Jerome has
exerpted the relevant pieces in the National Journal on the behind the scenes machinations for DNC chair. Here are some exerpts of those exerpts:
CNN's Novak, on the DNC chair: "I think Tom Vilsack is the logical choice. I think he's going to get it. Friends of Vilsack's say that he was very worried about Howard Dean getting a head of steam and becoming chairman, which would be an absolute disaster for the Democrats. So I wouldn't be surprised to see Vilsack get it and get it quite easily"
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), on Dean: "To rebuild this party, we need somebody who's more in the center, and more of a bridge-builder. I don't have any particular choice for that, myself. It's a job that's going to be a tough job. But, with all respect, Howard Dean is not the right man to lead the Democratic Party now."
More Lieberman: "I think Tom Vilsack would be a better choice, if he's willing to do it. He's a moderate. He's from the heartland. He's credible, I think, to all sections of the Democratic Party. And he'd be one that I think really could take the party forward"
The DNC chair race "could be the skirmish that reveals whether the party will try to resurrect itself by turning to the center or by stoking" the anti-Pres. Bush anger of its left. 2 leading contenders "are emerging." Howard Dean is "being urged to run by liberal activists convinced he is the best chance for channeling the bas'es ire into a national message," but the more centrist group believes Dean "is the last person the party needs." Vilsack was calling labor leaders and others last week, "asking them to hold off backing Dean ... as Vilsack decides whether to make a bid" (Tumulty, Time, 11/22 issue).
And Jerome says:
Kerry is not behind Shaheen right now, he's behind Vilsack (not that he wouldn't turn to her if Vilsack dropped out). As I stated earlier, it's mostly a "Stop Dean" movement that Kerry is leading the charge on from behind the scenes. And yes, Kerry does have that $45M leftover from the campaign that he's not ready to handover to the DNC at this time-- why not?
From everyone I've talked to inside the Dean campaign, he's ready to take the chair at the DNC. He's just got to get the votes. It's obvious that the "anyone but Dean" movement has no vision of it's own, other than stopping the grassroots from actually taking control of the party. We need to re-invigorate the local level with power that has a say, and take away power from the vested interests (mostly their own) inside DC.
I always, always laugh when I hear one of these insiders talk about the "disaster" that a Dean chairmanship would wreak on the party.
I mean, disaster compared to what? Being shut out from all levers of government? From the White House, Supreme Court, House, Senate, majority of governorships and majority of state legislatures?
How about the disaster of three straight losing election cycles? That's not a freakin' disaster?
Dean means reform. Simon Rosenberg means reform. There are probably other dark horse candidates out there who would mean reform.
And that's what we need. Reform, not status quo. The status quo is untenable. I'm tired of losing, and that's the only thing the current gang has delivered.
But the establishment is gearing up to fight the challenge from outside. Note the language they are using -- we need "centrists", not "liberals" backed by (crazy) "activists". It's a negative campaign that would make Karl Rove proud, designed to scare DNC members into the safe vote (Harkin), rather than the scary vote (Dean).
Nevermind it's all bullshit. Dean was a darling of the DLC as governor, until his reform-minded rhetoric threatened the DLC's own parochial interests. Simon Rosenberg, another candidate receiving a great deal of early support from the 'activist' community and younger party donors, is an avowed centrist, former Lieberman protege. His New Democrat Network splintered off from the DLC.
However, NDN has moved beyond ideology, to building a party infrastructure that can compete against the Republican Noise Machine. Partisanship first, narrow ideological spats deemphasized. For a DLC and "centrist" Democratic community that is still fighting the battles of 1992, this is heresy.
So don't be fooled by this "centrist" versus "liberal" scare tactics you'll hear from Lieberman and other party "leaders". It's scare tactics. The real battle is not ideological. It's between those who would rather keep the current system intact, regardless of its flaws, and those who want to scrap the darn thing and rebuild a stronger, more vibrant party.