I'm beginning to wish Dean hadn't run for DNC chair

The race to head the DNC is shaping up to be another stupid, bloody battle further splintering the party, and much of the battle is centered around Dean. In no way am I blaming Dean or his supporters. I count myself as one. I simply think it's a fruitless battle. If Dean wins, there will be constant pressure on him from Washington insiders to tow the line they way they want it towed. In other words, the battle will continue. That's not beneficial to anyone. For whatever reasons, there's a strong antipathy towards Dean in Washington. It'll cripple his ability to reform the party. Whoever heads the DNC needs to be able to work with the power brokers and the grassroots. I'm not convinced he can do that.

Flame away.

I'm a hardcore Deaniac and I NEVER wanted him to run for the post. Let the insiders play their game and let us do the work we are supposed to do.

Dean would be much more effective out front of DFA, working with the grassroots to keep the machinery's balls to the wall.

Once he gets inside and is at the mercy of the party-proper, they are going to stifle and minimize him at every turn, and he'll be no better than a figurehead used to rein in us left-enders, IMO.

too.

If they come on TOO strong, Dean is not obligated to stick around. I saw a list of past DNC chairs, very few of the recent chairs served more than 2 years. Dean and his peeps can do PLENTY for the party coming into 06. Chill.

:freak:

They just need to chose their method. DFA is not going away and neither are all the other progressive groups which have sprung up such as PDA.
I am not afraid and I welcome the struggle.

The grassroots will not bend the knee to some DLC-type DNC chair, the DLC won't accept a populists (or grassrooter) as chair. As long as the DLC has power over the party apparatus, this party will be screwed - you have to have the grassroots, you don't need the DLC...

While there ARE party insiders who believe as the DLC does, it is with them that the power resides, not the other way around. Basically the DLC is an obscure interest group with several prominent Party people who are members; but I can assure you that they are legend only in their own minds and on one or two internet BBS.

Howard Dean spoke about it in this interview; if he's not afraid of the DLC why give in to your own fears?

follow the DLC lead. That is why there is so much appeasement and movement to the right in our national, elected officials. They want to play the game as called by the DLC, but the grassroots folks won't have any of it - not any more. There are a few Democrats in Washington who are waking up and sensing the shift in the winds; they are the ones who might just survive in office through the next four or five years.

Why is it "splintered"? Who can bring it together? No matter who is put in the position as Chair of the DNC we will remain splintered.

We ARE splintered and maybe that's a GOOD thing. We hold many diverse personalities in our party. Everyone is an individual not like the republicans who all goose step to the SAME drummer.

Can't we use our diversity to our advantage again? Take what the Fascist republican party views as our weakness and MAKE it our strength.

I think Dean realizes this more than any other politician, therefore, I feel, he's the BEST person for the job.

you said "Whoever heads the DNC needs to be able to work with the power brokers and the grassroots." I agree exactly and the DNC and DLC have not communicated with the grassroots in some time nor have they even trusted state parties or local parties. Times are a changing and whoever is elected if we play same ol same ol Democrats will find themselves plummeting even faster than they did in 04.

But Dean won't win without a majority of the votes, so if he does win he will have some real support behind him along with real enemies opposing him. The Party is at a difficult cross roads right now. I fear it is in danger of alienating its activist base and locking itself into a predominantly reactive mode to Republican attacks and initiatives. I fear the implications if they turn away from someone like Dean right now. And there really isn't anyone else like Dean right now to turn to. Some others have some appreciation of Dean's vision for the party and may share some or most of it even. But they don't have the high public profile and grass roots fund raising abilities that Dean brings to the table. And they don't have a strong base of support that Dean has, through DFA and others, to help him implement the vision that he holds.

Dean is NOT a radical except in the sense that he has come out firmly in support of average Americans having a strong stake and say in their own political parties and how policies are agreed on. Dean has the skills and connections to work with virtually any faction in the Democratic Party. It is a very difficult job, but a very vital one right now. Perhaps no one can succeed at it but the effort has to be made for the sake of our Party and ultimately our country. Dean has the best chance of pulling it off. May God bless him if he gets the chance and God bless us all if he is blocked out of fear.

