MyDD :: Back to Dean, into the DNC

Back to Dean, into the DNC

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:21:59 PM EST

This is from a DC source on how the vote for the DNC Chair is breaking down right now. This will give you give you a sense of who is on the inside, and who is on right side.

But before that, about 3 months ago, I was told by someone close to Dean that Nancy Pelosi was backing Howard Dean for the DNC chair. I found it rather odd, but apparently, Pelosi reached out to Dean, perhaps thinking he would be the best alternative if Kerry were defeated. That would seem clear thinking to me. Remember the standing ovation that Dean received during the Convention in Boston from the Democratic congregation? Apparently, those in DC have forgotten.

Last week John Kerry met with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Kerry convinced the two Democratic leaders to go with backing Tom Vilsack for the DNC. Now, that's some pretty strong sway up in the Hill, de facto? Not quite.

Dean's got some backing too. Both Jesse Jackson Sr. and Jr. are backing Dean, as is Gov Bill Richardson of NM, Donna Brazille as well.

I've read of much post-election despair among the comments here and elsewhere, but listen, put that aside, join this effort. We've lost and lost and lost; it's time to win. There's 440 DNC members around the nation in every state. These people align with the partisan backbone of the Party. Our wing. Let the ones nearest you hear your asking them to vote Dean for DNC. They are waiting, willing, and just need to hear our collective voice for the new Democratic Party to begin.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 52 Comments :: Post a Comment

But what... (none / 0)

...if you happen to want Dean to run again in 2008?

Should I push for him to chair the DNC in that case?

by Toadvine on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:26:46 PM EST

When (none / 0)

will this decision be made, Jerome?

by cerebrocrat on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:42:32 PM EST

Re: When (none / 0)

First week of February.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Write to Cam Kerry and Pelosi (3.00 / 1)

Cam is very close to his brother.Somewhere in either Daily Kos or this site in terms of the election recount issue Cam's email address at his office was posted.

Pelosi could be reminded by us why she was attrated to Howard Dean in the first place.

One could even call John Kerry's office and, nicely, say how much you supported him in the election and how you think it would be good if he could support Dean and roosenberg for the DNC chair

Why? We need to remind him and John that the grassroots and the netroots supported John Kerry and the DNC heavily. We need to tell him that Vilsack is not in John's interest (even if and especially if he wants to run in 2008) or the party's interest. Because we want a vibrant, assertive party.

The grass and netroots supported John Kerry and the party with hope and lots, lots of money. We no longer just lick envelopes. We give as much money as the soft money corporate interests.

Picking a centrist DLC type like Vilsack will signal the back of the hand to this very important part of the party. We are no longer just manpower but we are moneypower.

Howard Dean went out and worked very hard to elect John Kerry. Frankly Howard has in the past, in terms of policy, been less liberal than John; but he demonstrated to the Democratic party the efficacy of loudly criticing Bush and the Republicans. Joe Lieberman lost the primaries because he was too accomodating.

I don't even know if Howard Dean is the best choice for DNC chair, but he and Rosenberg would be a good team. He will be better than Vilsack who is far too acomodating. Governor Vilsack is about as good for the DNC as Tom Daschle was good for the Dem's chances in the Senate.

God even John Edwards is a better choice as a compromise candidate.

by debcoop on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:47:47 PM EST

Cash Money (3.00 / 0)

Speaking of cash, it will be interesting to see where the big donors and fundraisers come out on this, because I think that's what's going to decide this in the end. Even though they raised a lot for Kerry, I don't think that translates to any sort of loyalty when it comes to the DNC. I think Kerry is falling into the same sort of delusion that has served Mark Green so badly these past 10 years or so. Kerry has all that money (and 55 million votes) not because anyone loves him, but because they wanted to defeat Bush, much as Green got more votes than Giuliani (when both were on the city-wide ballot) not because anyone really liked him (as Green believed), but because some Ds were voting for Giuliani and then straight ticket the rest of the way. Although Howard's campaign raised a lot of $ from the grassroots, he also was the candidate who had the best high-dollar fundraising here in NYC and in Hollywood, and I think a lot of those people still have some fondness for him. Though some former Dean supporters may now believe he can't become President because of the spectacular implosion of his campaign, I think a lot of those people would still think that he could clean up the DNC and get it back into fighting shape.

by Flatiron Dante on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cash Money (none / 0)

Interesting post. My concern is and has been that the DNC needs to move back to it's base, but that doing so would necessarily mean big loses in money. If Dean is able to keep the money rolling in, I think it's a no-brainer you go with him..you'd be getting the re-energized support from your base while not suffering a major drop in donations.

