Centerfield

Roemer is a Hoosier, not a Sooner, and I think Harry Reid is on record as being pro-life, but I am less sure of that one.

Roemer is a wet dream for centrists, and what I mean by that is that he is too good to be true, which more than likely means he is going to lose. This guy is more conservative than a third of the Republicans in Congress. I don't understand where Pelosi and Reid are coming from, but I don't have the faith that Democrats are smart enough to pick Roemer. I will eat crow if I am wrong, and maybe even vote Democrat more often.

Rosenberg and Fowler are centrists of the worst kind, and by that I mean centrists who aren't really centrists, but talk the middle of the road talk because they understand that it's electable (i.e. Arlen Specter). It is the kind of centrism that supports Social Security private accounts, but is going to oppose them this time around because Bush might get the credit.

IMHO, Howard is going to win. National committeemen ane women come from state party's, state party's are organized by the grass roots, the grass roots of the Democratic party existed in the 2004 election because of the Howard Dean movement. It wasn't until votes outside of the grassroots where counted that Kerry won the nomination.

This is just a hunch, but my opinion is that the average grassroots Democrat is pissed off about being muffled since Michael Dukakis. They feel that the Democratic establishment lost a national election that a monkey could have won; they blame the DLC wing of the party and feel as if that their way is the winning way. Howard couldn't use that anger to win the nomination becauase primaries contain votes outside of your liberal activist, but I see no reason why he cannot use it to mobilize an election as small as the DNC chair race.

I have been impressed by the DC Democratic establishment's move toward the center, but we are witnessing the calm before the storm. The Democrats are going left before they go right.

Busted; hoosier it is. Being form MO, somebody had to show me my mistake. But, yes, Reid is pro-life and a Morman to boot.

As for the Dems; go left? Been there, done that. You're mistaking a fringe liberal element for the party as a whole. Evan Bayh is currently catching fire among Dem activists precisely because he's seen as a consensus bulider. The red Dems will bite if the bait is right: moderate Dem from the red zone, and the blue Dems will mainly follow. They will because both shades want badly to win and govern; more than they want to quibble.

Cheers

That Tim Roemer is getting a long look at all as a potential DNC head is a step in the right direction for many who doubt Democrats lack an open mind (or more "intellectually honest" as MWS wrote in another thread) about many of their issues.

In the end, he'll probably end up losing and be mere window-dressing as many here probably suspect he is now.

I think what's more important than whether the Chairperson is from or whether he/she is ostensibly liberal or moderate is whether that person can push the party to develop ideas. I think this a moribund party because it is not a party of ideas, liberal or conservative. The Republicans continually come up with ideas (e.g., social security privatization) and whether you like them or not, they have something to sell and talk about. They seem to be a party of action. The Democrats have been pretty much reduced, IMO, to saying, vote for us so nothing will change too much. It's easy for the Dems to talk about how much the middle class is struggling. Where are the ideas for helping the middle class? And I don't mean things like raising the minimum wage. That's nice, but it doesn't really address the structural problems that the middle class face. We have to do more than just blame the Republicans. The same is true in foreign policy and other issues. So, to me, the most important thing is whether the Chairperson can get the party off its ass and generating ideas. This should be something that appeals to liberals and moderates alike (although I think if a moderate proposed to declare mothers nice people, liberals would say they are selling out.) Liberals don't seem to grasp this, but the story has to be based on something more than just we don't like Bush.

I realize this is sort of off topic, but I just had to get that rant off my chest.

I think what's more important than whether the Chairperson is from or whether he/she is ostensibly liberal or moderate is whether that person can push the party to develop ideas...The Republicans continually come up with ideas (e.g., social security privatization) and whether you like them or not, they have something to sell and talk about.

Amen.