Tags
I don’t think so. But I’m willing to listen, if someone can make a good case for McCaskill as DNC chair.
Is This Good News?
10 Monday Nov 2008
Posted in Uncategorized
10 Monday Nov 2008
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
I don’t think so. But I’m willing to listen, if someone can make a good case for McCaskill as DNC chair.
but would she remain a sitting Senator?
Frankly, I don’t think someone should be DNC chair who couldn’t bring a victory in her own state.
made it clear that Dean always said he would only do one term there. I’m disappointed. He’s a hero of mine, so at the very least, I’d want to know that his replacement is enthusiastic about his fifty state plan. McCaskill is; in fact, she was the first one to apply to him for help for Missouri when he instituted it.
Could the DNC wait about appointing her until Nixon was in office to appoint her Senate replacement? Who might that be, if a replacement were to be named? A Carnahan?
I’m getting way ahead of myself.
I hate to see Dean go, and I hope to see him in Obama’s administration. Commenters at Think Progress suggested Surgeon General and Secretary of Health and Human Services. Neither post seems big enough for his talents, if you ask me. He should have been president.
like how Rendell and Dodd were DNC chairs in the 1990s?
Dean may be under consideration for Secretary of HHS. A fitting reward if it pans out.
As for Claire the Timid to head up head the DNC? After the principled Dean. Well …
In 2004 and early 2005, there was a clear argument as to the direction of the DNC. Would it be chaired by someone in the vein of Terry McAuliffe, who regularly made media appearances and had a knack for raising big sums of money for the party? Or a technocrat like Simon Rosenberg? Or a candidate like Howard Dean, who wanted to start rebuilding the party from the ground up, empowering state parties and organizing in area where the party was traditionally weak?
I don’t know what Claire McCaskill as DNC chair would stand for, besides presumably reaching out to rural voters. And I’d like to know before I form an even stronger opinion against her as DNC chair.
although she strikes me as a very cautious politician,in contrast to Dean who pursued a rather bold vision despite the “slings and arrows” cast by what had been heretofore the leadership of the Democratic party. Michael Tomasky’s [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/nov/10/howard-dean-dnc-resigning take on the Dean years seems correct to me:
Is McCaskill somebody who could continue and further develop this grassroots strategy?
Kaine, Richardson, Sebelius, McCaskill
Of course, rumors are rumors, but it seems like it’ll be a General Chairperson kind of thing.
Claire’s the best out of that field. Kaine and Sebelius are ridiculously hyped for different reasons. At least Kaine is a dry figure whose state has went towards Democrats. From the way that national figures talk about Sebelius, you wouldn’t know that the Kansas Dems really haven’t moved up the ladder too much in the last six years. And there’s probably a legal requirement to include Bill Richardson in every discussion of topics relating to cabinet positions and leadership positions.
Out of the field, Claire wins that race.
When it comes to being timid. Timid to me doesn’t include endorsing Obama in January (as opposed to doing it in June). Claire is bolder outside of the Capital and the Senate, so keep that in mind.
I just sent this email to the DNC: