(POL) Where is Howard Dean?

[sterlingice]

I really didn't want to start another Health Care thread, but this is somewhat its own tangent. Obviously, we've heard Dean over the last day or two but why did he step down as Democratic party chair at the start of the year? Why is he no longer in charge? He was pretty successful in his fund raising and strategy.

I only ask because I just see how this would have played out with health care if he were still in charge. Max Baucus would have woken up with a horse head in his bed somewhere around July when things were turning south and he was dragging his feet to help out the insurance industry. And Reid would have gotten one had he not threatened Baucus's chair. Blanche Lincoln wouldn't have said a thing for fear of the line next to "DNC" in her 2010 re-election campaign being "$0". Similarly, other pissants like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu would have had their deals cut behind closed doors because it would have been explained to them that all this press they are garnering is bad press and it would be even worse if they continue (I just don't get the dissenting Democrats- not only does it keep weakening the bill, but after each capitulates, they still lose 10~30 points in the polls as their reward). Joe Lieberman- well, not much you could do with him. He's already shown he's going to do his own thing. But if I were him, I would test my brakes every time I got into the car.

So, again, what happened to Dean and why is he basically out of politics right now?

SI

[Swaggs]

He was on a television program tonight and it looked like he had dyed his hair, lost considerable weight, and possibly gotten a facelift. It seems as though he is gearing up for something, but I'm not sure if it is running for a higher office or just a mid-life (or latter-life) crisis.

Anyway, he looked kind of disturbing.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

In short, people usually serve only one term as DNC Chair and when the party wins the White House, the party usually allows the incoming POTUS to put one of his guys in the DNC Chair spot.

Even though I love Dean, I think you overestimate his powers. Most people in official Washington, especially more conservative Dems don't like him because he's not part of the Beltway Clique, so I'm not sure how much pressure he could've forced. In all honestly, he probably had more freedom as just Howard Dean than Howard Dean, DNC Chair.

Thanks for the answer- it was basically what I was getting at.

I know- what I described is more like what would happen if he were Senate Majority Leader. One can dream (and take some frustration out), right?

SI

[chesapeake]

It is not as if this is the first time Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson and Lieberman went south on an issue. They did it many times when Dean was the head of the DNC. To my knowledge, no horses were harmed. And if they were, it certainly didn't change any votes.

Dean never had a role in developing legislation or legislative strategy. That is not what the DNC chair does. The DNC is not even the primary fundraiser for Senate candidates. That is done by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which is not subject to the DNC. It is always chaired by a sitting Senator, currently NJ Senator Bob Menendez.

Elected leaders are far more influential in the political process than is the party chair, especially when the party is out of the White House and does not have the implicit backing of the POTUS.

I don't dislike Dean, but I've never seen anything out of him that would indicate that he would be any better at herding the cats than is Harry Reid.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I don't dislike Dean, but I've never seen anything out of him that would indicate that he would be any better at herding the cats than is Harry Reid.

I'd agree with this. I do think that things would have been a little different in the Senate if Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton had still been members. The leadership void left by those three, plus an ailing Robert Byrd, is very, very noticeable.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I'd agree with this. I do think that things would have been a little different in the Senate if Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton had still been members. The leadership void left by those three, plus an ailing Robert Byrd, is very, very noticeable.

I think that is pretty fair. Any time you lose this kind of senior leadership it will take some time for others to emerge to fill the void. Kennedy, in particular, is a big loss given his acknowledged expertise on and commitment to the issue of health care. And he was a really good vote-getter.