The strong antipathy to Dean in Washington is a strong antipathy to what he represents to them.
Might as well take the bull by the horns.
The sooner the better.

to take back the country. The insiders are part of the problem in both parties. It will be beneficial because our house needs to be cleaned and it does not follow that, because someone has been a power broker, that they need to be given that level of trust for their entire lifetime. I'm for dethroning a few of these guys.

but how can we know that this one or that one "can't work with washington" until they GO to washington?

that the Demos need a *long term strategy* !

We need a long term theme. We must stop going just from election to election.

We must find a theme that unites us - forget the "patch" (ie: sub-set area of interest: anti war, pro-labour etc)


Yes.

commonsensical for the DC crowd. They tend to be concrete thinkers.

rebub lite will not win any election - the rw cult gain control of all levels of government - and unless we do something REAL we will not get it back - and it is probably too late anyway
the power brokers are not working for the people - the people vote - corporations buy - the power brokers are corporations

the congress are guaranteed pay raises and retirement - they are out to take that away from the people - the people must take back the WH house from corporations or there is no hope for the people

It isn't a risk - considering the alternative.

Clear house, rebuild.

and that Dean could actually do more by building DFA. Then, if he wants to run in '08 he should go for it. I don't think he could win, but he'd bring energy and a straight forward message to the race. I could care less that by running he'd piss off a lot of people.

and I think that is gosh darn interesting.


Because it says he puts the viability of the party above exclusive personal ambition.

you don't understand DFA. Dean did not build it, he suggested it, and he fights passionately, as do we, for it.

it's an administrative/cheerleading/fundraising position. It sounds like a cool title, but the position is beneath the likes of Howard Dean. It should be held by a no-name, quite frankly.

I think there is serious misunderstanding out there of what it means to be party chair.

...better suited for Dean to make than this one. But to suggest that it is only a minor role with little potential for achieving anything worthwhile is in a roundabout way insulting to Dean who obviously feels otherwise or he would not be seeking the DNC Chair.

They will try to obstruct him at every turn but what he wants to do is grow the party, to get those who don't believe that either party is really any different. If the 'insiders' want to obstruct let them go there are real people out there that have the issues that need to be addressed. If they can see that he (we) really speak the issues the party will change for the better and become the party of the people again. The whole Washington gang has to change not us.

The inside-the-Beltway, Washington-insider crowd has done nothing lately but try to protect its own interests.

The party establishment needs an enema and Dean is just the doctor to administer it.

get this purge underway.

at least there's a small chance that significant reform will occur. I don't see how we can afford NOT to have Dean as DNC chair at this stage in party history.

Don't lose your enthusiasm. Dean the man can turn the job into whatever he wants it to be.

From the DFA website, the answer:

DFA has raised over $5 million since we became an organization in March 2004. We have donated money to 748 candidates throughout the country--in 46 states and at every level of government. We believe that Democrats will return to national prominence very soon. DFA will continue to endorse and support candidates and train campaign workers and volunteers in 2005 and beyond.

http://democracyforamerica.com/dd_returns.php

_____________

As a one-time contributor to DFA, DFA noted in a pie-chart I received in the mail that 33% of the monies they collected went directly to the candidates. Unfortunately, did not save the accompanying letter. Of the rest, 28% went for Staff Costs & Health Care, 20% for Communications:Mail, Web, Outreach, 10% to Administrative Costs, 5% for Trainings, and 4% for Travel.

He not a shoe in, yet.

which actually comes from a root meaning to "possesss the ability" ... so having the power to do something merely means possessing the ability to do it. Now let's take that one step further, and recognize that to "possess the ability" in Washington quite literally means having the authority within that system.

Now, let's examine "power" or actually authority within systems. There are three types of authority within any and all systems. And these are hereditary, bureaucratic, and charismatic. Let's look closer at each one.

Hereditary authority simply means "this is how my ancestors did things." It's family systems. It can be a clan, a tribe, or we can even look at some Middle Eastern peoples to see hereditary authority. (It does not necessarily mean the "from father-to-son" power that we think of with kings, though that is certainly one aspect.)

The second type, bureaucratic, is what we think of in dealing with the Department of Social Services, Dept of Motor Vehicles, the phone company, state government, etc. It simply means there are too many families for hereditary authority to meet the needs of large numbers of people, so an assembly-line system is brought into being. If you have one of the ten problems that, say, DMV is prepared to deal with, you get in and out quick. Come in with a problem they don't deal with, and you find the system has difficulty dealing with you.

