Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BrandonTO416

Dean as DNC chair? I HOPE!

Recommended Posts

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/01/24/dean/

Why Dean should take charge

With his passion and populist appeal, Howard Dean is exactly the leader the Democratic Party needs right now.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Mark Hertsgaard

Jan. 24, 2005 | Florida Democrats' decision to unanimously back Howard Dean as the new chairman of the DNC (Democratic National Committee) shows two things: first, there are still some Democrats out there -- including in the supposedly hopeless South -- who have brains and guts and aren't afraid to think for themselves; and second, Dean now has a real shot at winning the DNC job and launching a much-needed makeover of the Democratic Party.

Political and media elites in Washington are at once horrified and dismissive of Dean's quest. They insist that Democrats would be crazy to pick a raving liberal like Dean as their next party chairman. But as is so often the case, this inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom is based on dubious "facts" and assumptions about how ordinary Americans relate to politics. Dean is exactly the leader Democrats need to become relevant again.

The Florida Democratic chairman's statement to the New York Times reveals just how out of touch the Washington establishment is: "I'm a gun-owning pickup-truck driver and I have a bulldog named Lockjaw," said Scott Maddox. "I am a Southern chairman of a Southern state, and I am perfectly comfortable with Howard Dean as DNC chair."

Today's Site Pass Presented by

---------

And the reason Florida Democrats like Dean?

"What our party needs right now is energy, enthusiasm and a willingness to do things differently," Maddox added. "I think Howard Dean brings all three of those things to the party."

Maddox isn't the only prominent Southern Democrat backing Dean. On Tuesday, the state chairman from Mississippi and the vice chairmen from Oklahoma and Utah announced that they too were endorsing the former Vermont governor, leading ABC News' influential The Note to declare that Dean "is now emphatically the front-runner" for the DNC job.

A year ago, Dean was jeered off the national stage by television's nonstop coverage of his "scream" speech. And it must be admitted that he showed some undeniable weaknesses as a presidential candidate in 2004, including a tendency to speak first and think later. But Dean is running for party chairman now, not president. The chairman's job is to rally and organize the party faithful to do the unglamorous but vital grass-roots work that will expand the Democratic base, reach out to new and uncommitted voters, and win future elections. As Maddox said, Dean fits that job description perfectly. He inspires grass-roots enthusiasm and his time as governor of Vermont grants him the necessary executive and administrative skills.

What's more, in the wake of the Democrats' loss to President Bush in November, Dean's political message, and especially the way he delivers it, looks better and better.

Dean, after all, was right about the central issue of the 2004 election -- the Iraq war. Nowadays, a majority of the American public believes that attacking Iraq was a bad idea. Dean was saying this -- and being criticized for it -- in the fall of 2003.

Dean was also right when he said Democrats should be the party not only of urban liberals but of "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," another comment he was derided for. But in view of how many centrist voters chose President Bush over John Kerry, even though Kerry's economic policies would have benefited them more, Dean's call to reach out to culturally conservative voters was prescient.

Above all, Dean was right that Democrats would win only if they told voters exactly what they stood for and why. Kerry never did that, especially on Iraq, where his reluctance to call the war (and not just its prosecution) a mistake let the president off the hook on his most vulnerable issue.

By contrast, Bush never shrank from saying what he believed. Like Dean, he understood a basic fact of American politics: voters value plain-spokenness in a politician much more than agreement on specific issues. Bush was even clever enough to steal one of Dean's signature lines: "You may not always agree with me, but you'll always know where I stand."

All of the news stories reporting Dean's decision to seek the DNC chairmanship repeated the standard rap against him: He's too liberal. But that charge doesn't reflect reality so much as it reflects the Washington establishment's version of reality. Dean was labeled a liberal by the media essentially because he opposed the Iraq war. Never mind that he was also a deficit hawk who opposed gun control, gay marriage and universal healthcare, or that many conservatives later embraced his criticism of the war. In the post-Sept. 11 mood of false patriotism, the media assumed that anyone who criticized an apparently successful war had to be a liberal, and that was that.

This mischaracterization has led observers to miss the real source of Dean's appeal to a jaded electorate: He knows what he believes and he's not afraid to say it plainly enough for ordinary people to understand. His vision for Democrats is not about moving the party to the left; it's about Democrats standing for something that resonates with ordinary Americans -- a task that current party leaders have manifestly failed to achieve.

Dean believes the Democratic Party's allegiance to big donors and cautious incrementalism has alienated many of its logical voters. Alone among prominent Democrats, he recognizes that the party has little future if it cannot connect in an authentic way with the extraordinary grass-roots energy that propelled his own presidential campaign (and that later nearly got Kerry elected, despite the Kerry campaign's many shortcomings).

In 2004, Dean rewrote the rules of presidential campaigns by using the Internet and local "meet-ups" to raise small donor money. But Dean's real secret was to give supporters real influence within his campaign and thus hook them on continued political participation. The idea of meet-ups, for example, came from the grass roots, not from campaign headquarters.

