No endorsements (yet)

Let me be clear about this: My previous post about Simon Rosenberg was not an endorsement. My point was only to say that Rosenberg had qualities to merit his taking on that role above and beyond him being "the acceptable alternative to Howard Dean". In other words, if Dean weren't running, Rosenberg would still be a good choice for the post (certainly better than any of the non-reform alternatives).

The Common Ills, some of whose members apparently mistook my previous post for an endorsement, makes an interesting point about Rosenberg's statement: it came awfully late. If he is going to be the leader of the party he has to demonstrate an ability to respond quickly. Of course, Howard Dean has not responded to Beinart's original article at all (at least not that I am aware of). So does that indicate that Dean is even less responsive?

The Common Ills has other problems with Rosenberg which I can't respond to since I don't know him near as well as I do Dean. For instance, I've never heard before that Rosenberg supported the Iraq war. If true then I will have to factor that into my assessment of him.

To be truthful, I'm not outright endorsing anyone for the post, though I find that the prospect of a Dean chairmanship excites me the most. In that sense, he is my preferred candidate. But I find Rosenberg and Fowler to be intriguing alternatives (just not as exciting).