I like Dean at DFA.  I'd like it to be someone of real stature.

Clinton told Kerry to oppose civil unions for gays.  I'm really not okay with that being our policy.  Andrew Sullivan said something interesting about how Kerry wouldn't do it.  He pointed out that Kerry never presided over the execution of a retarded man for his own political gain either.

Rosenberg sounds okay too.

Not Donna Brazile.

Don't know enough about Leon Panetta.  We need someone who can wage a media war.

Definitely not the inept Donna Brazille.  Dean would do a great job but -- and this is a big hitch -- a very important part of Dean's appeal is that he was willing to stand up again the Democratic Party machinery.  That stand made made him appeal to Republicans some of whom understand better what we Dems are up against than we do...

I'd like to see Dean stay independent.  As far as party leadership goes, we need someone who reflects what the party intends to be, wants to be, not what it is.  What it is is moribund, ineffectual, and way too (how can I put this politely) willing to get on its knees and, uh, you catch what I mean?

http://www.democrats.org/about/function.html

"While anyone who is registered to vote as a Democrat is a member of the Party, there are 440 members of the Democratic National Committee.

The National Committee has 9 elected officers: The Chair, five Vice Chairs, Treasurer, Secretary, and National Finance Chair.

Membership on the National Committee is composed of individuals selected by the Democratic Party organizations in each state (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), the U.S. Territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands), and Democrats living outside the United States and those Territories listed above (Democrats Abroad).

Each jurisdiction is represented by its Chair and the next highest ranking officer of the opposite sex. An additional 200 votes are distributed to the states and territories based on population, with each receiving a minimum of two additional seats. Each delegation must be equally divided between men and women.

Also seated on the DNC are representatives of various Democratic constituencies and elected officials. These include two U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives, two members of the College Democrats, and three representatives each from the Democratic Governors, Mayors, State Legislators, County Officials. Municipal Officials, Young Democrats, and the National Federation of Democratic Women. Fifty members are appointed by the DNC Chairmen, and approved by the DNC, and are considered "Members-at-Large.""

Somehow it's going to be Mr. Rosenberg?

I don't really know how it's done but I would go for Dean.  Dean was the first to have his finger on the pulse that outside of the beltway, the Democrats were seething at Bush.  After the primaries, he stayed at the grass roots level and knows that this party has to rebuild from the botttom up.  That insight is missing from the others (except Clinton) who want to work from the top down.

He knows that the message has to be reframed, but he knows that the message remains the message. He also projects a tough-man image on TV and, with regard to the scream, if he will use it on Republicans, then he'll do just fine.

As I see it, the biggest problem that the Dems have now is that rural/mid-west/southern  America still sees them as being weak.  Dean does not only project strength, he's a straight shooter.  When Dean is on TV, and the interviewer starts spewing RNC talking points, Dean shuts them up quickly and effectively.  Donna Brazille, for example, does not do this.  As for the others, I don't know enough about them to comment.  And if I don't know who they are,  I don't think the rest of the country does either.                  

I also hapen to think that Al Gore would be a better choice than Clinton.  He has vision and wisdom.  Also, after being "Gored" by the media in 2000, he knows how to fight back hard.  

As you say, he didn't help us down the ticket.  Also, I'm not convinced he helped us that much at the top either.  Especially in 1992, he had a LOT of help from Ross Perot.  He never even got 50% of the vote, either time!

And he is a very polarizing figure.  A lot of people who probably could be on our side hate him.  This is because he's been framed by the Republicans, over and over and over again, as a sleazeball.

If we're gonna pick somebody well known, it needs to be somebody who's not hated.

I'm kind of tired of both the Clintons. As mentioned, he didnt seem to help us much either. Plus, let him recover and get really healthy. Dean is good IMO. I dont mind any of the other ones, but with an ex-Clinton stafer my fear is they will try to push Hilary onto the national ticket. And I just dont want that.

With Dean and Rosenberg leading the results, it appears we want fundamental change at the Democratic Party.

If the Party won't lead with strong, new leadership, then just give money to NDN and DFA and let the Party focus on getting the balloons to fall at the convention.

Both DFA and NDN are nimble, modern organizations. That is why Dean and Roseberg are at the top of the grassroots' list. But then again, maybe it is best to keep them doing what they are doing. Dean and Rosenberg have drastically forced the Party to act smarter and to think bigger. I must admit, part of me loves the competition.

