Chairman Dean?

It's not a bad idea at all, really. I did my share (and then some, according to a few of his fans - hi, Chris!) of Dean bashing back in the day, both because I thought he'd be a truly awful Presidential candidate for my party, and because I was a fierce proponent of Senator Kerrry. Just the same, he's impressed me during the general election campaign for both his willingness and his ability to soldier on in support of the ticket, regardless of how hard his fall from the top of the primary polls to his role as talk show surrogate must have been.

One notion that's got to be put down quickly is this note that appears at the bottom of an LA Times article on another subject altogether...

One of Kerry's presidential primary foes, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, is reportedly interested in seeking the party chairmanship - a development that could put the party far to the left of where many leaders think it could best sway voters in states that backed Bush.

That's just nonsense, of course. Despite the passionate support he received from some members of the anti-war left, Dean's record as Governor and the overall message of his Presidential campaign was very much in the mold of a moderate Democrat, emphasizing fiscal responsibility, international caution and the obligation of government to serve the social needs via 'hand up, not hand out' programs. Putting him in charge of the DNC would hardly indicate a major ideological shift for the Democratic Party.

How much he really wants the job, though, is still a question. Less so, I suspect, is his ability to get it if he wants it. He was, contrary to some impressions, popular with the DNC members, winning over many of them after his February, 2003 appearance before the Committee, and many of those members will doubtless continue to serve. I suspect that some of the new blood on the DNC (and there's some after every quadrennial reorganization of the party) will come from the ranks of Dean supporters who have increased their role in the party even as Dean's efforts during the general election campaign increased his stature in the eyes of many of us who didn't support his candidacy.

If he wants it, he has to decide, and then his partisans will have to get to work. I was a little suprised by this note from Kos the other day...

Now before anyone asks, I still don't know how a DNC chair is elected, but we'll be pushing hard for grassroots input. BlogPAC will likely seek to make an endorsement.

It's simple, really. The rules aren't hard to find, and the process is pretty straightforward. The DNC chair is elected by the 440 members of the Democratic National Committee, most of whom emerge from the party reorganization process that starts at the local level, with precinct level party officers electing State Committee members, who elect state chairs and statewide DNC representatives. The fact that someone as engaged as Markos wouldn't know how the process works, though, indicates a fundamental problem we face after every Presidential cycle. Lots of new people are inspired, but most of them have never been really engaged in party activity, and, sadly, most of them never get engaged in party activity. One of the benefits of a Dean run for the chair could be an increase in the ranks of the party rank and file, if they'll just look up the rules and turn out for the meetings.

It's like I've said before, the Democratic Party consists of the people who show up. Not the ones who just show up for the campaigns, or the fundraisers, but the ones who show up in church basements and VFW halls, sitting through long meetings with bad coffee in order to put together the nuts and bolts of an organization so that there will be a framework in place the next time there is a campaign.

Dean for the DNC? Go for it. But you've got to show up, early if you can, and you might have to stay late...