Jonathan Chait is less than convinced of Howard Dean’s qulifications as DNC chair. McQ atQandO seems to agree.

Personally, however, I disagree.

I wonder which would be more damaging to the Democrats, assuming each were possible…

Them mistakenly thinking he’s the best for the job, or that he actually IS the best for the job.

I think the latter to be the case… he is in fact the best man for the job, if by that it’s meant that he best represnts what the party is. In my view, he certainly represents the rabid unreasoning and “attack everything” animal that the Democrats have allowed themselves to become.  That’s damaging to the Democrats, but so be it.

The Bill Clinton years have apparently taught them nothing. Clinton won by lying to the American electorate, positioning himself as a centerist…. and then veering left once elected. (I tried to keep my tax cut pledge, I really did…) It’s the only way Democrats win anymore unless the person running for office is running in a place like Marin County, CA, or Boston MA. In the rest of America, Democrats who run like Democrats… In short, running from the Karl Marx political handbook, simply don’t get elected. The county by county election map shows this clearly… and this is a trend that’s been building since the second world war. Indeed, the only Democrat since FDR to win the White House on a majority of popular votes, was LBJ… by 51%. And it seems reasoable to assume at least part of the vote there was the result of a sympathy push because of JFK’s killing. Assuming that’s the case, the Democrats haven’t won a popular vote unaided by events for nearly 75 years.

The simple fact is Dean will do naught but push the Democrats further to the left, and in so doing will push the Democrats further out of power in every level of government.

And I wonder who among them has the wit to see it, that won’t soon be a Republican.

Yet, that’s what Howard Dean brings to the Democratic party… a brand politics that has never been successful for the Democrats in general elections.