It appears as though 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer might be making a bid for Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. The AP has the story:

Former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer said Tuesday that he is considering whether to join the race for Democratic National Committee chairman.

At least eight other potential candidates have been exploring the job, which becomes available in February when Chairman Terry McAuliffe leaves. The decision will be made by a vote of the nearly 450 DNC members.

Roemer, president of the nonprofit Center for National Policy, served in Congress from 1990 to 2002. He also served on the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the 2001 terror attacks.

In a statement, Roemer said several prominent Democrats have asked him to consider leading the party. He said he is consulting with family and friends and will make a decision soon.

Roemer would be a great pick to lead the party: a midwesterner, strong on defense, young and forward looking, etc. I certainly hope he gives it a go and the members of the DNC give him real consideration.

On a side note, I must tell you that I have once again called the AP for a correction on a story (for background, read this piece). I know that I'm a dork and a stickler, but I noted to the person handling calls in DC that Roemer was a Congressman from 1991-2003, not 1990-2002 as members of Congress begin and end their terms the January after an election.

I know it's a small and meaningless point, but it's nice to know that this small blogger can catch the mistakes of a news organization the size of the AP. I'll let you know if they actually make the correction.

[UPDATE 4:13 PM Pacific]: They're halfway to the right correction, but not quite there yet.

Roemer, president of the nonprofit Center for National Policy, served in Congress from 1991 through 2002.

As Roemer's official biography from Congress reads, he was

elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Second and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1991-January 3, 2003)

It's pretty simple. If you were elected in 1990, your term began in 1991; if you did not go up for reelection in 2002, your term ended in 2003. It doesn't particularly matter either way if they get the story right, but I just don't understand why someone would correct the story incorrectly.