People who have worked in a government-run human service agency know that bureaucratic systems have problems with people who say, "I do it this way, because my father/mother/grandparents did. We've always done it this way." The system requires that people respect the bureaucratic authority. If they question it, there's a problem much larger than going into DMV with an odd request.

Next is charismatic authority. As we know, the word literally came into use in reference to people filled with "the holy spirit" of early Christianity. But it has come to have a broader meaning. Martin Luther King, Jr was charismatic. So was JFK, RFK, and Malcolm X.

Charismatic authority translates well into hereditary or family systems, but not very well into bureaucratic systems. Family systems will make adjustments for charismatic leaders; bureaucratic systems always try to find the point a charismatic leader will compromise his beliefs for bureaucratic "power." Those who don't -- and MLK, JFK, RFK, and Malcolm are proof -- die. When they die, they are always replaced by their aide with the greatest bureaucratic skills. And that is always true, even if by chance - like Moses - they die from natural causes, or if like Crazy Horse, they die at the hand of one of their own people.

Now, most charismatic leaders have skills that fit either the hereditary or bureaucratic system. Bill Clinton had charisma. Reagan projected charisma at a distance. Both Clinton and Reagan were willing to trade their authority for fame and fortune. When we look at Usama bin Laden, we see a charismatic figure with both hereditary and bureaucratic abilities; one can say with confidence that he will die in battle, as opposed to in the style of Nelson Rockefellar.

This brings us back to Howard Dean and the very bureaucratic DNC. Take a minute to examine what Dean represents to the system, and perhaps far more importantly, what he represents to the democratic grass roots. I hope this is useful in helping folks understand what is going on, and why the bureaucrats appear to be hoping for "anyone" but Dean.

suggest Dean's charisma is quite limited.

Also, it seems quite a few bureaucrats SUPPORT Dean.

He is willing to tell it like it is, without apology.

And he is the figure who has emerged to meet the challenge we are confronted with in these times of deception.

charisma.

"tell it like it is" alone is worthless; it must be paired with someone who possesses the ability to change things to have value.

One can find drunks in every bar in America who actually are quite talented at telling it like it is. There are hundreds and even thousands of people on the internet who can pin-point problems with the system with amazing accuracy. But only the person who has the power to make meaningful change is in a position to make the "ability to tell it like it is" an actual asset.

And that is why he has, exactly as you describe, emerged to confront the system.

isn't a trait found in many politicians.

He is scrappy too, and he seems to enjoy himself in the process.

I think that people can tell the difference between a person who has determined that it is better to tell the truth to the best of his/her ability, and let the cards fall where they may. There are other people who have far more background information on Dean than I do. So I will not even pretend to know how this man carried himself in the past.

But I know this: in the many years that I was employed in human services, I needed the ability to tell when a person was being honest or not. I did quite a few years in forensics, both in the jails and on the street. And I think Dean is about as straight-forward as any national politician in America today.

There are others who are not really dishonest. But they are not willing to be blunt in telling the truth. They play their cards in a different manner. And this includes democrats, some republicans, and even some 3rd party folk.

And, of course, there are plenty of liars. Some are mere thieves. Others are pathological. The current administration has a selection of each of these.

about what you think of Dean. But then Dean never appeared in a Speedo or military attire picture so I can see how you might not be able to judge.

does have charisma. It is true that he will appeal to a far more narrow segment of the population because of this. More of the general public will judge him -- for good or for bad -- because of his uniform.

Clark shares one problem with Dean. In our current political culture, telling a lie will only hurt a person for a short period of time. But telling the truth will create long-term hostilities. When you think about that, you'll see that it is absolutely true. We are dealing with (and in) an extremely ill society.

Both Bush and Cheney were caught telling vicious lies in the last few years. Yet they enjoy great popularity within the bureaucratic culture. Clark and Dean were not caught stretching the truth. Their honesty made many people uncomfortable. And Americans do not tolerate discomfort. On Martin Luther King Day, much of the country blocked the message of King completely out of their consciousness. How extreme was this? Well, the president spoke about Colin Powell on MLK Day. Again, bureaucratic America prefers a lying snake like Powell to an honest man like King.

to use as an example of how to get people to agree with you....