Dean would be invigorating for a Party in need of something hopeful, so if we can make it work practically, I think he's our man.

by spectator consumer on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cash Money (none / 0)

On this point is anyone else still a bit put off by how Dean mishandled his huge haul of "our money" (this phrase was used to describe Kerry's fundraising earlier this week) last winter?

I am; I gave him more than I could afford and was really disappointed to find it had been spent badly. I don't imagine I'm the only one and I think a lot of folks who could afford to give a lot more might worry about how easily Dean let himself be led into spending money on useless gimmicks like valet parking at fundraisers and tv ads in Austin TX in August.

by desmoulins on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cash Money (none / 0)

I don't doubt an audit of the Dean campaign expenditures would reveal a lot of stupidity. I think there are a few things to consider though, first the Dean campaign took off further and and faster than anyone imagined. The entire campaign strategy was altered and became a seat of the pants operation. Second, ads in Texas look stupid now, but at the time the decision was made to make the Dean nomination appear inevitable and unstopable. Running ads in Texas played in to that vein. Third, I seriously doubt Dean knew anything about valet parking and I'd be wondering how he was prioritizing his time if he did know. I suspect he had some choice words about those types of expenditures when he reviewed his campaign.

Bottom line, being a candidate in an exponentially expanding campaign is very different from being a chief executive of an organization. Dean proved in Vermont he is a very good manager. And still in my mind, he's a pretty damn impressive candidate.

by rusrivman on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome, how do we find out whom to talk to? (none / 0)

And do we really have a shot here?

by Teaser on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:51:57 PM EST

Re: Jerome, how do we find out whom to talk to? (none / 0)

If you click on the "Dean for DNC" button, it goes to the DNC list on DKos. Hopefully some websites will spring up that give more detailed info. We have some time. I was totally bummed about it last Thur in DC, hearing all this "it's Vilsack" from people I'd grown to believe wanted change. But DC has little say in this vote; these are not members of Congress that are voting. It's Party people outside of DC, alot like us. Yes, we can win.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, how do we find out whom to talk to? (none / 0)

I know almost the entire New York delegation, there are no addicted bloggers among them. However Judith Hope, the former chair of the NY State party was the first significant person to endorse Dean in Feb. 2004.

A lot of them though were early Kerry supporters like Dennis Mehiel and Robert Zimmerman, so I think it would still be important to get John Kerry to see that his future, in terms of enthusiasm and money, does not lie with Vilsack.

We have power and it lies not only with the amount od our email but with the threat of withdrawing the greenback dollar.

by debcoop on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:44:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean for DNC (none / 0)

Think of the pleasure one would have watching Dean go after Ken Mehlmen on the Sunday morning circuit. Compare that to Vilsack. No comparison. It's got to be Dean. He's certainly earned it.

by Pudentilla on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:52:49 PM EST

Too Subtle? (none / 0)

Earlier this evening I e-mailed my Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and my Senator Dick Durbin. I wrote that I felt fortunate to be living in the land of Obama/Schakowsky/Durbin/Bean, but that others of my countrymen were not so fortunate. They would like to see a progressive win an election once in awhile too.

I urged them to support Howard Dean for DNC Chair. Otherwise we are likely to get another party hack and another election cycle lost to neo-cons.

Was I too subtle?

by donna in evanston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:02:02 PM EST

Re: Too Subtle? (none / 0)

I'm glad you did, hopefully they will say something publically about backing Dean. But these are the people who actually vote from Illinois:

Maria Garcia		 Aurora, IL
Hon. Constance Howard	 Chicago, IL
Hon. Thomas Hynes	 Chicago, IL
Hon. Emil Jones 	 Chicago, IL
Thomas Lakin		 Wood River, IL
Hon. Michael Madigan	 Springfield, IL
Hon. Iris Martinez	 Chicago, IL
Hon. John Rednour	 DuQuoin, IL
Edward Smith		 Springfield, IL

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:07:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Too Subtle? (none / 0)

Thanks Jerome. I'll follow up.

