I'm still unconvinced Rosenberg is the man for the job, and I don't say that because I back Dean. Everything I know about Rosenberg (which is not much compared to you) is that the man is a centrist at heart.
Centrism will not put the Democratic Party back on solid footing. Nor will compromise since Denny Hastert has chosen to lead by "a majority of the majority."
Can you see Rosenberg making the "What I Want to Know" speech? I don't think so.
Didn't Rosenberg say on tv--on Fox, no less--that invading Iraq was a good idea? How much mileage will the GOP get from that? What other video landmines await?
The next DNC chair has to build the Democratic Party into a strong, opposition party and what I know about Rosenberg doesn't lead me to conclude he's the guy to do it.
This month's election proved that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has coattails -- the ability to get down-ballot candidates elected. The problem for Clinton, a prospective Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, is that the person who rode her coattails to victory is a Republican.
Patrick McHenry was elected to the House from North Carolina's 10th Congressional District, making him the youngest congressman at age 29. McHenry did not have a lot of years to build a professional résumé, but this item from his campaign Web site apparently was a hit in his conservative district:
"After college, Patrick worked as an executive with DCI/New Media Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based media firm known as a national and international leader in business and political Internet applications. He oversaw an Internet-based campaign opposing Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 campaign for U.S. Senate at DCI/New Media."
The Repubs love to mention HRC in their fundraising materials. There is no way in hell she'll win the nomination or general election. She's much better off staying in the Senate.
WaPo notes this morning that Webb is disliked by some in organized labor because of clashes with unions when he was in office. I think Webb is already a vice-chair of the DNC, which may or may not give him some traction.
But you ask a good question: The duties of the DNC chair aren't really defined in the bylaws of the DNC. So perhaps the right question, as Atrios once posed, isn't who is the right person to do X; it's who has the right ideas for what X is all about?
Rosenberg is just more of the same: He won't go far enough to differentiate the Democrats from the Republicans and we'll just end up yet again as Republican-lite.
Rosenberg doesn't "get" the grassroots, either. He expressed a disdain for all of the fundraising emails sent by the Kerry campaign, and scoffed at the idea of raising money online -- favoring, apparently, a more esoteric relationship between campaigns and their grassroots supporters. While admirable, it ignores the fact that over 2/3rds of all Kerry's funds came from such contributions.
90% of the contributions to the NDN came from contributions of $1,000 or more. He seems to believe that the millions of us who have found a way to wield real political power with our $50 contributions belong back on the sidelines while fundraisers like Rosenberg bring in the "serious" dollars.
Rosenberg has done little online. Sure, NDN has a blog--but so did Bush. Rosenberg blased Kerry for not doing enough to court the Hispanic vote but what was NDN's Hispanic effort all about? I live in DC area--with a sizeable Hispanic population--and I didn't see a damn thing. What he only advertising on Univision?
Rosenberg can't do what Dean can: Dean's got hundreds of thousands of supporters that he can still tap for contributions. Dean invested a lot of effort in promoting and campaigning for downticket candidates. One-third of the Dean Dozens won their races as did hundreds of others who were inspired to run by Dean.
Actions speak louder than words, folks, and while Rosenberg may say all the right words, I don't think he can back them up.
It's great to see so many people willing to self-identify as "anti-abortion." Here are a couple of questions for you:
Women soldiers who are raped (by our own soldiers, in Iraq, or on military bases) and who subsequently get pregnant presently cannot end their pregnancies in a military hospital, because abortions are not permitted there. Would you agree that women soldiers should receive treatment in military hospitals to end their rape induced pregnancies?
There have been reports of "pro-life" pharmacists refusing to fill legitimate prescriptions for contraceptives. They are supposed to hand the prescription back to the woman and direct her to another pharmacy that will fill it but in some cases, even that doesn't happen. What about women who are trying to prevent pregnancy but can't get their scripts filled?
Moderation is not the course of action that is needed here. Here is how the Democrats should frame the issue: "The practice of medicine is none of the government's business and they ought to stay out of it. This is a private relationship between the physician, the patient and whoever the patient chooses to involve."
That is what will set us apart from the Republicans.
I think his reputation, undeserved as it is, proceeds him no matter where he goes.
Dean's gone a long way to burnish his reputation by campaigning vigorously for Kerry, being willing to debate bloviates like Blackjack Bill Bennett and Ralph Reed the Giant Toddler, and hitting the Sunday Talk Show circuit. He can defuse whatever concerns people have and do it well. (And it's precedes, not proceeds.)
And I was a big supporter of his until I saw the results from Iowa (and jumped ship prior to "The Yell").
No, you're fairweather and were willing to bail at the smallest sign of trouble. You probably fell for the electability meme.
We do need someone with vision, but also someone with smarts and skill.
Dean's got that in spades. Vision: The Dean Dozens helped raise the visibility of downticket candidates that people would not have otherwise heard of. Smarts: Dean is smart and his instincts are dead-on. He was very deft in debating the Sunday talking head crowd. Skill: He's got years of experience as a legislator and executive.
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
I agree and it feels like I've been the only one pushing this meme (not here but on other blogs).
Warner is great--he's done much better compared to Jim Gilmore, who was such a fuck up as governor.
I would much rather see Warner challenge Allen, who has spent a lot of time campaigning for RSCC candidates. His lack of visibility back at home will hurt him and Warner could exploit this. Allen should shit his pants if Warner decides to run against him.
I would prefer Warner run this race then he could become VA's senior senator in 2008 when John Warner retires.