Democrats Shouldnt Let the Race for DNC Chair Become a Battle for the Party's Soul

[DonViejo]

By Ed Kilgore

December 15, 2016
8:15 a.m.

As the contest for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee revs up, one obvious pitfall for Democrats is that it will simply continue the rivalry between the people who supported the two major candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination. Without question, the initial front-runner Keith Ellison was an important part of Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and new candidate Tom Perez was an important part of the Obama administration, which supported Hillary Clinton.

The odds are good that some well-meaning peacemakers will try to lower the temperature of an Ellison-Perez fight by celebrating their equally strong progressive credentials, and encouraging a competition to show which of them can most eloquently present a policy agenda and message that meets the current perceived need for a clear “party line.”

Is that really the party chair’s job? And is the selection of someone to oversee the rather boring mechanics of the party the right forum for the kind of battle ideology and messaging many Democrats seem to crave as the Obama Era ends?

In an interview with the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman, Northwestern University’s Daniel Galvin, a political scientist who specializes in political parties, speaks for those who want some attention for the party’s body rather than its soul. Speaking of past DNC chairs who were effective in periods of Republican ascendancy, Galvin has this to say:

more
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/the-dnc-race-should-not-be-a-battle-for-the-partys-soul.html

[Gothmog]

1. I disagree

We need to avoid selecting a sanders supporter as DNC chair. I do not support any sanders supporter being the head of the DNC

[KamaAina]

4. Because Hillary did SUCH an outstanding job as our standard-bearer.

[elleng]

3. We need someone who will assure THIS doesn't happen again:

Political Civil Wars in Ohio

They pleaded for help and received none.

While they agreed the Clinton campaign had sufficient resources, they said they weren’t used properly. They argued that the campaign took African-American and urban voters for granted, a failure reflected in voting tallies: Clinton won fewer votes than Obama had in 2012 in 8 out of 10 urban counties, and her total vote count in those areas was 184,228 less than Obama won in 2012.


Same as Wisconsin and Michigan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512657476