« MoveOn misleading again | Main | CJR guide to Social Security spin »

February 02, 2005


Who would've been a better choice? What do you mean by "foolish Northeastern anti-war symbolism"?

There are many competent Democrats who can run the show. Why do you assume there was no other choice but Dean? Are you completely familiar with the other possibitlities?
Also, I think "foolish Northeastern anti- war symbolism" is a pretty clear phrase. It means Democrats under Dean may be forced to retreat even further into their strongholds and give up, at least for the short term, more space to the Republicans.

As I've commented elsewhere, I don't think anyone voted the way they did because of the personalities of Terry McAuliffe or Ed Gillespie. So I don't know if Dean would be all that bad as DNC chair, but besides raising money and appearing on Meet the Press once in a while, what exactly does the DNC chair do?

I have not made any assumption that there was no other choice but Dean, and i wonder what in my question makes you think i made such an assumption.

And "fNa-ws" is not a pretty clear phrase; if it were, i wouldn't ask what it means. What's the anti-war symbolism? What distinguishes Northeastern anti-war symbolism from, say, Californian anti-war symbolism?

I probably shouldn't even bother asking, because i really don't give much of a crap about who's running the hospice known as the DNC. But at least Dean seems like an interesting choice (if nothing else, interesting like a car crash) to lead, instead of more business as usual.

The comments to this entry are closed.