Why Dean Should Say NO To The DNC Chair

Many grassroots types are thrilled about a Dean chairmanship of the DNC.  We lost in 2003/4, but maybe this will make all those hours and dollars worthwhile, right?

Screw that.  Deep down we know we're being played.  Why else would Dean suddenly be such a serious contender for the big office?  Wasn't he destroyed forever after his Iowa scream?  Wasn't the DNC partly responsible?  Isn't Dean over?  Why is he suddenly being taken seriously again for the DNC top job?  Conspiracy theory below:

Assume Dean becomes DNC chair.  So what?  He won't ever get the opportunity to use his chairmanship for much anyway.  Think about it:

   1.  Giving Dean the DNC chair is primarily a way to keep him out of the 2008 primaries.

   2.  The chairmanship is a way to bury Dean in organizational tasks and tame him with responsibilities (something Hindenburg and the reichstag were stupidly thinking when they made Hitler chancellor).  Dean is obviously not determined to overthrow the party, so the scheme will probably work in his case.  You can't rebuild the party from the top--you're too busy trying to hold it together.

   3.  Putting Dean in a leadership position is a way of taming grassroots critics of the DNC (that's us) so as to make any kind of insurgency candidate for 2008 dead-on-arrival.  This means there'll be no organized opposition to whatever insider candidate the insiders decide on.  Maybe it's Hillary--maybe not.  But they've robbed us of a key voice in contesting the choice.

The whole thing seems extremely sketchy, and I'll be disappointed if Dean accepts.  Will Dean accept this fate?  Probably not.  The establishment plan is fairly obvious.  Much better to grow the DFA and work for bottom-up change.  Dean's real place in the history of our party will be decided soon.

•  You could have used a better analogy

  I'm not commenting on the merits of any of what you write, but I would think a somewhat more tasteful example might be the turn of the century when the Republicans decided to shut Teddy Roosevelt up by making him Vice President under McKinley.  Of course McKinley was assassinated and the rest is history.

  by DaveOinSF on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:39:04 AM PDT

•  I don't think he'd be buried in organizational

  tasks or tamed (maybe a little).

  I believe Dean and/or Rosenberg are the real deal and are sorely needed right now.

  I'm indifferent right now about 2008.  It's really a world away (so much can happen - so speculation is kind of pointless now).  My gut tells me he probably won't run then.  

  But regardless, we need him right now.  

  The party needs to be revitalized.

  by HariSeldon on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:42:08 AM PDT

  •  Dear god,

    did I just say 'right now' 4 times?  I apologize.  The late hour has induced repetitiveness, right now ;-)

    by HariSeldon on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:47:13 AM PDT

  •  Since when is Dean

    an organization man?  He works better as an outsider threat to the DLCer types than as a DNC insider.  I'd really love to see Gore come back in 2008 with Dean in a position to take VP.  I wonder if his DNC chair offer excludes that.  

    by gogol999 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:51:05 AM PDT

    •  He strikes me as an adaptable

      political renaissance man.

      That is, I believe he has the abilities to do whatever he wants to do.  Notice how he immediately and ardently supported Kerry.

      I admit I do not know a lot about him, only having observed him for a couple years, and I don't intend to glorify him, as has been mocked in the "no rules" thread.

      How long can he remain useful and interested in a vague "outsider" role?  Things change quickly.  And as the White House likes to say that they create their own realities, I say we should create ours, and let the old-schoolers observe the new reality we create, with Dean leading a stronger Democratic party.

      by HariSeldon on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:15:23 AM PDT

    •  No Way

      Sorry, Gore's through.  He'll never live to run as a Democrat again.  He fumbled Florida; the mainstream party hates him and the Republicans laugh at him.

      by Sara Brooks on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:15:27 AM PDT

      •  Gore.

        It's totally ironic to me.  I'm convinced Gore is the only major Dem who could definitely win nationally if he were to run in 2008 (I don't mean nobody else can win; but the good prospects like Warner and Richardson and Bayh are relative unknowns).  Gore is sufficiently familiar and sufficiently conservative (and I don't at all believe he really screwed up in Florida; it was an impossible situation.)  But he'd never ever make it through the Democratic primary given how much both the Clintonites and half the left hates him. Moreover, I'd rather eat tinfoil than watch him try.

        by tlaura on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:43:00 AM PDT

    •  Neither of them

      could make it through a primary.  DNC Chair is probably the best Dean can hope for.  He's too New England, too pro-tax, too anti-war to run nationally at least in 2008.  Having him in that position would be a major score for the "grassroots", whatever we are.  My guess is that, despite the support he's got from Steve Grossman and a whack of the old Gore-ites, the rest of the party establishment will fight him tooth and nail to keep him out of the DNC.

      Plus, unless McCain Feingold gets ruled unconstitutional, Dean's main job as DNC Chair will be campaigning and going on Sunday shows, two things he loves and is good at.  Move On and the other Clinton-controlled 527s will still be the party's major ATMs.

      So I guess I'm totally disagreeing with you.

      by tlaura on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:35:37 AM PDT

      •  If they keep him out of the DNC

        I'll be satisfied.  He won't disappear.  Grossman is no friend of Dean's.  Not after Wisconsin.  Whatever he's pushing should be very carefully considered.

        by gogol999 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:47:02 AM PDT

        •  I think you're too hard on Grossman.

