Deval but not Dean in DC. Why?

Why did our governor have to go to suburban Washington, DC to watch Obama give a speech today? I guess the thought is some buddy-buddy lobbying before or after the speech might help out the Bay State, but that seems like a pittance in return from running away from the state for a couple of days. Not as if Massachusetts is running along fine, anyway -- Deval just kneecapped the State Department of Mental Health, and he doesn't even have the cojones to be in state when it happens. Hopefully Patrick has a good jumpshot.

And why isn't Dean in Washington, DC? Check this:

Obama said Dean served his party and the nation as a "visionary and effective leader," and made Democrats competitive in states where they hadn't competed in years.

But Dean wasn't on hand for the president-elect's visit to party headquarters, traveling instead in American Samoa. Democrats with knowledge of the situation said Dean, who clashed with Obama aides and Democratic leaders in Congress, had been asked by Obama advisers not to attend.

I thought everyone liked success. And Dean's stewardship of the Democratic National Committee has been an unqualified success. Sure, give Obama credit for winning in North Carolina or Virginia in 2008. Sure, conditions made for favorable ground in 2006 and 2008, and yes we put up some really good candidates. But if you get to the point of having Democratic Senators in Alaska and North Carolina as well as Montana; winning electoral votes in Omaha, and a Democratic class in the House larger than the 1994 "Republican Revolution", we all know Dean's role in that. Even Chris Matthews gets it:



I realize Obama has a lot of pride, but the fact that Dean isn't high up in his cabinet in a disappointment. The fact that Dean is no longer DNC chair (in favor of an anti-choice, anti-equality part-timer) is sad. The fact that Obama and his people are so hostile to the guy who did so much to get him there is just pathetic.