The Bush campaign tapped into similar grass-roots energy among conservatives and thereby expanded Republican turnout enough to gain the president a second term. Democrats must do more of the same in the years to come, and Dean is the leader who best understands that imperative. Dean, after all, is a populist. And his populism is not the brand espoused by President Bush -- a millionaire who shills for billionaires while talking like the common man. Dean's is the real thing. Which is why Republicans privately fear him.

Another part of the media consensus on Dean is that he only wants the DNC job to grease his run for president in 2008. For his part, Dean has declared he won't run if he gets the DNC job. Of course, he could change his mind. But it's worth remembering that presidential candidate Dean always said that Democrats must first reform their party and its approach to politics if they want to win the White House.

Dean is now traveling around the country telling his supporters that remaking the Democratic Party is a long-term project that could take 20 years. His first hurdle comes on Feb. 12, when 447 largely unknown party officials from around the country will vote for the next DNC chairman. The Florida and other Southern Democrats' decision to back him will, of course, be enormously helpful to Dean's prospects, but it also figures to call forth still more "anyone but Dean" efforts from the party establishment.

Everyone agrees the Democrats have to remake themselves; they just lost to perhaps the most vulnerable incumbent in history. The DNC vote will give the first hint of how they plan to proceed. At a time when America has never needed an effective opposition party more, let us pray Democrats can rise to the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


My feelings are in line with the article - we lost to a pathetic Republican candidate. And for what?

Remaking the Democratic party starts in 2005, not 2008. Keep your fingers crossed fellow friends. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope he runs again in 08

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah he might have had a better chance of winning instead of that cadaver they did nominate. I agree the Democrats need a major change in leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course being from Vermont and a democrat I back Dean in whatever he may choose to do (which I hope is to run in '08). If this is what he needs to do, then whatever. Where am I going with this post? I've not a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see how Dean from Vermont like Kerry from Massachuettes is going to play in the mid-west, mountain-west, and south. Maybe I missed something but the same overall positions Kerry had Dean had . . . Dean is more likeable in some ways Clintonesque but after the nosedive in the late primary battles his negatives are up. Dean proved he can deliver the base, but that doesn't guarantee victory. A Lieberman or Bayh I see as more potent threats to a Republican lock in '08. Hillary is looking stronger as well, though that would be interesting if she ran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwards doesn't represent a major change in leadership however. He has a mildly more populist message with a drawl added in, but I'm not sure he'll lead the party to victory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't speak for everywhere else, but I know that Edwards would have gotten alot more votes in SC if he were the presidential nominee and Kerry had not been on the ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for everywhere else, but I know that Edwards would have gotten alot more votes in SC if he were the presidential nominee and Kerry had not been on the ballot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. It has been demonstrated time and time again that a President can't win without winning some Southern states. Edward may have very well have done this but the Democrats muzzled him specifically so that Kerry would not have been overshadowed. The fact that Kerry nominated Edwards in the first place over Gephart or Dean demonstrates they understand this, but people don't vote for VPs.

Kerry was perceived (and much of it deserved) as a say anything flip flopping politican. People can't tolerate this. Most of the votes for him were anti-Bush not pro-Kerry including my own which turned my stomach. I should have voted for Nader.

Edwards beat an incumbant GOP Senator who had the full force of the Jessie Helms politicial machine behind him. He understands what it takes to win an election and probably would have ousted Bush if he had been given the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Carolina isn't a battleground state. The future of the Democratic party lies in the base, drumming up support in midwestern states, and adding western states.

The south is the core of the Republican party, and you cannot win going after the other's core if you haven't cleaned your own house so-to-speak.

Republicans HAVE "cleaned their house" very thoroughly over the past 20 years especially, and they have room to campaign in New Jersey because of that. Democrats have to get their head out of the sand and start following reality.

Edwards beat Helms, then ran for VP without trying because he knew he couldn't win a second run.

I won't question Kerry being seen as a flip flopper, but that isn't the issue here. This is about the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see how Dean from Vermont like Kerry from Massachuettes is going to play in the mid-west, mountain-west, and south.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is relevant to all candidates, not just Dean or Kerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ big city, agreed. I know Kerry donned camo and went out hunting, went to W.V. and took part in coal rallies. The image though he was trying hard to combat is one of an East Coast "Ivory Tower" Liberal. True or not he fell right into the stereotype of one. The Bush family is of the same background. Goes to show how much perception is reality in politics.

What is very interesting is that with the exception of Kennedy in 1960 we have not elected an "east coast intellectual" since FDR in 1944! Carter, Reagan, Bush I and II, Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Eisinhower, Truman, were all prarie staters or sun belters. I would like not only to see the Democrats put forward a candidate that can break the GOP lock on the Whitehouse (since 1968 GOP 7 Dems 3) but a viable candidate from the Northeast or Industrial Mid-west again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well considering the results and trends of the last 20 years, I think its safe to say that putting money into Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, and western states like Colorado and Nevada while focusing on the base is far smarter for the Dems then going after the base of the Republican party.

Not only should they focus on that, a fresh candidate who has appeal to someone in Pittsburgh, Kansas City, or Denver would be better then someone who appears overly intellectual. I think being an intellectual matters, but in this nation you can't be perceived as one to win.

That says a lot about our society, but oh well! Gotta go with the flow, and Dems need to catch the wave into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.