          Not just you but everyone.  Grossman was with Dean from the very beginning of the 2004 primary, way before he was out of single digits.  And Grossman was a major player in the party; he could have worked for Kerry or Lieberman.  When Grossman pulled out on Dean it was obvious he wasn't going to win Wisconsin; he was way behind in all the polls and most of the voters never heard about Grossman's defection anyway.  And I think Grossman is a friend of Dean's -- he's been shilling hard for him in recent days which will almost certainly not go down well with the powers that be (i.e. with the Clintonites).  Also, even if Dean doesn't get to be DNC Chair, just having a major Dem like Grossman shilling for him raises his stature in the Party.

          I don't expect Dean to totally disappear if he doesn't get to be DNC Chair.  But he's much less likely to disappear if he does get DNC Chair.  If he were to try to run in 2008 and lose he'd be through.

          So I still disagree with you.  I'm not 100% sure Dean is optimally suited to the DNC Chairmanship but I do think it's his best option and would be a coup for his supporters.

          by tlaura on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:21:13 AM PDT

•  I think you're being paranoid

  Given the fight they're already prepping against him, I doubt the establishment is really behind all this.  Besides, you're suggesting it's some nefarious plot.  

  Do you really think they're sophisticated, or organized, enough to launch some gigantic head-fake plot to undermine the grassroots?  The current leadership thinks Dean would be a disaster, and wants one of their own, who will move the party to the right (or "center").  

  by switzerblog on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:45:43 AM PDT

  •  The focus for the power players

    is on 2008.  They're looking at the DNC head in that light.  Who's the major non-insider for 2008?  Dean.  And maybe Gore.  How to take out Dean?  Make him promise not to run.  You get the added benefit of bringing all those unhappy dems back into the fold in time to vote for the establishment candidate.  But since Dean supporters are outsiders and suspicious, throw a little fit by giving some quotes to a few NYT reporters.  If Dean gets the DNC chair, it'll be something decided on from the Big Dawg on down.

    by gogol999 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:09:20 AM PDT

    •  I am beginning to see this too

      If you look at it in the cold light of day it is simple.

      DEAN and DFA:

      • The first credible challenge to the DLC for ourside direction of the DNC (DNC empty vessel...hence McAwful)

      • Potential for expotential growth in money and activist

      • Autonomy

      • Dean still gets to run in 08

      Dean and DNC:

      • Backstabbing from the Clintons and insiders for four years

      • Headaches and  debates on where the party should head and its message

      • Wasted time and energy when Dean could be more effective with DFA

      • No run in 08

      by Genf on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 04:06:57 AM PDT

      •  If they

        hobble Dean with infighting (assuming he becomes head of DNC), I do not doubt he would just clean house.  If the establishment resists (and they would) and they got the balls, they can always fire him.  This would not be a blow to Dean in the least, since his power base was never the national party structure in the first place.  If anything, it would help him in his future electoral prospects, since he would get even more of a rep as a straight talking maverick who will do what is necessary, no matter the personal cost.

          Personally, I think the establishment wouldn't dare fire Dean - it would completely split the party.  From the dem establishment's point of view, their best choice for chair from the start would be Clinton.  He's an establishment guy all the way, and is respected enough by the rabble rousers so that they wouldn't take their ball and go home if he's chair.  Anybody else other than Dean (or another inside/outsider like Dean) will fracture the party.

        by Ugluks Flea on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:37:50 AM PDT

        •  Cleaning House

          Don't you think that this might be the reason for objecting to Dean in the first place?  He is decidedly not wedded to the party's Brehznevian elements (I stole that term from Steve Clemons) and would not bat an eye in sending them packing and bring in fresh blood.....

          by cassandra m on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:37:21 AM PDT

•  Dean can't win

  You really think a Vermont liberal who couldn't win the support of just the Democratic Party of Iowa, a state that went for Bush, could win the election?

  Frankly, with nothing against him, he isn't exactly electable in most of the country.

  by msrpotus on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:27:48 AM PDT

  •  Read up on Reagan in '76.

    Those wacko extremists have a way of surprising you.

    by gogol999 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:31:19 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      It's more about conviction than idealogy. Dean had it in abundance, Kerry didn't. I recall a focus group, about 1.5 years ago, where some "persuadables" were shown clips of the Democratic candidates. Two Bush voters switched to Dean, not any of the other candidates.

      by Jaiwithani on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:02:44 AM PDT

•  Well we can't have our conspiracy theories

  at odds with each other... If they want to keep Dean out of 2008 trouble by sticking him in the DNC, why would the Clintonistas be (rumored to be) plotting to keep him out?

  Face it, Dean got under their feathers. It has almost nothing to do with ideology, although the easiest way for them to explain why they didn't like him was that he was too liberal. I saw it more as someone coming along as an upstart and scolding them and then, even worse, basically telling them that he didn't need them to be successful. You better be sure they tried to shut him down in a hurry. I'm guessing the only reason why he's allowed a little bit of breathing room right now is that he still has a lot of fundraising muscle, and, sort of related, he has those hordes of Deaniacs, and the entrenched Dems may not like the Deaniacs, but they are politically savvy enough to know that a horde of enraged Deaniacs is not something you want breaking down your door.

  I think Howard Dean has the best ideas in the business, and on a good day, he has the demeanor to sell himself as just the kind of strong leader that people want--even in red states--but he can't freaking do this if everyone else IN HIS OWN PARTY has put a target on his back.

  What I'm curious about is this...if Howard Dean were given carte blanche with the Dem party, would it become more like a purge or a process of conversion? If you talk to the most hardcore "Deaniac", it often seems like the former. I suspect Dean would prefer the latter--well I hope so, anyway...

  by JMS on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:53:31 AM PDT