And for those who think that Dean can't run for President in '08 if he accepts the DNC Chair, all I can say is that if the party thinks he can win the election, that contract won't hold him back...unless the party is determined to stay as stupid as they have been.

by donna in evanston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More than Winning (2.50 / 2)

The Democratic Party is through. The fact is the Democrats put everything they had into this electiona nd will not be able to muster the same energy or resources in the next 4 years. Yes, Kerry was the best canidate the Democrats have to offer, and he still is. The special interest coalition of the Democratic party has failed. and will continue to do so until America feels some real pain.

There is a war, but no one has to go and fight it. Jobs are being exported, but apparently, not enough. The police state is being erected slowly, but the feeling that if you don't break the laws they don't even apply to you still prevails.

The red states are values voters are also are the biggest recipients of Government welfare in the country (farm subsidies, government jobs, etc..). They don't vote based on the canidate or the ideas- they vote on the brand. Middle class whites don't want to associate with the left wing who has dreams of helping the poor.

What is political reality in America? The Dems have not won a competitive election since 92' when Clinton was given the election by Ross Perot.

Carville is right the democrats are no longer a national party- its a party of special interests - the democrats needs to become a party of reform. I don't believe it can. It needs new blood. Is Howard Dean new blood?

Leftists need something that is spiritual like Jerry Brown from California to attend to the big questions about the future. The changing nature of humanity and technolgy isn't being met by the right wing evangelical kooks. Right now the more desperate to win the Democrats are, the more devestating each loss is.

The democratic party is old and is dying from the inside. This loss can give us time and space in the minority to think about the future not in terms of election cycles and seats- but about the problems we need to confront- and that only the intelligent blue people of America can.

If we are only concerned about winning, that will never happen, and the country will countinue into decay as the people have no real good alternative to the Republicans.

by Christopher Hitchens on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:40:42 PM EST

Re: More than Winning (3.00 / 1)

Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, quite without the help of Perot. I have dealt with this before.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than Winning (none / 0)

Wrong.....nothing is dead. This isn't 1964...goldwater got trounced by 15million votes. Do some real analysis will you, stop throwing out the trite historical references about Dems in the darkness. :yawn:

by Chavez100 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than Winning (3.00 / 0)

The democrats need a Goldwater. Maybe Dean is the Democrats Goldwater. Goldwater lost but he planted a seed. From that grew the modern republican party. The democratic party is in decay and needs somebody to does actually stand for what they believe even if it means losing. Hopefully, its something more profound than social security and health care.

Goldwater planted the seed that resulted in 68, 72, 80, 84, 88, 2000, 2004 and no end in sight.

I believe that new voices are being drowned out or forced out to the irrelevent green/nader parties becuase people are more concerned about ambition and political expediancy. Will Howard Dean help foster the new blood the Democrats need?

by Christopher Hitchens on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than Winning (none / 0)

I don't know if Perot "won" the election for Clinton, but it sure was helpful for him.

I sure hope we can turn this around, but I suspect you're on target about the nation having to take a dive before the Dems come back to power. I wish I felt more optimistic, but I think the die has been cast, so to speak.

Since Dukakis' loss in 88 the national party has changed from being the party of liberalism to the party of moderate conservatism. Instead of representing the values of the New Deal, unions, the poor, we now represent "the middle class," whomever those people are. With Clinton winning, our party has gone pro-business, pro-military and only paying lip service to the dem "values" positions on abortion, workers and the poor. The national party is convinced, and they may be right, traditional liberal positions cannot win anymore...so instead they have reshaped what the party stands for.

I think Kerry is significant in that he was a great candidate. If the moderate strategy were going to work, Kerry is where it should have. Kerry was a war hero, he was pro-Iraq 2, pro-death penalty, pro freetrade, although not terribly charismatic, he certainly had more appeal than, say Bush Sr, Al Gore or Walter Mondale; he was good enough to win. Kerry raised buckets of money too...and he ran against a really bad President. Carville was right when he said before the election that we were in big trouble if we didn't win this. Kerry should have won, if this moderate strategy had real power.

What we found out was this: Democrats can't out macho the right-a male cheerleader has beaten two Vietnam vets in 2 elections; even being conservative on almost all the issues, the right was still able to paint Kerry as far left, meaning all the positions of substance didn't translate to win enough moderate voters(although he did quite well 54-45%); and meeting GOP in fundraising(more or less) didn't prevent the GOP from controlling the tone of the election.

This leaves us in deep doodoo. If we return to the traditional liberal ideas, we're going to seem FAR leftist, that's just a natural consequence of our attempts to move to the center over the past decade plus. Second, just because the moderate strategy didn't work doesn't mean the liberal strategy will work. Perhaps, with GOP control of the media, we cannot win regardless of our message.

