Dean To Run For DNC Chair

It is official, according to CNN.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose high-flying presidential campaign crashed a year ago in the political chill of Iowa, is expected to announce Tuesday that he will run for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, sources close to Dean told CNN.

The announcement is expected at around 1 p.m. Tuesday, the sources said. Dean is expected to inform DNC members of his decision first, before it is posted on his blog and sent out to supporters via e-mail, the sources said.

Please Democrats, I am begging all of you to elect this man the head of your party. I am on my knees. Do not let me down….

UPDATE (8:45am): Maybe National Review needs to reprise their old cover from last year.

Posted by Dave at 8:02 am
Filed under: Bush 2nd Term | Comments (51)

51 Responses to “Dean To Run For DNC Chair”

  1. pw says:

    Keep McAuliffe!

  2. HeavyM says:

    Dave, GREAT job posting that old NR cover… fits perfectly!

    I still think Dean might be a better chairman than we think, in terms of getting the base out and fundraising. Hopefully he lets his far-left philosophies shine through if he gets nominated.

    And lisab, I think you asked about a Rice/Clinton race in ’08… that’s what I’m hoping for! Those who have been around this site for awhile know that I’ve been advocating a Rice/Pawlenty Republican ticket since before the ’04 election. It would be a killer combo to anyone the Dems could field, I believe, except for perhaps a Bayh/Obama ticket (if that ever made it through the primaries).

  3. pw says:

    Heavy M,
    I think T-Mac did about as well as you can do in that area, and he…didn’t have a great election track record. And you saw how much success Dean had where it counted, in the primaries. You’d better hurry before somebody else gets 6th.:)

  4. pw says:

    Heavy M,
    I think T-Mac did about as well as you can do in that area, and he…didn’t have a great election track record. And you saw how much success Dean had where it counted, in the primaries. You’d better hurry before somebody else gets 6th.:)

  5. pw says:

    Heavy M,
    I think T-Mac did about as well as you can do in that area, and he…didn’t have a great election track record. And you saw how much success Dean had where it counted, in the primaries. You’d better hurry before somebody else gets 6th.:)

  6. HeavyM says:

    Um, since that was a repeat post 3 times, I still get 6th right now!

  7. pw says:

    Crap. I swear to God I wasn’t trying to get 6th (and I’d NEVER post the same thing 3 times in a row). The comment wouldn’t go through (I waited about 10 seconds and re-sent it). I’m serious…I disqualify myself from this 6th (I’m not a deal-breaker).
    My most humble and sincere apologies.
    Dave, could you delete 2 of these comments. I’ve been having a problem sending them this morning.

  8. HeavyM says:

    And those are good points, pw.

  9. HeavyM says:

    I know it wasn’t your intention, pw — no need to swear! 🙂

  10. pw says:

    I remember our deal yesterday; you can have 6th when Dave gets back and deletes my 2 comments. I know that being 6th means a lot to you, so I’m done tryin’ to steal it.:)

  11. HeavyM says:

    Is anyone else around this morning? Where’s all the Hedgehoggers?!?

  12. pw says:

    Just us, my friend. I like the quaintness of the Hedgehog Report Inn this morning.:)

  13. HeavyM says:

    Hey pw, whadda you think about Chertoff being nominated for the Homeland Security position? I think the pick looks absolutely brilliant from the little that I know about the guy.

  14. pw says:

    I don’t think Sen. Clinton will like it. She was the only senator to vote against his confirmation as an appellate court judge.

  15. HeavyM says:

    Apparently, he was the prosecutor in the Whitewater scandal, so that should be interesting… politically smart because it backs Clinton into a corner.

  16. pw says:

    This nomination might throw some cold water on the Bush-Clinton lovefest.

  17. HeavyM says:

    That lovefest has been strange anyways…

  18. Furrier says:

    To clarify, the “corner” H.Clinton is backed into:
    –she surely dislikes Chertoff since he was Whitewater prosecutor;
    –she’s been trying to boost her credentials on anti-terrorism in order to appear more “moderate

    Politically, I like this. I don’t yet know much about Chertoff, however, so I retain the right to change my mind :).

  19. HeavyM says:

    Furrier, you’ve got it exactly right. Hillary’s trying to swing right to prepare for ’08 and hope nobody remembers who she was before Bush got re-elected.

  20. pw says:

    Yeah, the lovefest has been strange; hope nothin’ naughty’s goin’ on in the Oval Office. As for Sen. Clinton, she’s already voted against this guy once; I think she’ll do it again.

  21. Be careful what you wish for.

  22. pw says:

    I wish T-Mac would stay. He’s done an exemplary job so far.

  23. Go Duke!!! says:

    Go Duke finally reporting for duty! I just love it when the GOP plays hardball.

  24. lisab says:


    “I still think Dean might be a better chairman than we think, in terms of getting the base out and fundraising.”

    i think dean would be awesome.

    imho hillary/obama will destroy anyone the reps put up. if kerry can come so close to defeating a war-time incumbant president hillary/obama will win hands down.

    rice would be nice, but no aa woman will be on the head of the rep ticket. she might be asked to be vp, but it won’t save the rep candidate. an old mean white guy like mccain will get killed by hillary/obama. jmo

    dean would make a great chair. he is right on the war, right on gay marriage and he is fiscally responsible.

  25. pw says:

    Lisa,The Democrats fought about as hard as they could with Kerry, and they still lost. You can’t say the Dem base didn’t turn out; it did. Nader played no factor. Besides, you probably wouldn’t like Hillary (if you didn’t like Kerry) because she voted for the war (assuming that’s an issue in 2008 for you). I still say keep McAuliffe.

  26. Alex says:

    Dean becoming DNC chair really makes no difference in who people vote for. Who knows anybody that voted for a candidate because Gillespie or McAuliffe were chairs of their respective parties? I wouldn’t mind if Dean became DNC chair, but I support Rosenberg over Dean because his policies are more like mine.

    Hillary and Obama would have a tough time winning…I mean, I guess Hillary could pull out a win, but she needs a more centrist vice presidential candidate. I like Mark Warner personally.

    Pw, I know the democrats fought as hard as they could for Kerry, but Kerry did very well considering everything he had going against him. First off, he was a senator from mass. who casted over 6,000 votes in his career, which makes it easy to cherry pick certain votes. The major theme of Kerry’s campaign was undermined by the whole swift boat vet thing, even with most of their claims being completely unsubstantiated, and misleading. And Kerry was man who had difficulty explaining himself, and wasn’t the most a likeable person to the average American. Add in the extremely difficult electoral college he was up against, and he actually did very well.

  27. pw says:

    Hillary will have votes, too (not 6,000, but she’ll have close to over 2,000 by 2008, and that’s a nice chunk of votes). And Hillary will have just as tough an electoral college. I think Bayh or Warner (as you suggest) would have a much better chance, considering that they come from Republican states.

  28. Tina says:

    Who cares who the person is!

  29. McCain says:

    I am compelled to agree with Alex and Lisab. Voters don’t really care who chairs the DNC. The guy’s job is to raise money, raise money, raise more money, and every once in a while go on TV to articulate some point of view. Dean can do that well, and I really can’t think of a stronger candidate for the Dems. The RNC has had some lemons, like that guy who looked like a fuzzball right before the current guy, and certainly the current chair of the DNC is a lemon. Dean is an improvement on Terry M. This discussion seems like a lot of barking at a shadow. Voters don’t care about this.

  30. pw says:

    T-Mac’s a Studmuffin! “This is the greatest election night in history.”
    The man’s non-stop comedy; GO T-MAC! I LOVE YOU!

  31. lisab says:

    “I am compelled to agree with Alex and Lisab.”

    i always knew you were sensible McCain. 🙂

    “The Democrats fought about as hard as they could with Kerry”

    pw, no way. they voted against bush. kerry generated no enthusiasm and staked out no positions except for one. other than he would raise taxes can you think of one proposal that he articulated? granted, he kept saying he would be better, wiser, kinder etc. but did he actually say anything concrete that he would do (except for taxes)? he didn’t even come out against the war.

  32. lisab says:

    sorry i forgot, kerry successfully articulated that he was also a war hero a.k.a. “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” or was it “Dien Bien Phu and Taxes Too”

  33. pw says:

    Not being Bush was good enough (look at Nader’s numbers). Nader played NO role in OH (not on the ballot), and he got about 30,000 votes in FL (barely made the ballot). Kerry’s biggest ally was Bush, and how’d ole Dean do in the primaries (just among Democrats)?

  34. pw says:

    Wasn’t Kerry also able to articulate his position on goose killing?