:eyes:

Please stop, as you are demeaning yourself and no one else. Let the GOP keep the Weasly thing for themselves.....although you have tried my patience many a times, I thought you were better than they.

subjective; while there is nothing wrong with giving your opinion, it would be a mistake to ignore that Dean is charismatic. Any objective examination of his primary campaign, particularly in terms of support from youth and the internet fund-raising, clearly indicate that Dean fits the definition of a charismatic politician. If this isn't enough proof, look at how his primary campaign ended.

Bureaucrats supporting Dean is simply not a factor .... in terms of if he is charismatic or not. Lots of bureaucrats supported both JFK and RFK.

The important thing to remember is that in understanding systems, it doesn't make even a tiny bit of difference if you or I think Dean is charismatic to us. (I don't in the least. And I never thought Elvis was appealing. But I do know that in our society, he had charisma.) Dean is by every definition playing the role of a charismatic in democratic politics.

In the primaries, only one other candidate had charismatic appeal, and that was General Wesley Clark. He had an obvious bureaucratic history that, for a nation looking for a powerful military leader, was clearly unmatched. There was a belief in some circles that his charisma might be enough to beat Bush in a one-on-one contest. I think that many of us still believe this.

Finally, it is pretty easy to identify John Kerry as lacking charisma as a packaged politician. Yet he had charisma as a soldier, and especially as an anti-war leader in the early 1970s. Had he relied upon his own strengths, rather than allowing the bureaucracy to define him, he would have done better.

They both wowed the populace and projected their personas throught the t.v.

:)

Let's look closer: Rev. Sharpton is a wonderful example of a hereditary leader. He is a product of the black church. His skills as a speaker and activist fit well within that context. One of the best scenes of the movie Malcolm X is when Malcolm walks through the neighborhood, and there are speakers on platforms at every turn .... and sure enough, Al is one of them.

He matured in the primary season. But he is a leader much in the manner of the men on the Iroquois Grand Council of Chiefs. Each of the 50 is able to deliver a great speech. They are all talented debators, because their culture promotes that ability in exactly the same way that the black church does. But is Rev. Sharpton a charismatic leader? No. He will not be remembered with, for example, Malcolm or Martin.

Now for John Edwards. John is a great example of a bureaucratic leader. He is clearly appealing, but does he represent anyone outside of the bureaucratic system he works within? As either an attorney, or politician? No.

He is similar to RFK before JFK died. The main difference is that RFK was, in an Irish context that every Irish-American over 60 understands, very much a hereditary power, too. Edwards doesn't have that same influence.

Could he become a charismatic leader? Oh, yes! In fact, he might even have done that, but for the Kerry campaign's efforts to package him. They were entirely unsuited for dealing with a force outside the bureaucratic system.

the intelligence to go with it!

And Good for the bureaucrats..something I have in common with them.

Plenty of bureaucrats supported JFK and RFK. That's what gave them the power to potentially change the system. It's the charisma that changes the way that people think. And the democratic party needs to change its thinking .... at least at the top.

Two things I think he can accomplish.

One, Dean is a guy who can state the basic positions of the Democratic party in a common-sense way on TV. Terry McAuliffe was pretty pathetic on the Sunday talk shows, spouting rhetoric instead of having a common-sense discussion. And on that note, Dean will get attention to the opposing point of view because the media guys love to have him on TV.

Second, Dean will have the ability to rebuild the grassroots, regardless of whether the folks in Washington agree with him. That has nothing to do with the message.

Finally, I think from a basic negotiating strategy, the very best way to end up with solutions in the middle is having strong arguments on both sides in favor of the more extreme positions. The Republicans never start out in the middle, they start out in the far right. The Democrats start out in the middle and then are forced to compromise to the right. The way to get to the middle ground is to have loud voices on both the left and right, so that when a compromise is reached it is actually in the middle, not to the right of the middle. Our leaders tend to make their initial offer in the middle, which is lousy negotiating strategy.

Assuming (for the sake of argument only) that Dean did do what those who dislike him think he will do -- which is promote a far left position -- this would set the stage for the moderates to come in and be heroes of reaching a middle ground compromise. The way it is now, we have few voices on the left and almost zero leverage to achieve middle ground compromises.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2994498
Howard DEAN was responding to a laundry list of issues facing the Dem party and the GONZALES nomination came up. He appropriately acknowledged the problems contained with his record, and then added the obligatory Dem obeissance to GONZALES's "great personal story," -------BUT in elaborating on what the "great story" was, he said, ----------he started out in ANOTHER COUNTRY and rose to the top of (whatever)...."