So maybe that is the measure by which we should judge the new Chair:

Can the new DNC Chair compete with Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean?

As far as my donations are concerned, that is the crux of the issue.

It would be a little awkward for Clinton to lead the DNC, if Hillary is to be a candidate in 2008. If Hillary risks providing a backlash, then this would risk double the backlash.

I'll also suggest that we add Al Gore to the list of potential DNC candidates.

What about Tom Daschle?  Wouldn't it piss off the Republicans to see his face back on national TV.  Would certainly irritate W.

Smart and political enough to go toe to toe with any Republican.  He is a fighter for Democratic principles and a true partisan.

The DLC has been pushing the Dems further and further right for the past 12+ years, a strategy that has failed spectacularly.  Now that Terry McAuliffe has resigned (finally!!), it's time for new blood at the top levels in the DNC.  

Howard Dean demonstrated his ability to raise funds and strategize on a national level in 2004.  He'd make a great DNC chair, provided he could garner the needed support within the party.

I think the republican party will collapse in on itself if we make sure that their failings are are unquestionably pinned on them. The dems should prepare by building a reputation as being a clear alternative to failing repub policies.

With that

1. Dean
I think Dean and Clinton are the only recognizable personalities on the list. People will pay attention to Dean if only to see him holler. Meanwhile, he's got their ear.
Further, the Dem Party needs the fully energized Deniacs that will come with him

2. Rosenburg
Has the vision and probably the know how, but no one outside the party knows who he is. Why should they listen to him?

3. The rest

Donna Brazille
is just painful to watch. Smart, but we need a better communicator

Clinton Staffers
they haven't got Clinton to work with but that's not necessarily relevant. What is relevant is they are pretty much unknown, and everyone will read "former Clinton whatever" on their name and tune them out. See Clinton below

Clinton
is too polarizing. The people who hate the Clintons HATE the Clintons. Lets not energize the republican base by making Clinton our leader. Further, Sen. Clinton is seen as having snubbed the south to be a NYer and is therefor disloyal. We don't need disloyalty associated with the democratic party. Instead, Clinton needs to just do his own thing by being a great personality and getting our talking points in whenever he can. Clinton will be best just being Clinton.

SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE FOR GORE!!!

SHE IS THE BEST GOTV PERSON THERE IS!!!!

Dean and Rosenberg both seem good, but for opposite reasons. Rosenberg is a good behind-the-scenes guy, and he really understands what the Democrats need to do (the NDN seemed to be the only group running pro-Democratic branding ads). Dean, however, rocks as a spokesperson, and he understands the power of retail politics and getting local and grassroots. Unfortunately, he's the worst at ass-kissing of any major politician I've seen (little patience for it), and the DNC Chair does quite a bit of that. So . . . both of them together would be terrific, but they're too important to both be there. So . . . I guess it depends on what the main role of the DNC chair will be. Public face, inspirational leader: Dean. Organizer and an insider that can still push the DNC in a new direction: Rosenberg. I think they both respect the importance of communication with the grass roots. If it's one of those two, they should set up serious collaborative relationships with the organization of the other (DFA or NDN) and utilize the other's talents.

The others . . . nah. Maybe Ickes. No Brazile, certainly no Clinton. It's time to move on. Panetta? Yawn.

I heard an interview with him yesterday. He seemed to be saying that the Democrats need to move to the center and not be obstructionist, blah, blah, blah. That's not the kind of talk we need.

read up on him briefly and he seems to be THE ONE. Ickes is too old. He said so himself. Clinton, no way. Dean, no way. Same with all the others. I say Rosenberg. ;-)

is raise money and try to hold together state parties ...not set policy or choose the nominee. For this reason, both Pres Clinton and Dean are bad ideas that won't be chosen by the Committee.

No Democrat who knows his or her history should mispel the name of Harold Ickes.

Simon Rosenberg

Simon B. Rosenberg is President and Founder of the New Democrat Network (NDN). "Rosenberg has helped make NDN one of the nation's most influential political organizations. NDN has helped bring nearly 50 New Democrats to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and elected New Democrats to state and local offices in 35 states."

"Rosenberg has nearly 20 years of media and political experience. In the 1980s and early 1990s, he worked as a television news writer and producer, for programs that appeared on ABC News, PBS, and various cable stations."

"He served as a key member of two Presidential campaigns, working for Michael Dukakis in Iowa in 1987-88 and for William Jefferson Clinton in the New Hampshire primary and the Little Rock War Room in 1991-92. He also worked at the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Leadership Council before founding NDN in 1996."