The light at the end of the tunnel is the GOP. They are bound to mess up...destined too really. You can only deregulate and tax cut for so long. You see we're raising the debt ceiling...again. The dollar is falling like a rock, the fed is raising interest rates as quick as they can without showing how scared they are of runaway inflation... Even if that particular ugly scenerio is averted, Bush and the neo-cons want Iran, I can feel it in my gut...and even if they don't, Iraq is falling apart, and I doubt that situation is getting better until we give-up and leave. Also scandal...you know Bush practices cronyism like no administration EVER. Every place you look you see sweetheart deals and payoffs. Indeed, it's hard to find a Bush contract that ISN'T obviously corrupt, eventually something may hit the fan. He's at war with the CIA...can that be good for him? His base is fanatical, with goofy leaders like Pat Robertson, people that can't be trusted to make smart decisions, that may end up causing problems.

Anyway, I think we're on a highway to hell as that Australian, cock-rock uber-group ac/dc would say...but the brightside is that it may put the GOP party out of business for another 40 years like it did after the depression.

by spectator consumer on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:04:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than Winning (none / 0)

Predicating Democrat success on Republican failure isn't a viable long term strategy.

Bush already performed badly and people still voted for him. Kerry made an excellent case in campaign and in the debates to no avail because people were voting their identity. This election taught me that people will vote republican unless they really, really screw things up.
Will the Republicans govern poorly? All eyes are on them now. I don't wish them ill either as it affects everyone in the country. I think they can do a good job balancing the budget and hold the line against the religious kooks in the GOP.

If we look tactically for the victory we may win, but in the end, we will tend towards losing.

The Bush II term as it is is off to a terrible start. Condi rice as our #2 diplomat is disgusting. The neo cons are getting a second wind and Iraq is looking worse everyday. The kooks are threatening to leave the party, at the same time threatening moderates, in order to push their agenda that the mainstream Republicans know goes to far.

I don't know how Dean or anyone is going to come up with an Agenda that is anything but thwarting the Republicans. You have to ask yourself if the Democrats are really offering any ideas besides the status quo and not being Republicans.

The democrats need to attack the republicans but they can't because the party has been branded too liberal, too this or that. Ultimately, you can't reframe the debate with the same actors in the democratic party.

by Christopher Hitchens on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than Winning (none / 0)

I agree that reliance upon GOP failure isn't much of a strategy.

by spectator consumer on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 08:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than Winning (none / 0)

I agree. Let's pray and hope that a nice republican gets elected to the white house evetually .

by jr00 on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 03:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More than Winning (3.00 / 1)

Predicating Democrat success on Republican failure isn't a viable long term strategy.

Bush already performed badly and people still voted for him. Kerry made an excellent case in campaign and in the debates to no avail because people were voting their identity. This election taught me that people will vote republican unless they really, really screw things up.
Will the Republicans govern poorly? All eyes are on them now. I don't wish them ill either as it affects everyone in the country. I think they can do a good job balancing the budget and hold the line against the religious kooks in the GOP.

If we look tactically for the victory we may win, but in the end, we will tend towards losing.

by Christopher Hitchens on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 02:00:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm sorry (none / 0)

I disagree with your premise. Kerry was an awful candidate. He ran a tentative campaign, an ABB campaign. This should have been a campaign about big ideas and the direction of the country. Instead, Kerry attempted to blur party distinctions and present himself as a competent Bush. His campaign was not unlike the Michael Dukakis 1988 campaign. I don't blame Kerry. Kerry was consistent in his approach from day one. I blame the Democratic primary voters who lost their nerve during the primaries in the spring. They chose the phony "electibility" argument (winning) over Democractic Party principles.

by rusrivman on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

End the Cult of the Personality (none / 0)

We weren't beaten by a single man. We were beated by a well organized machine. We need to stop waiting for a Deus Ex Clintona to descend from heaven bestowing progressive vision upon the party.

The cancer in the party has spread down to every precinct. We are irrelevent because we have no ties to the people we are trying to get to vote for us.

Learn from your enemy. Start with Ohio. Even though they won it by 3 points they invested huge amounts of time and resources in securing it. It worked.

