But if Democrats are looking for an attack dog in their new chairman, Republicans see that as a gift that will keep Democrats in the minority. "This is akin to [the idea] that you've got to get sicker before you get better," said Matthew Dowd, chief strategist in Bush's reelection campaign. "This is the final stage before they realize they've got to start taking vitamins and get healthy again. . . . It's reflective of a problem they have, which is they haven't arrived with a positive, proactive vision."
Strategists in both parties say that too much may be made of the role of any party chairman, even one as prominent and controversial as Dean. "The job is not to set the ideological tone for the party," said Mike McCurry, who served as Clinton's press secretary.
Jeff Harris, Democratic leader in the state House in Missouri, where Democrats have lost the presidential race, the governor's office and a Senate seat in the past two elections, said the ideology of the party chairman matters little. "Certainly he has demonstrated some strong organizational skills, and that will be helpful to the party," Harris said of Dean. "The more important question for us in Missouri is our candidate for the presidency in '08."
One historical parallel underscores that view. Sixteen years ago, after a Massachusetts liberal lost the presidential race to a Republican named Bush, Democrats selected as their chairman a man with deep roots in the liberal wing of the party.
Republican strategists claimed the election of Ronald H. Brown Jr. showed that Democrats did not care about the concerns of ordinary Americans, and southern Democrats worried that the party was writing off their region. Four years later, under Brown's chairmanship, Clinton won the presidency.
Few Democrats are ready to suggest that with Dean history is about to repeat itself, but McCurry, who served as DNC communications director under Brown, said Dean has much more to work with than Brown had to rebuild the party.
Outgoing chairman Terence R. McAuliffe leaves a solid foundation, having updated the party's voter lists and technology, renovated the headquarters building, and revamped fundraising. "Never again will money be a crutch for this party," McAuliffe said. "The money problem is now solved for our party forever."
Dean's successful race for chairman highlights the new importance party officials place on maintaining the enthusiasm of grass-roots activists, whose energy and wallets Dean first tapped in his presidential campaign and Kerry and the party later took advantage of in the general election campaign.
"It's a party that's transformed for the good by the 2004 election," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin. "Despite the disappointment and frustration of the election outcome, the core assets that were developed in 2004 are still quite strong and vibrant. [Those activists] see Dean as the kind of person who will continue building a strong grass-roots party that's better able to take on the Republicans."
Dean has said the party chairman is not the chief messenger for the Democrats, but he comes in with a determination to make good on his pledge of two years ago to "change this party." In a recent interview, he described it this way: "I think we have to be the party of reform, reforming our dreadful fiscal situation, reforming our budgetary process, reforming our electoral politics, reforming health care, reforming education, reforming our foreign policy."
But he said he sees no need for the party to change its message. "The real message of my campaign was stand up for what you believe in and pursue the politics of conviction," Dean said. "That's frankly why George Bush was successful, because he gave the appearance that he had some deep-seated convictions. If you want to excite people in politics . . . you've got to be a party of convictions."
