The future

Lots of real and virtual ink has (is) being spilled concerning who should and who will, two different things to some people, lead the DNC once Maculiffe resigns. None of us here are fans of Dean running it, except maybe Matt, I'm not sure, but we appreciate the need-to-modernize-the-party argument. However, it's worth pointing out, that modernizing the party's infrastructure and management was one of Maculiffe's biggest, some would say only, accomplishments. The party committee is vastly better funded, better run and better organized than it was before The Macker took over. We just aren't sure what Dean would bring to it, except for a chaotic and detached management style, a shrill public persona, and the fact that he's a joke to at least half the voting population and many in his own party - not to diminish his accomplishments (What were they again? Oh yea...Raising and spending lots of money really fast.)

Vilsack and Edwards were the two most interesting choices for me, but neither seems to want the job. Unlike other bloggers, I won't pretend to know who some of the other names floated around Washington are, or what they might bring to the chairmanship. But as a Democrat I would urge a cold, hard look at the structural success of the Republican machine, figure out what could work for Democrats, and co-opt it.

Number one on my list would be scrapping the Moveon.org/Dean for American grassroots money pit structure, and replacing it with a BC04'/Amway style volunteer organization. This means not relying on 527's to do the heavy lifting (ie. base mobilization and negative ads) and instead building a lasting structure of committed party volunteers and allowing them to track their progress in recruiting other volunteers and come election day, getting out the vote. I believe this was to some extent ACT's model and in states like Ohio it clearly had an effect in driving turnout in Democratic strongholds (ie. most major cities).

Number two would be to select a chairman who is basically low key. The Macker's biggest problem was that all the politico/media types had their opinions about him dating back to the Clinton years which meant chronically bad and cynical press coverage of nearly every word out of his mouth. A long time, loyal, party operative or former governor would do just fine. Democrats already have too many people content to upstage the nominee. We need someone who has ambition, but also appeal to a broad range of Democratic party chairs and the like.

Number three would be to let Kerry have the final word. He was the de facto party spokesman for nearly 8 months. If he decides he wants a certain someone running the show, the least we could do is grant him his wish.