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog

by ignatzmouse on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:12:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean (3.00 / 1)

If Dean doesn't get the Chairmanship, I expect that many progressive Democrats will invest their energies in alternative strategies for winning in the coming election cycles. There doesn't necessarily have to be a schism in the party- two separate branches could pursue the same goals through different methodology.

In related news, Sen. Chuck Schumer announced today that he is NOT going to run for Governor in NY in '06. That clears the path for Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is a kickass progressive Democrat. It had looked for awhile like we were going to have a nasty primary battle between those guys, and I'm greatly relieved that it won't happen.

by global yokel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:51:14 PM EST

Re: Dean (none / 0)

We are looking at alternate strategies already in our rural area, very Republican but we Dems picked up 39% more participation thanks to some people who have been working hard for several years. Help!: if anyone here knows anything about setting up an online policy development site with the collaborative/interactive/editing flexibilities of Wiki, I hope you'll let me know!

I contacted one our local DNC delegates who seems, at least, receptive to the idea of Dean as chair. Hope he follows through.

I keep recommending this as a source of energy, an inspiration, and in some ways a blueprint for what we have ahead of us if we want to give Congress a healthy change in 2006 and the White House a Dem in 2008.

by Bean on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 03:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean DNC vs. Dean 2008 (none / 0)

I like Howard Dean a lot. Let's get that out of the way first. But I never liked him as a presedential candidate.

The reason I never liked him as a candidate, and this may not make much sense, but there is a feeling you get in your gut about a guy..envisioning him in the Oval Office, making decisions, compromising sometimes, sticking to his guns other times, and I just never got that feeling with Dean. To be honest, I never got that feeling about Kerry until later. My gut always went with Edwards to be honest.

That being said, Dean is a great motivator and fund raiser, which would make him perfect to head the DNC. He would energize the base, bring in tons of cash and manpower, and support our candidate with fervor.

So while I'm sure many will disagree with southern, alcohol and fast-food ridden gut's assessment of the situation..that's all I've got.

:o)

by crowbar317 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:14:08 PM EST

Not a Dean fan (none / 0)

Let me offer a disclaimer - I don't dislike Howard Dean. I didn't back him in the primaries, but I do admire the man and many of his positions. I don't want him as president, but he'd be perfect for a cabinet slot or as a senator from Vermont.

My two main concerns come with his appearance/presentation on these 'Sunday morning shows' and strategy. Would his appearance - while entertaining and energizing for the base - really help to woo swing voters? Dean, love him or hate him, comes across as madder than hell and not going to take it anymore. Well, that's fine (and I feel like that much of the time too) but it doesn't play well to swing voters.

Strategy-wise, wouldn't Simon Rosenberg be much stronger at this? He's practically run the NDN for the past few years - and he is respectful of the Deaniacs and can work with them - and could hit the ground running with a gameplan.

Dean, to me at least, just wouldn't be as strongly suited for the role of chair. He's a better candidate/politican and not a strategist.

by safeashouses on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:14:37 PM EST

Re: Not a Dean fan (none / 0)

I like rosenberg also but would be happy with Dr. Dean also. I thnk that each one would be better than others put forward. I hope this will be a somewhat open debate. Dean understands that we have to reach more than the Base but also understands that people vote for those with conviction. The preception that dean is a leftist is a false premis all around. He is a pragmatic centerist that believes that by keeping interest low and not running deficits is a much better long term view. He also is open to new information and will change if the evidence show the need or value. If the media had not labled him and Trippi had hired a better faceman then Dean would be perfect. I think that we need someone from outside the Beltway that understands the positives of the 04 cycle and can understand the problems that need fixing. Rosenberg/Dean Co chairman..

by Davinci on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:58:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a Dean fan (none / 0)

Also the hated by some DLC understands that we have to change..

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=253005

by Davinci on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:59:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a Dean fan (none / 0)

You say, "Dean, love him or hate him, comes across as madder than hell and not going to take it anymore. Well, that's fine (and I feel like that much of the time too) but it doesn't play well to swing voters."

Where do you get this information from? Is this a feeling or something that you can prove.

John McCain, back in 2000 (and even still to this day) is seen by many as angry, yet he does great with 'swing voters.'

Just asking, not trying to argue.

by cjbuchanan on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:16:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not a Dean fan (none / 0)

Much of it is 'feeling' but I also think that perception plays into it ... and, unfortunately, for many Americans the picture of a ranting and raving Dean after Iowa sticks out. Granted we'd have four years to purge that image, but voters are - as we learned in this last election - often hung up on first impressions.

