either would do nicely. None of the others, please. I still actively dislike the Truman project statement, and stand by absolutely everything I wrote then....the Democrats talked PLENTY about the need to keep America safer during the election. People were not convinced, precisely because we made no moral arguments whatsoever. We ceded that to Bush entirely. The Howard Dean wing. Christ. I always thought we were on the same side of the party divide, but maybe we're fundamentally not. And it is not because I don't think keeping America safe ought to be the highest priority, nor is it because I disagree that America is fundamentally on the right side or a force for good much more often than not in its history. But the problem with Dean isn't substance--you can't get substance from one line out of his statement. I'm sure Wesley Clark has said similar things.... The problem is perception. It's that he opposed Iraq and ohmygod peoplemightthinkwe'renotseriousaboutnationalsecurity ohmygod whatdowedo. And worrying about perception over substance is at least 65% of why the Democrats aren't taken seriously on national security. Not that this should play much role in the DNC chair race, which has precious little to do with foreign policy, and not that there's anything wrong with Rosenberg...I don't know who I support because I'm still not clear on exactly what the DNC chair does. If I had any faith at all in the courage of the leadership in Congress, I would go for the better strategist and I think that's Rosenberg. As I have none, I lean slightly towards Dean, because the accomodationist wing still holds almost all the power and we need a fighter somewhere.