The other popular blogger choice for the position is Howard Dean. I never could understand the Left's adoration (I would say "cultish hero-worshipping") of the guy (I was a Wesley Clark fan), and his screaming flame-out in the primaries should, in my mind, preclude him from any prominent positions within the party for the foreseeable future. But that said, I would support Howard over anybody in the race not named Simon.
today I was given another great big reason to support Simon over Howard for DNC chief when Dean told the Des Moines Register (via MyDD):
"I don't believe that the system's going to be changed or that the order is going to be changed," Dean said. "You're going to have to show me a reason to change. I'm just not going to change it for change's sake."So the constant backward march of the primary season, and the resentment of the rest of the states over Iowa and New Hampshire's prominence isn't a good enough reason to change the system? Forget that- we need to change the primary sytem, and Simon has come out strongly in favor of this badly needed reform.
As the article notes:
Rosenberg said Thursday the traditional calendar, which has put the caucuses and the New Hampshire primary at the front of the order, must be changed. He prefers a system where states with larger and more diverse populations have equal influence as the traditional lead-off states.Does it strike anyone else as absurd that Dean would spurn his supporters in the biggest of the Blues in this debate for reform? Even though I like Dean, I really hope that Simon can use this against Dean at the DNC meetings. We need reform- badly- and we need someone at the head of the DNC who is comitted to it. So, yet again, Simon Rosenberg for DNC chair!.
"Whatever they end up with, whatever the formula is, the aspiration should be to have more states and more people involved at a co-equal setting with Iowa and New Hampshire," said Rosenberg, president of the centrist New Democrat Network.
Advocates of change, including Rosenberg, have said the party must allow states with higher populations of racial and ethnic minorities to weigh in on their party's nominee first.
Critics say Iowa and New Hampshire are too small, rural and homogeneous to wield as much influence as they do over the decision of the party.
"We need to involve the great diversity of this country in the early stages of this process in a way that allows more people to have a voice in the nominating process," Rosenberg said.
On a side note, if any of you would like to blog from within the Eastern regional DNC meeting in NYC, Driving Votes will suposedly help, but make sure you tell them you'rea Deniac, I don't think they like people who aren't part of the Dean cult.