I have wondered from time to time why this was not introduced again, and made an expressly Democratic Party initiative.
Remember in the days after the 2004 election when various maps were circulated that compared the 2004 Red/Blue alignment with other alignments in history? One that was not circulated was the one showing states taht either did not ratify the ERA or that attempted/voted to rescind their ratification.
Since I recently moved to Culver City, I could not participate as a voter. I wonder what the excuses were for the rest of Angelenos who decided not to vote. Less than 30% turnout? A disturbingly large number of people I've talked to in the last few months were not even aware that a city election was being held. That's just wrong.
If Hertzberg had had a ground game, he would have come in second, and a closer second than Hahn.
Villaraigosa came in first in the primary last time, but lost the general. The consensus was that African-American voters gave Hahn the victory. I never read any close analysis. I wonder if what gave Hahn the victory was a large number of white voters who are not ready for a Latino major. I wonder if that will happen again.
Villaraigosa ran a very laid back primary campaign. Several in the media taunted him for it, trying to draw him out. He did not take the bait. Good sign for him. The general is going to get hotter and dirtier. It's the only thing that can save Hahn.
I understand the idea, but the law does not require the performance of useless acts.
More important, the American public no longer requires a "first you give them a chance to denounce it" predicate to an attack. The Republicans and the Wingers never bother with it, they just note the failure to do so as one of their attack points.
A predicate "chance to denounce" is also inappropriate in this situation because the anti-AARP smears were so far out of line that anyone who didn't agree with it was required to denounce it at once. Normally, mere silence does not support an inference of adoption. This was not normal.
While I don't especially like the snarky tone of Reid & Pelosi's comments, I am not concerned that their takes and their tactics may differ.
Reid & Pelosi are Washington DC Democrats. They represent the party as a potential government. That necessarily involves the compromises, deals and policy choices.
Dean and the DNC are the National Democrats. The DNC is about elections more than policies, broad strokes more than specific issues and party organization more than legislative coalitions.
Both are absolutely necessary and the dynamic tension between the two will be positive once they all get serious about working together.
In admittedly generalized terms, Reid & Pelosi will reflect the consensus and goals of their respective caucuses. Dean and the DNC will reflect the consensus and goals of the organizations and leaders in the states.
This is not going to be a thing that breaks right or left on an consistent basis. While this may disappoint some people, Dean, to the extent that he is a spokeman, will have to reflect views in the party that he and his adherents may not share. His job is to help other people succeed (or survive).
Although I think he had given essentially the same speech earlier in DC, it was the California Convention speech in March that lit up Howard Dean all over the blogosphere. I may be off, but I think that largely due to Kos and Jerome. I don't remember which one I got the link from, but I watched the speech on line.
I was in from the very first "What I want to know" because that was exactly the question on my mind. Why were the Democrats rolling over? It was a question that had been hanging in the air since the 2000 selection. It was mostly the war, but it was everything else, too.
When he said the line about the fundamentalist preachers, I almsot started crying. No I am not kidding. I donated $100 and spent the next few days on the phone talking to everyone I knew, trying to get them to watch the speech.
At that point, it never occurred to me that Howard Dean would become the sensation of the nation or the frontrunner for the nomination. Having been through many campaigns since the 70s, and having had my fill of losing efforts, there was always a little "pick the winner" calculation when I decided who to support or volunteer for. But this time I didn't give a shit. I heard that speech and I decided I was going to volunteer, give money and do whatever else was necessary and appropriate for Howard Dean.
I felt inspired, for sure, but I also felt like I was politically re-centered, re-focused. For the first time in years if some one asked me "Why do you support that guy?" the answer came easily. And it didn't come from my head with its political calculation. It came from my heart.
Anti-semitism has never "gone out of style" it's only gone a little underground. This country is filled with raving anti-semites, closet anti-semites and people who just regard any person not like themselves as a "them" and subject to suspicion.
The answer to your question is other questions. Can a politician be too Christian? Too white? Too male?
Sure, the country is filled with bigots of all kinds. And every time we worry about what they think we are telling them that they have a point.
With respect to your opinions about Howard Dean, we just disagree. That you would label the man whose stump speech, throughout the campaign, included the repeated phrase "I'm tired of being divided" as one whose sensibility is about fissure and division is just amazing.
We do not see or hear the same person it is doubtful that we could ever be reconciled on this.
But there are a couple of points on which you are just plain wrong.
The DNC chair does not hold the keys to the Democratic Party's car. The DNC chair is a facilitator not a dictator, a servant not a master.
None of the other contenders for DNC chair have won any national elections, so this should not eliminate anyone from consideration.
Ickes is not now and never has been a kingmaker in any sense of the term.
I think I get your point and I have some sympathy with you. Some years back, I got flamed on a blog when I pointed out that Joe Lieberman would cost Gore votes because there are a lot of Americans that will not vote for a Jewish person, and particularly one as openly devout as Joe Lieberman. That was, at least, my point. But what I said was something more like "With some one as Jewish as Joe Lieberman on the ticket, Gore can kiss every southern state and a couple of midwestern states goodbye."
Like you, I had a point but I was rather insensitive in how I stated it. Even if the rebukes are not stated gently, you should take them in good graces and be more considerate next time. (Or disregard it and live with the flaming.)
This writer is not new and is not a troll. I think he/she got the point and I think you can let him/her off the hook for what was an unintended offense.
To the larger point:
Whether Simon Rosenberg is Jewish or not, your average anti-semite will assume he is.
We really should not be concerned with what anti-semites, racists and other degenerates think about the chair of our national party. For one thing, as a group, they are solid Republican voters.
More important, to care what our enemies think is the kind of reflexive/defensive mindset that has plagued the Democratic Party for years. We need to knock it off. No more Sister Souljah moments, no more distancing ourselves from Jesse Jackson, no more hiding our support of gay/lesbian rights. The people that are going to oppose us for those reasons are already opposing us. We don't want to debase ourselves by appealing to them or legitimizing their ignorance, fear and hatred.