McAuliffe was very effective.  The the primary message was: "Send money." The secondary message was "Don't call us. We'll call you."

No, Chait is chargined to realize that his crowd could only manage 4th-rate intrigue. Although, looking more closely the numbers, it looks more likely to be 5th-rate intrigue. It all depends on the metric you use. Is it log base 10?

AMEN! Well said, as usual!

KB

Break out the dictionary!

Questions:

"Reject dominant societal values"??? Is Dean leading some hippie commune of long-haired organic wacky weed farmers?

Given that Bush was (a) an alcohol and drug abuser and (b) a draft dodger, and thus has "acid" and "amnesty" covered (don't know about "abortion," but hell, 2 out of 3 ain't bad), why doesn't he get labeled as part of the CC?

Is Chait getting his talking points from Newt Gingrich?

Would somebody please explain to me how a centrist fiscally responsible governor who spent some part of his time in office fending off the "big liberals" in Vermont get labeled as part of the "counterculture"?

Black is white. Up is down. The sky is green (although some reality-denying Democrats claim it's blue).

Where is the Kentucky Kid? Are you still a proud member of the DLC?

The long term means you can lose a few elections if that is what it takes to redefine the party. I take umbrage with the notion of "suicide" because the real suicide is the visionless status-quo of the party hacks.

What are the important issues in the long term? Maintainace of the welfare state. The environment. Population growth. Dwindling resources. Technology. As of this moment the democrats are way out in front of the Republicans on these issues.

The problem is that issues that have no long term significance divert people's attention. Often these issues are losing ones for democrats because they cannot play chess very well. Its OK to give in on certain issues like abortion and gay rights in order to return working class whites to the party. Dr. Dean hinted at that strategy before, and I would love for him to come out of the chute firing on that theme.

Whenever I read that, I get ready for a bunch of bs to be thrown down as fact.

Dean gets a bad rap for management of his campaign, gmafb.

Dean had a force of 600K individuals and operations in 15 states to build up in a matter of months, making sure that the money was raised in the mean time. You know, what Hart had happen in Jan of '84, or McCain had happen in Feb of '00, is what Dean had happen for 6 months of '03.

All indications from inside VT, during his reign as GOV, was that he was a good manager, good enough for the Democratic Party to put him in charge of the DGA, good enough for the Governors to put him in charge of the NGA. He'll do great things with the DNC.

1.  The DLC has the votes and they are trying to shake lose the Dean supporters by breaking their hearts.  This is possible but IMO very unlikely at this stage.  Were it to happen the Dem party would shrink and have to redefine itself as a more center party with a splinter Green party getting maybe 10-15% of the total vote.

2.  Dean will win.  He will then rule as the Deaniacs think he will rule.  The party will not grow and he will be unsuccesful and the lets move left movement will die.

3.  Dean will win.  He will then rule in an inclusive manner.  His remarks about being open to the gun toting guys in the south being a clue.  This will IMO introduce an interesting dicotomy.  

So what will happen if Dean turns out to be the anti-Dean?

From what I can see the values of the DLC win in all three senarios.  The Dem party WILL move to the center where the votes are.

People can make their choices. We stand to gain far more than we can possibly lose.

Those who choose not to will drop off, as dead weight should. Anyone who wants to join together and work for the common effort should be welcome. Those who don't will have made their own choice.

Sort of like those who insisted on voting for Nader in the last election cycle. Of course, you have the right to do as you like, but who are you really helping?

to which I say:

Being a lightning rod isn't necessarily a bad thing. Lightning Rods provide a genuine service.  They attract ligntning, a destructive force, and render lightning harmless.  

If Dean is going to be a lightning rod for GOP attacks, that would be refreshing for a change; it seems the only people attacking Dean right now are his fellow Democrats.  And on the basis of a characiture they chose to believe, but has no basis in reality.

Heaven forbid that the rabble should actually raise their voices....

This is how these fuckers continue to marginalize Democrats. Bleat over and over and over about how we're radical, crazy lefties.