Several swing voters still me they couldn't back Kerry since he changed his mind so much, despite the fact he hadn't down that and that he had explained himself repeatedly in debates, interviews and ads.

I do like Dean, I just think he's damaged goods (sadly) when it comes to him and the public.

That's just my opinion though.

by safeashouses on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:20:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know there is the dKos 440 list (none / 0)

but there isn't any contact info...

When are they going to get us contact info on these folks so we can start a campaign of contacting them and letting them know who we support...

by Nazgul35 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:35:21 PM EST

Why not help build a list. (none / 0)

Look up the addresses and phone numbers of those from your state. then post it.

I'm already doing PA. Maybe we can assemble a better list through collective effort.

by Teaser on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 07:26:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why not help build a list. (none / 0)

The Iowa list of voters says that one of our representatives is Pat Marshall. Well, Pat Marshall died this year...or that was my understanding. It was announced at our district convention last spring. So is she replaced or did Iowa loose a vote?

by CarolynLFS on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do people want to be DNC chair? (none / 0)

It seems like a pretty thankless job and I doubt it pays very well.

I am guessing Dean wants the job because he cares about the Democratic party and wants to keep it from going down the same old losing path. It's probably shooting himself in the foot for the '08 election.

Vilsack? I can't imagine. Is it pave the way for Kerry 08? SoS Vilsack? To be on the right side of that 45 million? Would you really do it just to save the Iowa caucus? Could it be fear of wild man Dean? I can't figure why you would step down as governor for this job.

Rosenberg is a no brainer -- it's a move up and a quite a bit more of a spotlight for him. I'm sure he cares about the party and wants to get it on the right track too.

Edwards? It seems like a pretty thankless job and I doubt it pays very well. Enough said.

by nwoknu snwoknu on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:19:59 AM EST

Re: Why do people want to be DNC chair? (none / 0)

the articles in the Iowa paper have suggested that Vilsack would not give up the governorship here, but would attempt to do both jobs if he got the DNC chair. One motivation for Vilsack could be that he is going to be out of a job in 2006 if he sticks to his pledge of 6 years ago to not go more than two terms. He cannot run for the senate that year because out Republican seat was up in 2004. ( Chuck Grassley won again...)

so Vilsack is still holding on to a hope that he can ride some coat tails with Senator Kerry. He was a heavy Kerry supporter in last January's caucuses. There was a lot going on in Iowa that did not make the national news.

vilsack has nothing to loose and everything to gain by trying for the DNC chairmanship. I think he would be the wrong person in the job. He would be there for two reasons: saving the Iowa caucuses spot as first in the nation and helping Kerry in 2008. Not the right motivation for our next DNC chairman.

by CarolynLFS on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:30:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New blog: DeanforDNC.blogspot.com (none / 0)

Hi, I'm glad to see that this site is supporting Howard Dean for DNC chair. To support this effort, I've created a blog specific to this "new Dean campaign" which I plan to keep up to date.

Please add to your bookmarks list and spread the word:
DeanforDNC.blogspot.com

I'm also adding links to every Dean/DNC-specific site that I can find.

Thanks,
Bruce Hahne
hahne at io.com
Howard Dean for DNC chair.
Because the Democratic Party needs regime change.

by hahne on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:20:53 AM EST

Don't Fall for Divide and Conquer (none / 0)

I think kos hit this on the head earlier today. It is not about the ideological divide within the party, but rather the status quo versus new ideas and new faces. So it pains me a bit to see folks on here falling into that trap.
I consider myself to be a fairly staunch moderate, but there is no way I want Vilsack or some other mishy mushy insider running the DNC. To be quite honest, Simon Rosenberg would be my first choice to head the DNC. However, if we need to unite behind one candidate in order to prevent more of the same, then I have no problem with Howard Dean.

by muscleheadblog on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:27:42 AM EST

Re: Don't Fall for Divide and Conquer (none / 0)

I actually think Kos's suggestion of a Dean/Rosenberg combo is the best choice- with dean acting as a CEO while Rosenberg acts as the President/COO running operations/logics and both working on new avenues- such as Dean on rebuilding the state aparatus and Rosenberg working on the Latino vote.

by bruh21 on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:40:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A couple questions--actually a few (none / 0)

