I will assuredly get flamed for this, but I feel compelled to write and explain why I feel not only why I oppose giving Howard Dean the DNC Chair position but also why I think doing so would be an utter disaster for the party (at least in the short term). I write this based on my experience as a devoted "yellow dog" Democrat from the South who was undecided as to who to support in the primaries until about the Iowa caucuses and who was relatively "in tune" with the race. Ultimately, I was proud to support Kerry, despite brief flirtations with Clark and Edwards, both of whom I nixed due to limited experience in the "governing" category.
I am undecided as to who I support for DNC chair--I currently lean toward Rosenberg, who brings a lot of the GOOD things Dean could bring without the massive baggage.
Before I begin, I want to make one thing very clear--I'm writing about how a Dean selection would be PERCEIVED by people. Perception is reality in politics. For instance, did you ever notice how many times Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative." Has he lived up to the whole of that label? No.
Whether these perceptions are justified or not is an entirely different question, but in my view, there's no question that these perceptions (deserved or undeserved) exist in America. Rightly or wrongly, I think Dean is PRIMARILY associated among most people with the following ideas--which I do not think would serve the party well.
1. "The War Is Awful"
I was not militantly opposed (based on what we knew at the time) to the use of force against Iraq. My quibble, like Kerry's is not that force was used, but how it was used--had we waited six months and allowed weapons inspections to continue, I believe we would either have seen restoration of a full inspections scheme or multilateral support for what we did. I think that's the stance of the majority of Americans. Dean, rightly or wrongly, was perceived as the "shouldn't have done it! get out now!" candidate. This is not an overwhelmingly popular stance.
Furthermore, God willing, Iraq is not going to be an issue in 2006 or 2008. in my view, the Democratic party is going to be built by looking forward, not by looking back. The key is "what are we going to do?" not "what should we have done differently?"
2. "I Hate George W. Bush"
There was a great "Doonesbury" either late last year or early this year which I felt nailed the Dean phenomonon. Someone (I forget whom) was asking Alex, a dyed-in-the-wool Deaniac, why she supported Dean, and her key point was "I really, really, really, really, really (repeated ad infinitum) don't like George W. Bush." It's my view (and I know it's not a popular one around here) that "Bush bashing" is part of what lost us the election. We were so focused on saying what was WRONG with Bush that we didn't bother saying what was RIGHT that we were doing. This was a problem exacerbated by our over-reliance on 527s, which were prohibited by law from making an "affirmative case" for Kerry.
Further, "I hate George W. Bush" is not a successful strategy going forward. While it may have some viability in 2006, we're not running against Bush in 2008, barring an exceedingly unlikely constitutional amendment.
3. "Take Back America!"
I know this is a message that resonates a lot with many of you. However, for me, it reminds me of the anger that the anti-Clintonites peddled against him. Through the Clinton years, Limbaugh opened his show with an "America Held Hostage" countdown. Dean struck me as sending the same message (even though I agreed with the message more this time). A big part of why I'm a Democrat is that the Democratic party has always, to me, been premised on the idea that we're committed to sitting down and talking to EVERYONE, even those with whom we disagree. The "take back!" message undermines that, at least in my view.
4. "We're Going To Win, So Get On Board!"
This was perhaps the biggest annoyance to me, especially late in the game, and why Dean ultimately lost him. Again, it seems to me to be an anti-Democratic principle. I'm committed to sitting down and talking about the issues with anyone who's interested in doing so--regardless of whether they identify themselves as Democratic or Republican, pro-life or pro-choice, religious or irreligious, or any other divide. What selecting Dean would say to me (as a non-Dean supporter) is that "we don't want you!" And that, to me, would be a disaster for the party.
I know many of you disagree with me, and are passionately stirred by Dean. But I hope you recognize that not every voter (even those who self-identify as Democrats) is going to be encouraged by a selection of Dean, and many (including myself) would be actively discouraged. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is what I'm worried would happen.