People have been laying out the reasons for -- and against -- Dean taking the position.
The "for" reasons can generally be boiled down to: He's innovative, he's exciting, he's not afraid to attack the GOP, he's got a track record of being honest and right when other Democrats were mealy-mouthed and wrong, and he's spent his time after the election doing the things the DNC should be doing (like helping down-ticket races and party building).
The "against" reasons seem to be: He lost. He's radical. He's too liberal. He's a bad candidate. He's a loose-cannon. He's polarizing. Bill Clinton and the DLC hate him.
I think we're all overlooking one thing: Some of the best coaches were poor players.
What we need
right now is someone to redefine the party message. Let the more polished politicians
deliver it.
The party chair is not expected to be a smooth politican. He's expected to do a handful of things: Raise money. Build the party. Be a rabidly partisan attack dog and use that to break the trail for politicians to follow.
The DNC chair should be a trailblazer. Dean's comments about the "coincidental timing" of Bush's terror announcements, about the capture of Saddam Hussein, even about heading down South to talk to convince people that health-care was an issue they should care about.....all lightning rods for criticism.
But they all laid a trail for other politicians to follow with less risk.
It's part of the job. Let him take the hits for shoving new ideas out there, for upsetting applecarts and busting up the convential wisdom. And once the firestorm dies down, let the Democratic candidates use the new conventional wisdom to run for office.
Dean might not have been the best player (although what I've seen says his game has really improved), but he's got the earmarks of an excellent coach. And that's something the Democrats are sadly lacking.