I think Dean would really help out the Democratic Party if he won the Chairmanship of the DNC. He seems to be the only one who has the decency to admit that the Dems are becoming too much like the Republicans and that is why they are constantly losing. Sure, some people think he's crazy, but he sure is fun to watch, knows his stuff, and the Dems really have nothing to lose by trying something new. After all, we know what staying the course has done for the past 4 years, and a 100% chance of losing is never the right course.

Here's a good recent interview he did on FOX.
http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/005800.html

I thought this was pretty funny:

The dems need some A-list movie stars to start running for office. Screw this northeaster politico crap.

Great so Dean can run the party and Johnny Centrist can run for President.

This is going to come down to who can raise the most moeny (both for their race, and eventually for the Party) I'd like to see a CEO/COO split, whereas Dean gets to organize and use his databases/glamour to raise cashe, but we get a human being like Martin Frost or Donnie Fowler to be the face of the Party.

One thing I like about Dean is that he at least gives lip service to competing in every state, including the South, and believe me, its important, and do able.

And Pagoda, Borg, and whoever else, remember that centrist Democrats have won a lot more elections than liberals, and Dean is actually more centrist than just about any of the candidates from last year.

Not sure how this shakes out, but we need a face for the Party other than botox-queen Pelosi and MC Sleeping Aid Harry Reid.

message wise, i dont think the democrats need to change much. i think theyre just getting beat by karl rove, for whom the democrats have no answer. its the execution thats the problem, not the message.

Well, I'd argue that the republicans are winning because of Rove, but more importantly because of the Jesus Factor. I mean, Kerry would have overwhelmingly won in almost any other country around the world, save for maybe Poland, but why? The US is extremely fundamentalist for an advanced industrial country so even if you represent the average person's interests like Kerry, you have to make them believe you have some kind of extraordinary relationship with Jesus or else you're done for on a national level. Seriously, when half the population thinks the world was created 10,000 years ago, anything less than an evangelical doesn't seem to cut it anymore. Hopefully I'm wrong, but it seems to be more true in this decade than ever, especially when you have someone as weak as Bush winning on a platform of hurting people at home and killing them abroad.

Or do the Dems really just need someone from the south? Ugh, why can't we just win based on the issues.

am i the only one who thinks that christianity is a far greater threat to american safety than islam is?

I think you are both confusing Christianity with ignorance and stupidity.

I think that I am confusing Christianity with Fundamentalist Christians - I like the former far more than the latter.

how so?

There are Christians, and then there are evangelicals. Believe it or not, the latter makes up about a third of most Americans and one of them is sitting in the White House right now. They go beyond simply believing in God and going to church every now and then. Now, the fact that they are fanatics doesn't mean much, but they are easy to manipulate and that is exactly what the neoconservatives and Falwells of the country have done. I'd say after 9/11 it got even worse. When you have people who are extremely irrational and the economy gets bad, creepy Arabs are supposedly after them and fanatic nationalism goes up, you can make them believe anything as long as their leader is pro-life, anti-gay and anti-stem cell research. They aren't interested much in things like foreign policy or any other policy for that matter, so the republican party keeps throwing red meat at them like trying to ban gay marriage, partial birth abortion, and stem cell research and the evangelicals will go with whatever they say.

Thing is, Southern Democrats and NE Republicans are closer to what most Americans believe. (i.e MODERATES)

First time I had to go the Boston Airport, I said to the NH State Senator that was driving me there "If I grew up here, I'd be a Republican"

If I grew up there I would be more of a pinko fuck!

Well, that;s cuz you ARE a pinko fuck. The iron hand with which Labor rules in the NE is a fucking joke. And it sucks, to some extent. Because while I agree with the original purpose for unions, and think Wal-Mart employees, et al, would be better served through unionization...there is a LOT to be said for the upper echelon corruption.

Plus, Liberals are usually more annoying than conservatives. They are A) Whiney and B) oft-times don't like football.

If you like football, we can always find comon ground. That's why Southern politics rules.

Oh do not get me wrong. A halfway masculine guy can take down nearly all the ass in the Democratic Party just b/c of all the whiny sissies in the party.

Well, I grew up there in New England, the son of Evangelical Christians from Texas . . . and just look at what happened.

if i were an american id be a hippie. i dont know what i would be in the southern us. ralph nader?

New England, and The People's Republic of Massachusetts tend to be two different beats alltogether.

