DNC Chair ins & outs

Dem strategist James Carville: "It's supposed to be a rigged deal" (Wall Street Journal, 1/28).

The big day for the DNC Chair race is coming by Monday, supposedly. Hotline today jokes that there are 75 endorsements by the 50 state chairs, but that will change, when the ASDC meets to endorse a candidate over the weekend. The leadership will make an endorsement, followed by an up or down vote by the state chairs. If that doesn't decide the endorsement, then the state chairs will vote on other candidates, until they have a consensus choice.

Whether or not that has any sticking power, in terms of the Feb 12th vote, is up for discussion. I would think that if the ASDC leadership choice is endorsed on a first vote, it would. If that's Dean, it's over, he'll win; if it's anyone else, or the ASDC endorsement is only a plurality, then it likely doesn't decide anything.

Here's the latest tally of DNC Member endorsements (from NJ's Hotline):

                    Votes    Percentage (50% = 1 needed)

Howard Dean         48       10.5
Martin Frost        15        4	  
Wellington Webb     10        2.5
Donnie Fowler        9        2
Simon Rosenberg      4        1
Tim Roemer           4        1
David Leland         2        0.5
Related to the Folwer amendment that I blogged about (DNC Chair vote map & related amendment) earlier. In BlogPac's CC with Frost, he said though he was initially for the amendment to decentralize 50 of the at-large seats, that he no longer supported it. Roenberg has a similar position: "I cannot ... support the Fowler amendment that specifies election by the regional caucuses of 50 of the 75 at-large appointed DNC member slots, because I believe that it will adversely and unacceptably affect the diversity of the DNC membership." Frost gave a similar reasoning.

The ASDC is pushing hard for the adoption of the amendment, but Labor detests the move, so that's probably why Labor's UFCW endorsed Frost, and is urging labor allies and the AFL-CIO to back Frost. Dean, and the other DNC Chair candidates, still back the decentralizing Fowler amendment.

Also, TPM blogger Josh Marshall endorsed Simon Rosenberg.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Comments

26 Comments

This is a test of reform
If you are against it you are a creature of Washington and against reform.
by fightforamerica 2005-01-28 07:58AM | 0 recs
Multiple Ballots
This is really starting to look like it will take multiple ballots. The second choices will begin to take on increased importance.
by Chris Bowers 2005-01-28 08:07AM | 0 recs
Adversely affect diversity?
How does decentralizing the appointment of at-large members adversely affect diversity? One would think that if more people get a say in those at large members than that will, as a matter of course, ENCOURAGE diversity.
by Chris Andersen 2005-01-28 08:10AM | 0 recs
Now, now, now
They mean diversity in terms of rich, connected types of all colors and sexes within a 50 mile radius of DC and NYC. Especially diversity in context to whomever will help the dominant playa d'jour stay on top.

Economic, class, regional, and other things like that? That's not diversity!

by ElitistJohn 2005-01-28 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Adversely affect diversity?
Minorities and labor are strongly against the Fowler amendment.
by Matt Stoller 2005-01-28 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Adversely affect diversity?
brought to you by Matt Stoller, corporate shill.
by CentrismIsForLosers 2005-01-28 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Adversely affect diversity?
Why Matt?  I can't see anything in the amendment that would hurt them.  In fact, I see it as more of a benefit.  If you have talked to them, please tell us why they would be against it.
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-28 11:16AM | 0 recs
Endorsements
Jerome,

Could you post a list of endorsements OTHER than those by members of the candidate's home state delegation?  I think those numbers could be very enlightening.

Thanks,

Jim

by Jim in Chicago 2005-01-28 09:29AM | 0 recs
Simon Rosenberg
I've read Josh Marshall's reasoning for endorsing Simon Rosenberg and find it very convincing.  As much as I love Dean, i fear he won't be able to strongly unite both wings of the party.  This is critical in the years ahead.  We need to be a reform party, but we can't alienate third way types.  Do others share my fears?  
by Toronto 2005-01-28 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Simon Rosenberg
No, I think, with Dean winning, he's the best person to unite the party, I really do.  The tough part is getting him over the hump, winning a nomination, or this chair.
by Jerome Armstrong 2005-01-28 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Simon Rosenberg
I agree with Jerome.  Dean will speak truth to power.  He will pull back the shades and let light shine in places that have been dark.

He will help to define the true meaning of what it is to be a Democrat in the 21st century.  He will provide vision--in a down to earth easy to understand way that reaches all America.

His skill is not in making Old Dems love New Dems or vica versa (as Josh says Simon can)--but helping to create a new vision for the future.  

At this point in time I think we need a visionary not a beaurucrat--someone who can shake things up a little.  Sure there will be risks but let the DNC chair after Dean play it safe.

by aiko 2005-01-28 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Simon Rosenberg
Absolutely...Vision is much more important than working the system.  Hell, the DNC chair can get advisors to do that.  Dean does have a pretty good vision and that is why I support him now, even though I was against him for President at the time.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-01-28 11:19AM | 0 recs
What's the Deal?
Here's a few questions that are probably grinding on most Dean supporters.  

People argue that Dean would alientate the corporate/conservative wing of the Democratic Party and therefore, he is not a good choice.

Why is it assumed that Dean would alienate the corporate/conservative wing?  Other than opposition to the Iraq War, he is closer to them than he is to the left end of the party.

Why are people more worried about alienating the corporate/conservative wing (the one that is closest to the Republicans) than they are about alienating the people who support Dean?

While I can't speak for all Dean supporters, I can say that a large percentage of us feel like this:  We tried it their way and we lost.  Let's try another way.  We all swallowed hard and worked our asses off for John Kerry.  Why can't you guys swallow hard and let Dean have a shot.

