How about George McGovern or Cynthia McKinney for DNC Chair?

I hear all the DU'ers salivating over the possibility of Howard Dean becoming chair of the DNC. By why should we settle for merely crippling an already weakened party? Why not go all the way and destroy the party for good by nominating someone even less popular among the "rest of America" (i.e., anyone who isn't a left-wing Democratic or Green activist) than Howard Dean?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help expose the election 2004 voter fraud!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

of George Lakoff's philosophy of reframing the issues?

(not that there's anything wrong with that) but I think he was defined that way by the media a while back. Dean's general message is good, but I question if he's the right messenger.

Here's an unusual choice: How about John Edwards? He doesn't really have a job now. He's somewhat moderate. He may have another run in him (I'm not sure if I'd support him) and he's an effective speaker.

He wanted the support of the ultra left Democrats, while clinging to his record as a near-Republican when he was governor of Vermont. But the nature of his supporters, his home state, signing the civil unions bill, and the campaign he ran means the country sees him as a liberal. And when they hear the name "Howard Dean," that's what mainstream America thinks of: a liberal, anti-war guy from a liberal, Northeastern state.

"The Scream" is something his still-and-always-angry supporters make more out of (to keep their sense of outrage and persecution pumped up), than do most other people.

The whole Dean phenomenon remains as pathological now as it was a year ago, and that's kind of freaky when you look at the campaign that just ended. Anyone who seriously wants to run yet another Northeastern liberal candidate whose campaign revolves around jobs and healthcare either consciously wants to see the party lose, or needs their head examined.

I'm not sure about Dean as DNC chair myself. The big problem I see is the crazed nature of many of his supporters. The Republicans are letting their crazies into power; if we make this whole thing a battle of the more extremist elements of the parties, we will likely lose, as there are more of them than there are of ours, and our nutcases are actually more out of touch with mainstream America than theirs are. I could easily see this party, in 2010 or 2012, looking back with nostalgia at the days when we still had 45 senators. At the same time, with the country so polarized, the party needs to adopt a more pugnacious attitude, and Dean certainly provides that. But is it worth the baggage? That's the question.


My own suggestion would be Wes Clark, who knows a thing or two about rebuilding wounded institutions, having been a a part of the rehabilitation of the Army after Vietnam. It would also start making over the image of the Democrats as the soft on defense party, which is, at the end of the day, what cost us the presidency this time around. But he likely doesn't have the contacts and the time spent as a Democrat to make him a viable choice, and the same anti-war crazies who have drug the party's image down would throw a gigantic fit and start fellating Ralph Nadir and the Greens. So we end up in this weird situation where we have to pick among seriously flawed candidates, trying to satisfy this and that interest group, instead of taking a clinical look at the problems we face and finding pragmatic solutions to them. As long as people put someone like Dean forward because they like him, rather than his manifest qualifications for the job, we will continue to have problems presenting a uniform, strong face to this country.

but as you said, he doesn't seem to have the contacts. The reason I didn't suggest him was similar - I don't think he's had a long enough history with the party and I say this as someone that supported him in the primaries myself.

How can you be the chair of a party you joined less than a year ago??

I have nothing against the General for the most part, and I hope he remains a voice in the party, but this ain't the gig for him.

to be ? he is also a doctor and it would be good to emphasize that point and other things like his stand on guns ?

And Bill Clinton was actually more liberal than he was perceived to me. His background as an Arkansas governor reassured a lot of people.

Like it or not, Howard Dean is widely perceived as a liberal, Northeastern secular elitist. That's the kiss of death in the red states. If you think Dean will have any appeal beyond the core liberal base of the Democratic Party (and even some of them have serious reservations about Dean) you really ought to get out more. The people of Vermont may know him as a flinty fiscal conservative. But people outside of Vermont haven't had twenty years to get to know Howard Dean. But Dean has made an impression on many of these people, and it was a lousy first impression.

/sarcasm

We should stop pandering to our own insecurities and start to stand up and be proud of what we believe in.

know who Terry McAuliffe is?

Dean has the right ideas and message. The trick is finding the right messenger, i.e. candidate.