There are only two states FDR never carried: Maine and Vermont. Vermont didn't have a Democratic Senator until 86 or 88 (Pat Leahy was the first) and has a Republican majority. Maine has two Republican Senators (albeit liberal Republicans)

I have a skewed view of politics, being a military brat. I like a strong Army, defense spending, etc... I also don't think that's the only route to take. Spending my most formative (in terms of the type of person you eventually become) in Georgia, I also realized that there is a huge racial component to politics. And when it came time for me to pick a side, I went for the side that likes black people.

Meh.

I guess it has to be all about marketing then because Kerry was as centrist as it gets and he still lost, although not by much. Yep, it has to be marketing, and that's exactly where Rove’s genius lies, well, that and a lot of corporate backers. If only we could find someone as evil and daring as him to help us out.

I'm kind of spoiled over here with Sherrod Brown and Dennis Kucinich representing my hood, so it's kind of hard for us in Cleveland to believe that Bush actually won again when we're surrounded by so many liberals. Southern Ohio, you're welcome to secede.

Q: What do you get when you cross Massachusetts and Texas?

A: Me!

That's the thing. Kerry was MARKETED as a centrist, but in actuality pretty damned liberal. And the easiest type of liberal to vilify: rich. Not his fault, I actually think he's an interesting, thoughtful guy who would've made a pretty shitty president (too wishy-washy -- this is confirmable and 3/4 of the reason he lost. When your opponent spend nigh close to $150 million advertising the fact that you are a "flip-flopper" w/o conviction and you, genius, say things like "I actually voted for the $87 Billion, before I voted aganist it," and "MY FAMILY owns an SUV, I Don't" -- well, you play into his hand, asshat) I was in the anybody but Bush camp, and as someone who sorta depends on the Democratic Party for a paycheck, I always vote that way.

As a good friend of mine told me: It ain't the way we're selling it, its what we're selling. People just don't buy it anymore. And w/o a long term strategy of party building and message discipline, its going to be a while before people change their opinons. Remember, this is a president with approval ratings belwo 50%, now and at election time. The thing is, people did not beleive Kerry was telling the truth.

We got lucky in the 90s. We had Slick Willie, Fast as Fast Can Be Can't Catch Me, Even when he's Lying he's Telling the Truth, William Jeffesron Clinton. Without him, this story is longer and uglier. The Republicans have been pushing the same basic message since 1964 and the EXACT SAME MESSAGE since 1980 (the year opposition to abortion rights was first adopted in their platform)

So, what is the solution. I think we stop playing their game. Stop letting them get away with their "less government is better" selling, all the while creating more government, stope letting them getting away with "Less taxes is better" selling, all the while shifting that tax burden from rich to middle class. Frame the debate, don't get bogged down by what's not important, message discipline, and most importantly sticking to your guns, as fucking cliche as that is, its what most voters admire most in Dubya.

What's the message: smarter government. Streamline where necessary, no sacred cows, no litmus tests. Governments duty is to help those who can't help themselves, foster equality and opportunity, and then get the fuck out of the way. That and a 50 year oil independence project that will transform the country and the world. (And if you say this can't be done, you say that the American people are not up to the task, and you are the one who is not patriotic, dig?)

A good technocrat would be perfect. Gary Hart comes to mind, or Roy Barnes. A tough line on crime, but acknowledging the underlying causes. A tough line on terrorism, but acknowldging the underlying causes. Common sense.

I think I should run for DNC Chair. Either that or I've been watching too much West Wing during the day.

im a supporter of the anyone but gore and kerry ideal. i think somebodys hamster might have got just as many votes as kerry anyway. at least a hamster cant talk on and on and on and on about the mundanities of governance.

Ralph Nader should just cut the crap and run in the Democratic Primary. I'd donate so much fucking money and time to getting him nominated it'd be insane. Stop teasing us with your third party shenanigans Ralph, join the club and make it better!

I mean, could you imagine what would happen if there was even a slight chance Nader would be the Democratic nominee for president? You'd hear a collective "Oh Fuck" in the corporate community the minute Nader announced his Dem-backed White House bid.

I really hope Dean wins. I think the Democratic party needs some change. Dean could succeed, because despite what Republicans say, he is fairly moderate, and he's not as much of a career politician as Kerry.

Anyway, if you're interested in what the Democrats should do next, I highly recommend reading the most recent issue of the Atlantic. There's a lot of good stuff in their State of the Nation articles. In particular, a nice article de-bunking the whole red state/blue state bullshit.