Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.
Looks like an internal argument is brewing. Did Dean's 50 state strategy help or hurt the Democrats overall? And is Dean pulling in enough money?
My personal feeling is that Dean's strategy helped the Democrats overall. It may have hurt them in some races by spreading the money around further, but it made so many more elections competitive that it gave them seats overall.
On the fund raising end there is more reason to argue. But I would defend Dean's focus on individual donations rather then chasing corporate ones. The sudden shift in donation at the end of the election shows that companies are not big on picking favorites, they want to back whoever is going to win. And as long as the Democrats where considered to be sure losers they where not going to get much money no matter who was doing the fund raising. Plus, it is healthier for the part to focus on individual money rather then corporate money.
It probably says something about the internal fighting at the Democratic party that this is happening only days after a major Democrat victory. The Republicans would never do something like this right after a victory.
Jay
[Edit: add comment about internal fighting]