"Rosenberg and his work have been featured in numerous books and articles and two well-known movies about the 1992 Presidential campaign, Feed and War Room. He is a member of the Aspen Institute's 2001 Class of Henry Crown Fellows and a 1985 graduate of Tufts University."

Taken from the NDN web site.

Perfect for head of the party. He's already doing a better job with the small NDN than Terry Mac did with the much larger DNC.

I want Dean available as a candidate again in 2008, so he's not my choice for party head.

If Donna Brazille becomes the next Chair of the DNC, then I'm pretty much done with the Democrats.  She is AWFUL!
She was handed a present with Al Gore in 2000 and completely fumbled it in epic proportions.
The ONLY acceptable candidates are Howard Dean and Bill Clinton.

The very thought of the incredibly annoying Donna Brazille becoming DNC chair makes me want to vomit.  She is as bad as Terry McAuliffe was, and I definitely blame her in large part for the failure of Gore's campaign.  It was painful any time I saw her debate with Bay Buchanan on CNN's "Inside Politics" because somehow she would almost always manage to lose.  She would be a horrible choice as spokesperson and major visible presence for the party, and if the goal is to bring back voters we've lost or interest undecideds, I would bet she would turn off more people than bring in any.

Dean I think could be a good choice.  So could Edwards, for that matter, now that he too is out of a job.  Definitely not Daschle.  I don't think any member of the recent Democratic leadership should have any official party leadership positions.   This party needs new faces that energize people; not old ones responsible for losing congress.

I only see these two getting it. I admire Bill Clinton, but this doesn't strike me as a job he needs to do.

No, we need people who effect change and communicate our message across the board; that we are proud to be liberals and everyone else should be too. And that the party must be led by the people, not the personalities.

I very much like Rosenberg. I trust him. But what does selecting Dean say? Does it say that we support gay rights, an issue we were beaten soundly on? Yes. And for that reason I say GOOD.

Why? We absolutely need to get back to the job of being Liberals again and stop letting people walk all over us for it. I think Chris and a number of people on this site (including myself) have made it clear we feel the message isn't being delivered effectively. We're not jettisoning our ideals and we're not budging an inch. Dean is our guy, but I'll take Rosenberg as a close second; I'd prefer he ran for office though. He'd make a great congressman, from what I've seen.

I just read Rush's site and he is all over this Ickes thing.   I would love to see Ickes debate Rush or Bill O'Reilly.  

Brazille and Panetta not tough enough - let's get someone really tough and brave.

If we're considering insiders like Ickes, Brazille, Panetta, and Rosenberg, why not throw John Podesta's name into the ring?  

He's well respected among all wings of the Party and could unite the various factions (yes, he's a Clintonite, but he's also a progressive at heart and is popular among those groups). His great work in forming the Center for American Progress shows that he "gets it" -- in particular, the need for a "muscular liberalism" that has an effective message and well-organized structure.  And he's not bad on television.  

Whoever is DNC chairman, they should change the Web site so you can find the names of your state committee members.  

Without those names, how can anyone hope to influence who the new chairman is?

I just spent half an hour with Google and the DNC site trying to find the names.  They aren't available. (And I'm a newspaper editor who spends four or five hours a day on the Internet, so it's not immediately attributable to operator error -- though I won't rule that out entirely.)

The idea that those candidates with moderate views are to be avoided is laughable. When is the last time a strong liberal was elected President? To go outside the box and think of a candidate that would get an immediate reaction for the head of the DNC is Wesley Clark. Think about it, the albatross around the neck of Democrats is weak on defense, Clark eliminates that argument. The DLC is not the enemy of the Democratic Party and must be treated better than the current name calling. Clark could organize and solidify the strength of the Democratic Party.

Wasn't too impressed with Donna Brazilles performance with Al Gore -- he should have won by a landslide!    

Howard Dean has the energy, but too contreversial even within our own party.  

Can't imagine that President Clinton would even entertain the thought of taking over that role.  

Leon Panetta way too mellow.  Not enough enthusiasm or energy.  

Our party needs a "Barac Obama" persona.  Intelligent, fresh, energized, and very, very capable.

Love Howard Dean, but he is too mistake-prone. Don't want the DNC chairman to be a lightning rod.

Ickes is tough as nails. Could put the fear of God back in the Rs.

Rosenberg has the new ideas and creative mindset.

Either of these guys would be good.