campaign showed an ability to raise money from new sources and campaign effectively through the Internet, which means he might be able to give the Democrats a serious leg up in utilizing those resources.
The the only problem is that Dean has become popularly attached to at least one issue- against the Iraq War- that Democrats may not want to wrap themselves up in. Trying to convince voters that Dean as DNC chair does not mean all Democrats are against the war might counter all of the advantage Dean could bring in fundraising.
