In the political circles I swim in, the fashionable debate these days is over whether you support Howard Dean -- who's candidacy I can lay credit (or blame) on for my own current participation -- or Simon Rosenberg, the brilliant leader of the Yuppie faction of the Democratic party (aka the NDN) who's got all the right organizational moves.

I don't have a vote or know anyone who does, so this is really only a debate. (There are only 440 voting DNC people around the country. Yeah; that's kinda fucked up, and hopefully it will change. But the debate rolls on.)

Here's where I'm at: I worry about Dean because I think some people might not be willing to accept him what with all the secretarian baggage he comes with. I believe he and his people will work with everyone in the party to make shit happen, but I don't know if everyone currently on the inside of the party feels the same. Also, Dean was just the candidate for his campaign; the actual organizational mojo was the work of his staff. That being said, I like Dean as a figurehead and tone-setter. I like his moral instincts, and I trust that there are plenty of people who would work for him in a heartbeat who understand how to kick ass with New Skool organizing techniques. In short, I think he'll do well communicating to the American people, I think he can re-brand the Democrats (which is what we need), and because he hasn't fucked me yet I trust him.

Simon, on the other hand, seems more popular with the folks I know. It may be that they're are closer to him and his organization. It may be that they trust his track record more than Dean's. Some ask about the wisdom of putting a loosing primary candidate in charge of the party. Some are put off by Dean's more vocal followers. Some just think Rosenberg would do a better job of reforming the party.

I can see Simon's qualifications, but I don't find myself liking him. Part of it is superficial -- I don't like his style, and I don't like the NDN's style. They're yuppies. I'm not supposed to like them personally, but it also worries me. I don't think they embody an idea of America (white-collar success) that can be broadly shared. People have knocked Dean before for being backed by the "Starbucks Ghetto" but that seems more an appropriate Simon's posse. I went to their after-party at the DNC. It gave me the fear... felt like the Marina.

I also feel that Simon Rosenberg is less trustworthy, because he told a small audience of activists I gathered with after the election all about his ideas for reforming the party, then insisted adamantly that he didn't want the job of DNC chair. I found out a few days later that he really did want it, so to my mind he lied to us. While I'm enough of a professional by now to understand that sort of thing, I'd rather not have to internally sigh and say "well, that's politics" to myself when picking the chairman of a party I'm trying to use as my vehicle.

I got into this to change the nature of the game. My sense is that Rosenberg is smart and committed, but essentially wants to build a Left-Wing version of the Republican Noise Machine. I'm looking to find a way to tune the country back to a good signal again, and that means more than doing Conservatives one better at the propaganda game.

In any case, I think either of them are preferable to the other lot. That Frost guy is a joke. Are you fucking kidding me?