  35. lisab says:

    “Not being Bush was good enough”

    obviously not he lost by 100,000 votes in ohio.

    someone with a pulse, running against a non-incumbant president would probably have won. the incumbancy has got to be worth at least 1-2% in the polls. i seem to recall that the day before the election 4-5% of the electorate didn’t know who kerry was — as amazing as that may seem.

  36. pw says:

    Which poll showed that? Never saw it.

  37. lisab says:

    it was some poll released just before the election. people were asked who they would vote for. sometimes they were prompted with the candidate names, sometimes not. when unprompted more people knew who bush was than knew who kerry was. that is 4-5% of the people asked didn’t know who was running or wouldn’t admit to it.

    guess they don’t read the papers. still if you are homeless or sit in your parents basement playing nintendo all day, i guess you don’t know much.

  38. lisab says:

    “i guess you don’t know much.”

    i mean about current events.

  39. pw says:

    The poll you refer to is called the Battleground Poll. Sometimes, people are more open to answering questions when given narrower choices (Bush or Kerry or Nader) than an open-ended question (who will you vote for). Besides, I don’t think the knowledge of these people would increase too much with another candidate, considering that there was about as much coverage of this race as there possibly could have been.

  40. lisab says:

    “Besides, I don’t think the knowledge of these people would increase too much with another candidate”

    i agree my only point being kerry was a weak candidate — yet he came pretty close to beating a wartime incumbant.

    it cracks me up when reps say they can’t lose. clinton won twice, and gore came about as close as you can. a decent candidate would have beaten bushie imho.

  41. pw says:

    Your evidence of Kerry’s weakness is…well…not evidence. Kerry spent hundreds of millions on advertising. I’d be interested to see the percentage of people in this poll for previous elections who didn’t name either candidate. I’ll bet it’s pretty close; a certain percentage of the population is clueless, and it has nothing to do with a candidate’s strength.

  42. Alex says:

    Most polls showed 60% of Kerry voters voting for Kerry and not against Bush. And there was a lot of enthusiasm for Kerry, but when you have a controversial, war-time president, its only natural people are going to vote against him because the hate is that strong. But, yeah, Kerry did have problems getting people excited over his presidency, but it wasn’t that bad.

    And I don’t think Kerry lost because there was a lack of enthusiasm over his campaign. They exceeded the number of people they wanted to get to the polls, and Kerry received the second most votes ever in a presidential election, whether people were voting against Bush or for Kerry. However, Republicans just did a better job.

  43. lisab says:

    sorry alex i respectfully disagree. 60% voting for kerry imho is too low. i still to this day don’t know what he was for — except higher taxes. but even that was obscured by he an teresa paying 15% taxes that’s less than me btw.

  44. lisab says:

    btw, don’t get me wrong, i’m all for higher taxes on the rich, but kerry needed to get a plan across. dean at least had something to say and took a stand. too bad he screamed on tv. 🙁 he was a very good govenor.

    again my whole point is that a better candidate probably could have won. answer me this, how many votes did the “i voted for it before i voted against it” cost kerry? i bet it was more than 100,000 in OH.

  45. McCain says:

    Agreed, but we can take a general lesson from this election that should have been learned before. Liberals make pathetic presidential candidates. They have to run from their core beliefs, which is why Kerry ended up looking like such a flaky joke. Liberals cannot win presidential elections, never have, never will. Democrats can win, but not liberals. Appoint a normal Democratic candidate, and Bush was probably toast. Clinton would have beat Bush, for example.

  46. pw says:

    The Dean scream has been so overblown. When did Dean scream? After he LOST the Iowa Caucuses. Kerry already had all the mo when Dean did that; it played a nice moment on TV, but that’s about it. Also, I’ll bet you don’t like Dean’s views on capital punishment.:) And those people in Ohio wouldn’t have voted for Dean; Lieberman, maybe. Kerry already got the votes of the liberals; Dean wasn’t needed for that (and remember that Kerry wasn’t even on the Ohio ballot).

  47. pw says:

    Sorry: Nader wasn’t even on the Ohio ballot, and neither was he on the FL ballot until the last minute (and he received only 30,000 votes in a state Bush won by 380,000).

  48. did you know that Dean has a much stronger record on protecting gun rights, than George Bush?

    Dean signed conceal carry into law.

  49. pw says:

    That’s a state issue; there’s no federal concealed carry. And I’ll bet you’re not too happy with the money he’d like to spend on healthcare, for instance.