Would we be in this mess if Howard Dean were in charge.

He brought the democratic party to victory in all three branches and look what happens when he leaves.

The should fire the current head of the DNC and beg Gov Dean to take the job back. I knew that he would be missed, I just didn't know how much.

Gov. Kaine just finished his term in Virginia and is only now focusing 100% of his efforts on the party. This was a big mistake, in my opinion, in allowing a part-timer for any amount of time.

Either that, or do the DNC 85% to 90% of the time and remain as a figure head Gov? Most of them cant & don't accomplish much in the last 6+months of their term anyway!

Either way, it didn't work out.

time ago and told her how to win a damn campaign. I gotta say, for being a Sr. and more or less coming out of nowhere into politics, he sure did know how to get things done! I miss him too!

"Don't tell me how to run a campaign in my state" when DNC folks tried to tell her to not to take a break. Finally, other members of the Massachusetts delegation got so concerned that they solicited DNC help.

I'm not sure that Coakley would have listened to Dean.

It was a huge mistake to sideline him. I just wish he could run in 2012.

Dean was there when the mood turned against the Republicans, so anyone in his situation would have probably had some success. Dean probably helped with winning a lot of victories, but he did so by spreading resources around and fighting in every state, not by supporting a particular candidate. One of the complaints about him was that he refused to fund fights we could have won, and funded too many we had no chance in. Whether that charge is valid, or whether Dean got us the most seats we could have won (both can be true, really), will always be speculation, but the point is that his strategy was to focus on the big picture, not individual races.

So I don't know if he'd make a difference in a single state (I assume you're talking about the Massachusets situation). He's proven wiser at a mass election strategy than at individual races and candidates, from my observation.

was training & advice! Yesterday I kept hearing that Martha didn't really campaign very hard, and never ASKED for everyone's vote! I honestly don't believe Howard would have ignored that! At the very least, he would have been on the phone with her.

I'm sure she's gotten advice from plenty of sources, but maybe having a more involved head of the DNC would have helped her.

If I know that and have heard more than one MA politician reference that more than once, I assume that she did as well. I assume she looked at internals that showed her 30 points ahead, remember she got 70 plus % as AG, and made the decision that no one wanted to see her in the holiday season.

I would assume that MANY MA people were on the phone telling her she needed to do something. With them she could not have said that "she knew the state". I doubt she would be any more likely to listen to Dean than to Kaine. After all, she could point to her huge win for AG to say that she was not a novice politician.

(I know nothing of what she thinks of Dean, but she was a HRC supporter in 2008 and I assume supported her state's favorite son in 2004.)

it was against the DLC, and it was the DLC that did him in. When the DLC confirmed their ineptitude with the 2004 debacle he got into the DNC chair and showed them how it was done, and in their unending gratitude they bumped him and ignored him thereafter.

His secret? Listen to the PEOPLE not the BOARDROOM.

and making sure that their were candidates with some support even in races that we were unlikely to win. Had he not done that, there would not have been people there when the tide turned - who won.

But, you are right that whoever headed the DNC would have had a large number of victories. But, I also see a lot of media that gives Schumer credit as the then DSCC head and Rahm credit as the head of the DCCC. Now, both likely did some good, but they like Dean benefited from the cycle.

I agree that it is hard to help a candidate, who is not really out there working. Many DU JK MA people explained to us in 2008 that even their Senator for 24 years was expected to campaign often - because to do otherwise would signal he was taking his position for granted, which he didn't. Now, I would assume that there were many in MA pushing her to do more - especially when it was clear that Brown was out there in ads describing himself as a moderate and meeting people across the state. If she didn't listen to them, why would she have listened to Dean?

"What if Colt hadn't been injured?" "Quit whining, you excuse-making Texas apologist whiner type guy!"

:rofl:

...we would probably not be in this mess if Howard were pulling the strings for the Democratic Party. Lets not forget that Howard got us a bunch of Blue Dogs in his 50 state strategy though. Many of his most ardent supporters hate Blue Dogs, so he really is more of a consensus builder than many want to believe (just because he took one stance on a healthcare bill and wrote one interesting op-ed.)

:hurts:

The Chair is largely responsible for fundraising and general state party organizing. Congressional Candidate selection and support is the responsibility of DSCC and DCCC. The question to ask is, did Senatoe Menendez miss the problems in this race, and is he prepared for November.

What I don't get is the number of Menendez ads that ran at the end of last year on his efforts on health care - There were enough that I looked to make sure that he was not up for re-election. (He's not)

candidates? There were good candidates in the primary. Why did the Establishment choose someone as uninspiring as Coakley?

The establishment did not chose Coakley, the MA voters did. She was obvious in wanting to run if Kerry had won in 2004 and , in fact, upset the Kennedys by signaling that she was running before he died. The only big national endorsement I heard was Bill Clinton.

Other than that, there was nothing that signaled the establishment was backing her. Nancy Pelosi endorsed Capuano. Although Deval Patrick endorsed no one, his wife endorsed Capuano. Kerry, the top MA Democrat stayed scrupulously neutral. (I believe that Kennedy long ago was neutral when there was an open seat. Both Kerry and Kennedy stayed neutral in the MA governor primary race - so this might be a pattern.) Kerry did do a townhall in Somerville with Capuano on September 3 - but he endorsed no one. Obama stayed completely neutral.

Bill Clinton endorsed Coakley, who had supported Hillary's primary bid. MA Senate President Therese Murray, National Women's Political Caucus, EMILY's List and many MA women officials endorsed Coakley ( http://www.marthacoakley.com/news/press_releases/details/2009-09-senate-president-therese-murray-national-womens- ) Many of the MA officials who supported her were the core of the people who supported Clinton in the MA primary.

It has been said that she won because she was the only woman in the primary and she had the most state wide name recognition.

Agree on all counts, especially the last.

We would be in the exact same mess.

source quote:
"This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG," former Democratic National Committee chairman and medical doctor Howard Dean told "Good Morning America's" George Stephanopoulos today. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.

"This is an insurance company's dream, this bill," Dean continued. "This is the Washington scramble, and I think it's ill-advised."

Dean sent shockwaves when he said Tuesday in an interview with Vermont Public Radio that the removal of the Medicare buy-in means Democrats should just kill the health care bill and start over.

Both repub's aNd demo's have their pockets filled with dirty money, way too sad for Americans...

But Obama's general troubles have nothing to do with who happens to be DNC chairman.