The DLC types whining about Dean are not centrists. Just Karl Rove wannabes.

turning the titianic isn't going to be easy.  especially after years of re-arranging deck chairs.

this is going to be hard work--but the objective is just and the outcome worthwhile.

http://buffalobeast.com/66/wittman.htm

"Marshall Wittmann, the former legislative director for the Christian Coalition and also a veteran talking head of such excellent organizations as the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Institute (which hypes him as "one of the nation's most quoted analysts"), offers himself as a candidate for the chair of the Democratic Party. Wittmann, you see, is now an operative at the Democratic Leadership Council--he got the policy operative spot that opened up when Al From and Bruce Reed were tipped off that their initial choice, Mobutu Sese Seko, had been dead for years. So they brought in Wittmann, whose chief credentials were that he used to stand guard for Ralph Reed at church rest rooms whenever the latter ducked out of evening mass to jerk off to Ranger Rick centerfolds.

Wittmann calls himself the "Bull Moose," and his blog, bullmooseblog.com, is one of two blogs funded and maintained by the Democratic Leadership Council."

As someone who was there (Iowa) - sure, the purse-strings were pretty loose. But there was a reason: the calculation had been made that whoever came out of Iowa and New Hampshire, had it in the bag. So we were told, more or less, that whatever we needed to win, we had.

Know what? We were right. Just wasn't Dean that came out of Iowa and New Hampshire.

If Dean had had an additional $10 million in the still in the kitty after NH, would he have won the nomination? You kidding me?

But if Dean had won Iowa and NH, you think he would've had trouble fundraising?

Right.

It was a leave-it-all-on-the-field strategy, with victory as the only goal. I could make an analogy to the general election, but won't.

Seriously though - is there a single constituency that Chait, Beinart, From, Reed, Marshall et. al. can point to as drawing support from? Those guys are the elitists, demanding fealty from the silly, idealistic, "actual voters" in the Democratic Party. They're welcome in the Party - which is more than they say of us - but really, I wish they'd stop being such condescending jerks.

however, if the dnc chair fight is over and dean's truly inevitable, chait and his ilk need to get with the program.  bill clinton put it best at the harkin steak fry back in 2003.  during the primaries, you can fall in love.  but once it's over, then you fall in line.  

so i say to chait: heed the call of your centrist demigod clinton and fall in line.  and if you don't like the way things go during howard's term over the next four years, you have every right to back another candidate for dnc chair in 2008.  but for now the time has come for everybody to quit their bitching and get to work.  we have no time to waste if we want to take our country back from the neocons that are destroying it.  if you have ideas about how to take down the GOP, bring it on.   but when it comes to taking down your fellow democrats, shut the hell up and get with the program.

fall in line

That the DLC moderates favor moderate candidates for chair over an ex-moderate/now-populist candidate like Dean...understandable since everyone favors their own constituencies. Were any of you truly surprised that Dean eventually won? Since 2003 its been CW that if Kerry failed his bid, despite Terry's admittedly formiddable fund-raising skills, the democratic party would be in for some serious infighting and/or restructuring and/or headhunting, etc. TNR and Slate had several great pieces on this before Nov 2nd. That is, it goes without saying if Kerry lost that the leftist plank will say "you had your chance, now it's our turn" and move the party back to the left-wing. It always happens this way.

Here's why moderate dems are worried...an excerpt from a TNR article before the election:

-- "And when you think of what is happening in the two major parties, the case for a Kerry presidency strengthens. If Bush wins, the religious right, already dominant in Republican circles, will move the GOP even further toward becoming a sectarian, religious grouping. If Kerry loses, the antiwar left will move the party back into the purist, hate-filled wilderness, ceding untrammeled power to a resurgent, religious Republicanism--a development that will prove as polarizing abroad as it is divisive at home. But if Bush loses, the fight to recapture Republicanism from Big Government moralism will be given new energy; and if Kerry wins, the center of the Democratic party will gain new life. That, at least, is the hope. We cannot know for sure." -- http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=qFFINfAm4eR7PMnY1tkQ2m%3D%3D

The worry is that since most mainstream Americans polled identify themselves as "moderates", that is neither too far right or left, and willing to swing either way, that's where most of the votes are. Energize your base all you want...but cede the moderates and independents to the GOP and you have zero chance of winning a national election. That's a fact. If the party takes too much of a leftist stand these voters may be alienated...the only issue I have with that is that the right so far seems to be resistent to this theory. They move ever more right and still get many moderate votes.

