I don't question the assertion that we're at war with the Right wing, but I do wonder if Howard Dean is the best one to lead this fight. Does he have the ruthlessness necessary to confront the likes of Karl Rove, Rick Santorum, Tom Delay?
These are people who lie as naturally as they breathe and regard personal destruction is an acceptable or even preferable political tool. They're willing to send thousands of American girls and boys off to death and mutilation merely to advance their own agenda.
I admire and respect Howard Dean - he should have been our presidential candidate in 2004 - but I'm not convinced he's capable of leading the DNC to victory in what will be a hard and often ugly fight.

Rather than disagree, I'll ask a question:

Who do you think would be better?

Please consider the practicality of getting the person elected to the position.

My assessment is that Howard Dean is the closest to what I would like who has any real possibility of getting the position. And, he has great respect among a large constituency that we need in the Democratic Party and that we need to keep activated as voters.

I'm open to anyone that will take the fight to the Republicans. But, I don't think Donna Brazile, Jean Shaheen, Tom Vilsack, or Bill Richardson meet the "take the war to the Republicans" profile.

Wellington Webb is also being mentioned. He is impressive. But, I don't know enough about him to determine if he is a real scrapper or not.

So, please name someone that is 1. electable, and 2. a real fighter and grassroots organizer.

Points well taken, Geoff. I wish I could come up with a candidate for DNC Chairman with the necessary qualities, but for the moment I can't.
As to getting such a person elected, I admit your logic on that point too, but would add a comment.
If Democrats won't elect someone tough enough and mean enough to win the fight, then they probably won't support the kind of policies it will take to win in the first place. That's been one of our problems all along.
Are we back to square one?
And, by the way, when I advocate being "tough" and "mean," I absolutely do not refer to the dishonesty and destructiveness that have distinguished right wing politics. What I would endorse is, for example, hanging 9-11 firmly where it belongs: like a great stinking dead albatross around George Bush's neck, something that few people on the left have apparently been willing to do.

OK. Name someone who would be tougher than Dean that can't get elected DNC Chairman.

My point is that Dean seems to be the person of the hour. He has a huge following we need to retain. His folks figured out how to use the Internet for fund raising and campaign activism. He is an exciting figur in his own right.

I supported Al Sharpton in the Democratic primary. But, I don't perceive him as being the person for this job.

If we don't do something, we're going to endup with Donna Brazile who ran Gore's milk toast campaign and let Bush get close enough to steal the 2000 election.

And, by the way, don't blaime it on the Democratic Party establishment. It is our job to DEMAND what we want and get it. If we won't do that, then what possible benefit do they see in putting a more forceful and controversial person in?

Geoff,

You wrote:
"Wellington Webb is also being mentioned. He is impressive. But, I don't know enough about him to determine if he is a real scrapper or not. "

Former Denver mayor Webb is a fine man, but he is not the personality type that I think that the Democratic party needs. He has a history of being bashed by the Colorado Repugnicans, and it has hurt his reputation unjustly. Denver owes a great deal to Webb, but he not the one. Sorry.

Anyone who has listened to Howard Dean knows one thing. Dean has been the only public figure to lay the Iraq war squarely on Bush as illegal and immoral, and Dean has the conviction to carry it off.