Last year, I watched the State of the Union address with a big crowd at the Upper West Side apartment of my old friend Ben, an enthusiastic Deaniac who insisted that guests only bring food and drink from blue states. Still smarting from his candidate’s on-podium and electoral dissolution a few weeks before, Ben nonetheless expressed optimism that “next year, I’ll like the speech better, because Howard Dean will be giving it.”
“If Dean gives the State of the Union address next year,” I said, “I’ll pay your rent that month.”
This month, alas, Ben will be paying his own rent. But the Ben Wing of the Democratic Party is about to get a nice consolation prize, because their man is on the verge of being elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
As someone who is –despite what you may have heard- still a registered Democrat, I can safely say that I don’t like this. Yes, Dean was able to galvanize the Democratic base the way few were before him, yes he demonstrated strong fundraising ability, and yes, he was never really quite as left-wing as most of his supporters were. But let’s be real: is it really a good idea to have such a lightning rod as DNC chairman, a man who is best known either for being the most anti-war major candidate in the 2004 election, and for yelping like a hyena on national television?
There’s another big reason I don’t like the Dean ascension: the Dems clearly want to make a big comeback, ala the Gingrich Republicans in 1994- blending ideological purity with mean-spiritedness in order to defeat an entrenched, seemingly unbeatable majority. But what if they win? I’m not sure the country that would result from a Dean-led Democratic party would appeal to me much more than the current Bush regime does.
Posted by Stephen Silver at February 2, 2005 11:01 PMremember when Ed Rendell was the Chair of the DNC? Back when the DNC was relevant? Oy good god, how the mighty have fallen.
Posted by: LilB at February 3, 2005 12:42 PMI doubt the efficacy of electing a man to head the DNC who recently said, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." To me, that indicates an individual whose comments and philosophy will be more likely to engender resentment than to entice new supporters. This is admittedly anecdotal, but my limited experience with Deaniacs has reminded my of me and my buddies back in high school--idealistic, unfocused enthusiasm, strongly opinionated, convinced without merit of our own superiority, and seriously, seriously naive. That is not a winning formula for building a ruling political majority.
Posted by: DBrooks at February 3, 2005 01:03 PM