It is in some ways a repeat of the primary campaign where various people fanned hysterical fears about Howard Dean.  This was based, largely, on the fact that he opposed the Iraq War.  Well not only was Dean correct, but this is not an issue that is germane to the DNC chair.

What do these people fear from Howard Dean that they find so unacceptable?  What evidence is there that what they fear is likely to occur?

by James Earl 2005-01-28 10:33AM | 0 recs
One quibble
Dean's position on the Iraq war is germane.  It is also right and just how right will become clearer in the coming months as the "election" solves nothing and the violence gets worse. Having a Party Chairman who opposed this mess from the start can only be of benefit to the Democrats.
by Jim in Chicago 2005-01-28 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: One quibble
Because I disagree with you so often, I thought it only fair to tell you when I think you are right.

This is such a case.  You make a good point here.

[Nonetheless, I think there are more important factors at play in deciding who should be DNC Chair, hence my support of Frost.  But still, you make a fair point.]

by DemDog 2005-01-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
I appreciate that (n/t)
by Jim in Chicago 2005-01-28 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: What's the Deal?
Too bad the primaries didn't start after March and April when the casualties started mounting and public opinion supporting the war shifted.  I think Dean would have won the nomination and probably the election.  You couldn't really label dean a flip-flopper and the liberal tag wouldn't have hurt you as much in the purple states as the flip-flopper non decisive leader tag did.  John Kerry without the Flip Flop label wins the election.  Shows you why we need candidates that fight this crap before it sticks...

Sigh, Hindsight 20/20.

by yitbos96bb 2005-01-28 11:25AM | 0 recs
Dean
Another reason I support Dean goes back to the primaries.  I know many on this sight blame the Media gang bang for killing Dean (and it probably finished him off), however, I think Dean lost more because of the way his campaign was structured.  He was running a national campaign in a contest where you needed to run it as a state contest.  It was poor organization in that regard, however, had he won the nomination, I think his national campaign would have exploded (in a good way) and led to a good lead by summer.

This is what gives me hope with Dean.  I think he knows how to organize on a grand level and lacks a little some in the smaller details.  Of course as chair, you have others to handle that.  I am excited at the prospect and I have not felt excited in a long time.  

by yitbos96bb 2005-01-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
Josh TPM
Many of Josh's analyses are insightful, e.g. on Social Security.  But his political choices are disasterous, e.g. his strong endorsement of Lieberman.  And let's not forget he supported the invasion of Iraq.  "Fool me once..."  

Yes, that Josh.  Look it up.  E.g., www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/001684.php .  He wrote in October, 2002:
"Let me recommend a book to you in very strong terms. It's called The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq by Ken Pollack.  ... [A]t the end of the day he thinks that the only real option is to topple Saddam's regime and that the only real way to do that is by force.  Now, I know many regular TPM readers don't agree at all with that proposition. It's one I find both deeply troubling and, I think, inescapable."  

To listen to him now about Simon Rosenberg would invoke "shame on you."  

by Roger 2005-01-28 12:42PM | 0 recs
Hard to argue with
The idea that Saddam needed to go is hard to argue with, and the idea that it required force is absolutely true. If I'd believed for a second that the war was about cleaning up the mess we helped make during the Cold War, I probably would have been for it. I'll bet some of the rest of the developed world would have pitched in, as well.

The problem lies in the fact that the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis carried it out in a way that was calculated not to produce a free Iraq, but an client state, dependent on the US for survival and therefore compliant with multinational corporate interests. People who were too optimistic/gullible to realize this can be forgiven (though running one of them for President was a lousy idea). I'd say Josh deserves the benefit of the doubt.

by catastrophile 2005-01-28 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Josh TPM
Josh is a DLC democrat in the worst sense of that term.  It's no surprise that he's endorsed Rosenberg.
by eRobin 2005-01-28 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Josh TPM
Roger,

Could you please cite, quote or link to Marhsall's "strong endorsement of Lieberman."  I don't remember that one.  But maybe it was there.

Also, it's pretty clear he's acknowledged he was wrong on the invasion of Iraq.  It's not as good as being right in the first place, but it's more than a lot of liberal hawks can say, to say nothing of those on the other side.

This is no brief for his endorsement of Rosenberg.  I just don't think you're being fair to Marshall.

by Lomonaco 2005-01-28 06:38PM | 0 recs
Simon Rosenberg
Rosenberg is an attractive candidate, but is carrying some heavy baggage for past comments regarding the Iraq war.  He can still address that problem, but if he doesn't he will have obstacles to overcome both as a DNC candidate and as a future chair, should he win.

The Democratic Party is showing deep divisions in this race.  They're going to be a problem that needs fixing, and fast, by whoever wins this race.

More here:

http://thenightlight.blogspot.com/2005/01/dnc-race-trouble-ahead-whoever-wins.html

by RJEskow 2005-01-28 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Simon Rosenberg
The fix to the problem will be if Dean and Rosenberg both stay active and highly visible no matter who is Chair.  I want to see Dean as the Chair and Rosenberg doing the fundraising.  
by eRobin 2005-01-28 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Simon Rosenberg
Interesting comment, eRobin, about Dean and Rosenberg both staying attractive.  If Rosenberg gains momentum and becomes Dean's main opponent, I would like to see the two of them make enter into kind of non-aggression/mutual support pact.  

And, as I said earlier, either candidate will need to mend fences and reassure the other wing of the party should he prevail.

by RJEskow 2005-01-28 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Simon Rosenberg
Wow, did I say "attractive"??  I meant to say "active."  I've been working too hard today ... and watching too much Spongebob.
by RJEskow 2005-01-28 02:51PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads