Roemer: Tim Roemer has been taking a lot of friendly fire from the web denizens here and at dkos. I defended Roemer's appearance on This Week and I'll do the same here. I had a brief conversation with Roemer after the caucus and I mentioned James Fallows article in this month's Atlantic Monthly. He hadn't read it yet, but I suspect he doesn't need to. Roemer is one of our most eloquent and forceful speakers on national security issues. Roemer mentioned that he didn't understand why Kerry didn't bring up the issue of loose nukes during the campaign. I don't understand Kerry's weak attack on Bush's foreign policy during the campaign either.

Roemer will definitely not win the grassroots vote in California, and may not be the right choice for DNC Chair, but he doesn't deserve the lack of respect he's gotten from liberal blogs. If we can't handle a frank and open discussion of abortion on the web and in our party, how do we expect to be able to compete in the public arena?

More in Extended Diary

I just finished reading the Tipping Point and have thumbed through Saletan's book on abortion, "Bearing Right".   I don't recall the specifics, but one example Saletan has in his book describes a specific legislative debate in which NOW would not even acknowledge that a baby whose body was entirely separated from the mother had any rights distince from the rights of the mother.  I don't think that position would find over 5% support at dkos. I thought it was a bizarre postion that is not morally or ethically justified.

In the debate that conservatives have framed as partial birth abortion, conservatives discuss a baby inches away from birth. I don't think there is even a single example of when that is the issue. I can't imagine any mother or any doctor taking the life of a healthy baby inches away from delivery. That is how the parameters of the debate have been defined. We have a lot of work to do as far as communicating our position on abortion and taking back the national dialogue. I thinkTim Roemer can help us do that. Last time I checked, Bush was public enemy number one, not Roemer.

For my money, this race is a toss up between Dean and Rosenberg. We could do a lot worse than Rosenberg as an acceptable alternative. If any other candidate wins, the DNC is going to face an open rebellion from the grassroots. I'm not sure any candidate except Dean will satisfy them. There are no other candidates with the experience, eloquence and acceptance from the grassroots to be a serious candidate. IMO, Webb was probably a close third choice of the grassroots as far as applause, but I don't think he is quite ready for prime time. Rosenberg was the second most popular nominee after Dean and for good reason.

Having had the benefit of seeing Dean's appearance on This Week, I think Dean has two huge advantages over Rosenberg. One, Dean has a media presence no other Democrat can match. Matt Stoller pointed out yesterday that the media is going to follow Dean whether he is elected DNC Chair or not. They will be compelled to follow Dean's remarks even more if he is elected Chair. National spokesperson has not traditionally been part of the job description of DNC Chair. These are not traditional times. We need a strong spokesperson the media cannot ignore, who can break through the ceaseless chatter of the conservative noise machine. Dean is that person.

Two, Dean is the only candidate who can put a human face on liberalism. Republicans have demonized liberals and now they have branded Dean with the dreaded liberal label. The more Americans know about Dean the more discredited Hannityesque attacks on the liberal label become. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and Scarborough will continue to attack Bush's critics as Bush haters, claim Democrats hate the military and hate America and hate Bush's christ.  Dean will have the stature to demolish and discredit those deceitful accusations like no other Democrat can. This is a battle that needs to be joined and Dean is the only candidate who can do it.