There's lots to talk about…

…in Newsweek's piece on Chairman Dean's recent, ahem, visibility. My concern, for instance, about his tendency to let other voices be drowned out by the chorus of his most fervent loyalists is born out somewhat by this…

...Dean's real problem may not be his mouth but his mind-set. He and his aides seemed genuinely mystified at the idea that his characterization of the GOP was a political mistake.

Howard, sometimes your best friends won't tell you, but please remember, we're all friends (and that's advice those of us with reservations about some of the Chairman's statements should bear in mind, too. He's on our side, regardless). Remember, too, that few things are more valuable than an aide who will (and feels they can) say no.

On the other hand, Chris Bowers pins the best news...

As a fund-raiser--the first duty of a party chairman and Dean's claim to fame in '04--he isn't quite the disaster some critics suggest. Early in the last "cycle," in 2001, the Republican National Committee outraised the DNC by a 3-1 margin. So far this year, that ratio has been cut to 2-1. More important is the way it was raised. In the past the party relied on "soft money" from millionaires. But such donations are now illegal. Officials esti-mate that $12 million of the $14 million the Dean regime has collected so far this year has come from those who gave less than $250. "For people who really look hard at the numbers, he's wowing people," says Elaine Kamarck, a respected DNC member.

…bolstering my hopes for Howard's attempt to change the fundraising culture of the DNC.

I've mentioned my experience with Brown '92. There was something incredibly empowering about the $100 contribution limit. It drew out people who had never thought about giving to a campaign, because they never thought they could make a meaningful contribution. When we told them that for a hundred bucks they'd be as vested as the highest rollers in Gucci Gulch, they lined up to give, usually to the max. It wasn't just egalitarian, but effective. Jerry wasn't going to get much boardroom cash anyway, and PACs were off the table. The contribution limit, along with the 800 number, was a major reason we were competetive at all, anywhere, against the power of the legendary Clinton Rolodex.

So, with that experience in mind, and with the numbers show above, a not so modest suggestion. Cap the contributions to the DNC. Make it $250, and find out how many people will by a full share in the Democratic Party for twenty bucks a month and a small holiday bonus. Could it be a way to attract a million new donors? More? Would it be a disaster, quickly (possibly too quickly) abandoned?

I dunno.

But if anyone in the Party could make it work, I've got to think it's Howard Dean, and if he could do it, it would be worth doing. Done right, it would be the right thing to do for a democratic Democratic Party.