I just read Robert Novak's article titled "Dean at DNC would cost Dems" but I am wondering about his motivation.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak31.html
First off, why would a stop Dean candidate use Novak? This author can't be taken seriously if his concern is that Dean would be bad for the DNC. Or is this a headfake? Does this mean Novak fears Dean as a chair?
Secondly, Novak uses an unnamed donor who claims he won't donate to the DNC if Dean is chair. But he using his unlimited donation from the 2000 cycle as proof he is a big donor.
My question is, why does it matter what this big donor threatens? In 2000 the restrictions on campaign contributions were completely different before the McCain/Feingold law.
If this donor has something against Dean, and he won't contribute to the DNC, I don't think that is a big deal. He can still give to conservative candidates or even state Democratic parties, where I believe campaign laws do not apply.
So basically, Novak's article says to me the opposite of his intentions. I don't care what these big donors from pre-McCain Feingold want. They are obsolete now.
All I want in a chair is a Democrat that can coordinate the organizations and someone that will be tough on the talk shows. I think Dean realizes that Democrats in Alabama have to focus on a different style and issues as Democrats in Massachusetts and I want to see him work the Rosenberg to build a national movement on the big issues.