I do not want Vilsack, BUT what are our other choices? I'd like to see him run again. He's gotten much better at media stuff for those who are concerned about that. I've heard lots of good things about Simon Rosenberg, but I don't think he should be chair, because I don't think he's cut out to be a TV personality. Maybe COO. 1.) How would being DNC chair affect Dean's work at DFA? 2.) Are there other partisans who would shake up the status quo? 3.) Does anyone know how people are selected for the DNC? (As a DC resident I do know that there are some DC people, local DC people that is. A bunch of people just lost their state committee seats to Dean-inspired candidates, including the former chair A. Scott Bolden. He's still listed as a member of the DNC, and he might be if the position isn't ex officio or if the term carries over, but I don't know. Does anybody?)

by Abby on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:43:31 AM EST

Re: A couple questions--actually a few (none / 0)

1.) How would being DNC chair affect Dean's work at DFA?

Well Dean is already the "honorary chair" of DFA. He draws no salary so he's not officially employed by the organization. Tom McMahon is the Exec Director. I would imagine that Dean's goal is to have DFA continue without him.

2.) Are there other partisans who would shake up the status quo?

In a word, no. Many of the names I'm hearing are of the status quo variety. A recent addition to the rumor mill is Inez Tenenbaum who lost her race to wingnut Jim DeMint. But she's a long shot.

3.) Does anyone know how people are selected for the DNC?

You can get all that information from the charter and bylaws of the DNC, which can be found at democrats.org

by KimPossible on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 09:04:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Right Message... (none / 0)

... but Dean is the wrong messenger.

by HewittComm on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:19:31 AM EST

Re: Right Message... (none / 0)

Why? Because the media says so????

by Chavez100 on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:35:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right Message... (none / 0)

No, because I've been an activist since before McGovern (who I love) - I've seen a few Democrats come and go. Dean is paper-thin, beneath the bluster.

by HewittComm on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DNC contact info (none / 0)

Visit Draft Howard Dean for the mailing addresses of all DNC members. Also, look at your state party websites for contact info that might include phone numbers and email addresses. A lot of these people are also probably listed in the phonebook.

by ply739 on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:38:07 AM EST

lets get pysical, pysical (none / 0)

It is now time to organize an open house for repubs who will be thoroughly marginalized if not out right disgusted with the rightwing jihad going on in their party.

Enlist Clinton in a charm offensive..Give him a title and an expense account and let him get to work.

Give a sales incentive for the early adopters like a chairmanship.

Call this thing "Not Your Same Old Democratic Party" or something pithy and get a theme song. I suggest "Stuck in the middle with you".

hell we could win back the Senate over a long weeknd with some propiitous defections.

Let's roll.

by timkaastad on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 11:21:25 AM EST

Why not Edwards? (none / 0)

I'm not sure it would appeal to him, but John Edwards can certainly reach out to swing voters, rural voters, young voters...John and Elizabeth Edwards are an extremely compelling story. The role of attack dog didn't suit him particularly well, however, a retooling of his positive primary campaign could be just what the party needs right now.
I like and respect Dean, and I feel the party owes him for courageously articulating the anti-war feeling in the country. He was also a good soldier during the fall campaign, taking on Ralph Nader and urging his supporters to do everything possible to elect Kerry. Dean was and should remain a spiritual(pardon that word)guide for the party, alongside Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Paul Tsongas.
What's needed now is a cohesive message(and messenger)who can reach out to red state swing voters. The sea of red states looks very intimidating, and we have to realize we are never going to come up with a candidate or platform to carry Alabama, Oklahoma or several other solidly republican states. We might be able to put together a platform and messenger to tip enough people in Ohio, Missouri, Viginia...
I don't think Vilsak is an ideal choice. He doesn't offend, neither does he inspire. In addition to raising money and herding all the cats in the democratic party, the next chair needs to recruit strong candidates for the house and senate races in 2006. I believe Edwards would prove most capable at this task.
For the record, I'm neither a republican nor sellout. My first election was 1972(worked and voted for McGovern). I still have my beliefs and principles. I have also learned the wisdom of NOT digging in your heels.

by xpat on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 11:36:51 AM EST

DNC contact information (none / 0)

There's a list of all 440 committee members and their addresses at drafthoward.com.

by dhatch999 on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:03:52 PM EST

DNC Suggestion (none / 0)

I just had a good thought: fantastic environmentalist, brilliant on foreign policy, universally respected within the party, and very well regarded in Congress, now well known on the Left Coast, and tough - George Mitchell.

by HewittComm on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:54:06 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.