I'd love to see Bill Clinton get the position but I suppose that is not likely.

at the person heading the DNC, the person chosen should be uncontroversial. That rules out a lot of people.

make as mush $$$ as I'm sure he gets now.

he doesn't take money when working for Democratic candidates in the United States.

most of his money is made by working for candidates in foreign nations,and of course the books,and things like that. but he doesn't take money for party work.

I am sure he would be good for the next one as well.

There's another Georgian who's going to be unemployed after January (Cynthia's going to be a little busy, since she's going back to Congress), a rousing centrist and popular former governor who'd be sure to attract the disaffected Republican vote. And I'll just bet he'd meet with your approval, dolstein.

He/She doesn't have to win a personal popularity poll over a Republican.

Howard Dean would be a fine choice. What the hell are you worried about?

- The 'rest of America' shouldn't have a say in which person Democrats choose to chair the DNC.

One Emmanuel Goldstein for the 1970's and Republican bet noir from 2000. :eyes:

--and who figured out using the Internet effectively for fundraising? Who knows how to get more people to get and stay involved?

to be wrong and misguided.

NOT.

Look, I was never a huge Dean booster, but I certainly would have got behind him if he was the nominee. I think he proved during Kerry's campaign that he's a team player, he's fired up, he's got his head on the right side of the issues. As far as "he's a Vurrrmont Librul", half of this country thinks that any Democat that isn't Zell Miller is somewhere to the left of Trotsky. Bill Clinton is a DLC'er from the South, and they can't stand THAT guy, either.

So hell, yes, let's get Terry M. out of there-

and I'm all for Howard Dean.

:shrug:

Let's put Daschle in charge. He is not doing anything over the next 4 years. His abilities to accomodate the republican agenda are profound.

Yelling when your wrong can convince a decent ammount of people as we saw this election and as we see w/ Rush fans...Yelling when you're right can convince a hell of a lot more people, as we saw in the 60's and 70's. We stopped yelling a long time ago. We need to start yelling again. Dean's a yeller.

To believe that you know and are certain about what appeals to the "rest of America" is absurd. One thing is clear, the "New Democrats" don't have a clue. If they did, we would be discussing the choices "President-elect Kerry" should be making right now.

Join me in supporting him dolstein.

Seriously, he's 82 years old and has given more than enough to our party. He shouldn't be dragged out of retirement and forced to do this job. Can't we find someone else?

The trouble is that most Americans haven't seen a real leftist since 1968, so they believe the mass media spin that anyone to the right of Zell Miller is a "leftist."

I actually think that Howard Dean would be a terrific DNC chair. He would be better in that position than as a candidate.

I wasn't fond of Dean for president, but I'd hardly call him a liberal. In case you didn't notice, the person to win the second greatest number of votes in American history was John Kerry. Dean had a lot to do with organizing that. People were motivated, but if you recall many complained that contacting the Democratic party was NOT resulting in calls back. If we are to retake either the house or the senate, it is going to take MAJOR organization...of the many things that did NOT appeal to me about Dean, his organizational skills weren't one of them. Imagine how much he could do to get the party to raise funds through ordinary citizens were he at the helm daily.

Unless of course you want more of the same.

Please don't compare Cynthia McKinney to Howard Dean.

Dean may have been a less than stellar candidate, but he's not even close to being as disaterous to our party as McKinney is.

And as a fairly moderate Dem, I still think Dean would be an outstanding DNC chair anyway. He's certainly got the fire! And through his support for Kerry after his bitter loss in the primaries, he's shown he's a team player.

and McGovern is a retread. We don't need those now, they're losers.

We need ass-kickers, not boot-lickers. Howard Dean is an ass-kicker.

And hey, he may not have articulated well when he said we needed to reach the folks with Confederate flags on their pick-up trucks. But his point was - those folks are suffering as much if not far more than we are economically and healthcare-wise - and that the Republicans are not their friends on those issues.

The task of organizing and strengthening our bases down South should be done strictly by Southern Democrats and progressives themselves. The folks down there won't listen to a Yankee, but they WILL listen to one of their own kind.

What Dean can do is spur all of us, North and South, East and West, with his fund-raising ability, which is what the DNC chair is supposed to do. The Yankees will do best here by providing money and resources/guides to their Southern peers - but they should not do the organizing down there themselves.

:kick::kick:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.