Uh, GONZALES was born in San Antonio, TX. Perhaps the misspeak was regarding ESTRADA who came from ANOTHER COUNTRY, albeit from an upper economic and social class.

I have never flamed or bashed good Democrats in general and DEAN in particular, so let's clear this part off the table.

The real point about DEAN's quote is that he was not up to speed on GONZALES's background, therefore, "off" on what is really wrong with GONZALES (the torture and the TOOLism). It also shows a lack of connection to the coming Hispanic role, lack of "getting" the nuances of what is the difference between ESTRADA and GONZALES. He is the father of the theme of trying to connect to Red State America, and even mentioned Mississippi in today's interview, and as I recall, he speaks better Spanish than Shrub and GORE, yet he flat footed on GONZALES.

This might lead to an even more flameworthy premise, whether DEAN is up to speed enough for the chairmanship he is seeking------besides that being Chair is a flunky job, not for star-contender types.

From the transcript, Dean; regarding Gonzales"

"I haven't made up my mind on that because it's too far out, but I'm inclined to agree with Senator Biden. I think Alberto Gonzales is a wonderful American story of somebody who started from nothing and has a tremendous career, but the torture memos are deeply, deeply concerning for any American Attorney General to have said it's okay to use torture under certain circumstances, which is essentially the thrust of those memos. That's of deep, deep concern to me."

I gave you the exact quote, but here's thetranscriptas well. Please ammend BOTH of your posts to clarify your error.

That's all the clarification of my error needed. Readers won't know what the dust-up was about if it's changed.

Why Dean should take charge
With his passion and populist appeal, Howard Dean is exactly the leader the Democratic Party needs right now.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/01/24/dean/index.html

DU thread on this article --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1523759

At the California meeting, his supporters were vocal in their support for Dean. I felt somewhat uncomfortable with this. It felt like they were an adoring fan base instead of activists. I think many were rude to the other candidates. I think there will be a schism in the party if he's not elected.

I think it is likely he will not be elected. Dean angered many Democratic leaders with his attacks on Dems during the primary. The way the voting works, is that if someone doesn't get a majority then Dems have another vote with the candidate with the least number of votes dropped off. It may end up in a race between two candidates for the final vote. I think has locked up about 40 percent of the vote which leaves 60 percent to go to another candidate. Dean's going to have to mend some fences to get those votes.

...he has been working with the party chairs at the state level during this process, and their fear of him (as fed to them by spin from the entrenched apparatchiks) is diminishing, as they see him in person and realize he is not the wild-eyed radical he has been painted as. It is really quite amazing, to see them see the logical and rational Howard Dean so many of us knew already was his core personality, and to see that man in person and with all the spin set aside.

I agree, all that said, that he very likely will not get the chair. The Bill and Hillary forces are working fervently to make sure that does not happen. For we Dean supporters, it is a near deja vue experience to watch this process.

I also agree that if Dean does not get the chair, the party will likely split along an activist leaders/party followers line. I will be among those who will follow the "Dean faction," the activist leaders, which I see evolving as a more limber, fighting weight version of the bloated main party. Where the main party's priority is softness of rhetoric, the lowest common denominator, and not making waves -- a kind of coccoon of lite-speak, the Dean faction will be about taking no prisoners, expressing the stripped-down core values of the party in a plain-spoken way, reaching out to voters shunned by the party at present, and running candidates at every level with the eye on winning as the goal. Those candidates then will become the "farm team" for our next generation of national Democratic leaders.

I'll be in that camp.

How many others in the Democratic base would rather run than fight when it gets down to the wire? Maybe the Democratic base needs to learn how to fight and maybe taking back the Democratic Party is the first step.

Kneepad wearing democrats that populate washington should give up lest the democratic party become fractured <sarcasm>

In a way, I'd love for dean to lose, and for a DINO candidate to run in 2008. A huge faction of the party would splinter off, without ABB to deal with, and it would deal a death-blow to the faction of the party that is constantly running to the right.