But as for centrists? I've favored Dean for chair from the beginning. He's simply been the odds on favorite, I never liked Terry, and the party could use the energy and some new direction. That's always healthy. But I really like him as chair because that ensures Hillary as the odds on nominee for 2008. There's probably no one out there that can stop her. She's the centrist candidate. It's in the interest of every centrist to root for Dean as chair.

Your rebuttal to his claim that the election for chair was a process of third rate intrique was another example of evasive spin disguised as a rigorous response to his points. You've obviously not read the article. Mark Bowers used his position of leverage not to promote the party but to advance his own provincial interests by making each candidate fulfill his demands. It was not simply minimum fincancing of state parties that he was demanding, but essentially a takeover of the national party by state parties. He demanded, for example, that the state parties be able to name 50 of the current 75 staff positions the DNC chairman gets to name.

My favorite part is how you blame Dean's inability to manage money on the DLC's attacks. If he couldn't spend wisely because of the DLC attacks, imagine how he would have spent money during a RNC onslaught.

This paragraph strikes me as incoherent or plainly wrong: "Several former Dean staffers are disgruntled with Dean's management style. The DNC chair should be a disciplinarian. That's what we need. A Ross Perot type who runs a button downed tight fisted operation. A top down micro-manager who runs a tight ship. Perhaps a Yale graduate with an MBA who brooks no dissent in the ranks?" The description of an ideal chair seems the opposite of Howard Dean. I think you were trying to say Dean was a disciplinarian who tolerated no dissent. This comes right after two quotes from former aides dissenting about his poor management. Another dissenter is his former Campaign manager, Joe Trippi, who endorsed Simon Rosenberg. You then mention an MBA, which was confusing since Dean doesn't have one.

Your response to Chait's claim that straight talk doesn't do a chair any good is to not actually address the claim but to attack the DLC.

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of your response is when you address the fact that Dean's approval rating among Dems is 27%. You reject the poll by saying it's not 27% who solely approve of Dean but 27% who are wildly enthusiastic about Dean. So I guess it would be fair to assume then that the 73% who don't approve of him hate him. Then you again make a comparison that doesn't stand up under scrutiny. McAuliffe was a little known (outside of the beltway) financier for the party. Would his name recognition numbers be anywhere near high enough to acurately measure opinion toward him? You then seem to make the argument that it is better to be known and incredibly unpopular with your own party than relatively unknown. Anyone will tell you that it is easy to increase name recognition than to change public opinion after it has made up its mind.

To find Origins you need to go back to 1988 and the Dukakis Campaign, particularly the run-up to the Atlantia Convention.  If you remember, Dukakis was way ahead of the field, but Jesse Jackson had the votes to keep it from being a first ballot nomination -- and Jackson played his hand pre-convention, asking for and getting campaign staff slots, and a few other fovors, including a floor debate on a fairly mild Palestine/Israel resolution.  The resolution broke with former Democratic platforms in that it recognized a Palestinian Right to Statehood.  

Dukakis more or less agreed, and given the right to a prime time speech, Jesse released his delegates, and all went according to plan.  But for some the great threat was the very large and well organized black and progressive faction within the party taking a position on Palestine/Israel and using rhetoric that was other than the AIPAC approved sort.  That's the core of the DLC -- that potential threat to the party's power center had to be fractured, and the DLC was the means to that end.  

Next time I saw the DLC in action was in 1990 when they sent some of their resources into Minnesota to be used against -- yea, that's right, against Paul Wellstone.  Wellstone's opponent was an AIPAC approved Republican, and Wellstone had co-chaird Jackson's 1988 primary campaign.  Of course Wellstone was not only Jewish, but most of his family had been wiped out in the Holocaust and in Stalin's purges.  But he was not "approved" so he had to be defeated.  

The vulnerability of the DLC is around humanistic issues.  They have no vision for the betterment of the Human Condition -- and they need to be brought up short on that account.  They do know quite a lot about schmutzy little power games, and this Dean screed they are on is about that little interest.  You make them useless, irrelevant and past tense by calling them out on their anti-humanistic game.  

"Politics is not about money or power games, or winning for the sake of winning.  Politics is about the improvement of people's lives, lessening human suffering, advancing the cause of peace and justice: in our country and in the World."  (Paul Wellstone)