I swear I think the only reason the DNC chairman choice is in the news....

[usmbguest5318]

....is so the Democrats can talk about a vote that a Democrat won.

I'm sorry, but does anyone recall (or better, know of) the choice of a party's chairman being anything more than a mention and maybe a day's worth, maybe two if it happened on a Friday or Saturday, of "pundit chatter?" I just don't see Dudley Democrat in Des Moines giving a damn.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right regressives love to yell about nothing, such as the election of the DNC chair.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The far right regressives love to yell about nothing, such as the election of the DNC chair.

I really can't speak to what "far right regressives" love as I'm:

1. Not a far right.
2. Not regressive.
3. Not yelling.

What I am is befuddled about why this year's DNC chairman selection process is so significant an event that it merited a week's worth of chatter. Quite frankly, I'd love a Democrat who knows taking a moment to explain unslanted, non-political relativist language why it is. (I don't really care what party affiliation the person has, only that they have a plausibly legitimate explanation that (1) directly explains/identifies what makes "this time round" so important -- talk-worthy on national television, if you will -- relative to past DNC chairman selections/selection processes and (2) isn't full of inflammatory invective.)

I've heard a week's worth of clips about it, observed that seekers of the position debated one another, and so on. I've heard people talk about the skills and abilities of the applicants. Great. I don't have any issue with that happening. I just want to understand why it matters and what about it matters now that never mattered before.