Obviously this election cycle wasn't evidence enough that that kind of theory doesn't work.

that former DGA Chairman Dean is a washington outsider and that there is a washington insider conspiracy against him. Within the party, like every other organization you've been involved with, there are people who want to keep their power and people who want to take it away. All are insiders.

For those who get whiney when someone points out that HD is an insider, I have a question. How does an outsider get elected to an organization when only insiders get to vote?

BTW, The reason there was less visible wrangling when TM took over was because the choice was dictated by the White House and there was little anyone can do about it.

but there are insiders and insiders. Many of those voting in the DNC chair race are not insiders in D.C. They sure as hell don't wield the power of Pelosi, Reid, Kerry or the Clintons, just to name a few. Many of those voting are indeed grassroots dems, and that's where Dean gets his support. Dean is not a Washington insider. He's too iconoclastic. That's something that will not be forgiven in a hurry.

Keep your chin up, Dr. Dean surely thought of this before he ran for DNC chair, as well. He wins no matter what:

1.) If he wins the chair, he can galvanize the party for his term. He will storm the castle with his own organization, already in place at Democracy for America. This group already ran nearly 800 candidates in November, they have experience, and they are ready to transform this party. I disagree that the battle is not beneficial. In my view, caving to "nice-nice" is why we are losing. We are "nicing" ourselves into irrelevance on the national scene. We need to get back to our party's roots, and the only way to do that is by stepping on the toes of the entrenched fat-cats whose oily rhetoric and love for the big donor's teat have only increased our party's flab and delivered us loss after loss because Americans don't believe we stand for anything anymore. Going on that diet will be painful, but we'll be in fighting trim again!

2.) If he loses the chair, Dean will have gained a huge amount of networking inside the party, having shown party apparatchiks through this process that he is not the bogeyman his fat-cat opponents paint him to be. They will have gotten to know him personally at the state chair level and those immediately below that. This would be a perfect platform from which to run for prez again in '08, with some insider help this time.

Cali, remember, the one sure measure of the strength of an individual is the strength of his or her foes. There would not be all this sturm and drang right now if Dean was not such an incredibly strong force on the scene in our party. That is a good thing, because it means he at minimum is forcing the party leadership to look at the hard issues we need to address, rather than looking away.

Dean and our party cannot lose from this, either way.

truer words were never typed on the internet

...even made me go in and fix some mis-spellings in that earlier post!

:toast:

Excellent post!

It's All Good!

not the D.C. insider types (for the most part). And even if by some bizarre chance Dean doesn't get elected, there's still DFA!

Chin up!

Obviously he didn't run to lose....but if he does, he will move on to plan B.

The challenge that faces him that you mention in your post is what leading is all about. It ain't easy, but I am sure that it can be done well. If you think a DNC Chairman has a complex role to fill, just think about what a (real) President would have to do.

Howard Dean has been a governor for years....he knows what to do to get where he wants to go!

... Dean is as likely to unite our party as anyone is.

I think Dean might have a brighter future as a party leader rather than an elected politician.

I am thankful that Dr. Dean did not pick up his marbles and go home.

I'm going to be very dissapointed if he does not get the DNC chair, but it won't be the first dissapointment I'v suffered :)

Because the "dems" are dem in name only at this point.

Better to get them out of the way now instead of in the '08 primaries.

Its time for all of us to decide where we want this party to go. Right now, its going nowhere. Time to fight it out and come back with a renewed sense purpose. This election cycle was a disaster.

Thats probably the Democrats biggest blindspot - believing the Republicans will give up what they've grabbed from us willingly.

That's not how they work.

I'd rather have the bloody battle and figure out a way to win some races than stick with the staus quo. I was againt Dean in the primaries not because I disagreed with him, but because I thought he'd lose to Bush -- his personality and bluntness woudn't work over the long haul.

On the other hand, those same qualities are good things in shaping a message for the party. A lot of people like Dubya (it's hard for me to believe too) because they see him as being steadfast and resolute, evewn if it's not true. I think Dean can shape that steadfast, resolute message well, even if he's not necessarily the best person to be delivering it at the top of a ticket.

Dems can't keep losing by being afraid to say hard things without wincing or backpedaling. Dean can help make that happen.

signed the petition back when it was circulating. I think we need more grassroots influence in the party. Dean has the best chance of making that happen. We definitely have to clean out some dead wood in DC.