RealDems -- Giving the Party Back to the People

If we Win Two Weeks From Today

2006-10-24T01:46:00.000-04:00

Am I the only one that remembers the hope we once had? I was at my office watching election results four years ago on election night. Watching and trying to keep hope alive -- for Mondale, for Carnahan, for Strickland, for Cleland. And we lost. And some pundit -- and I wish for the life of me I could remember who -- said that if the Democrats had stood for something, they might still have lost, but losing wouldn't feel so bad. And he was right. That's how I felt four years ago. Democrats voted in support of the war. Wellstone was killed. And then came the losses. Out of that defeat came new life. Out of the knowledge that we lost not in spite of our principles, but because we failed to state our principles, we were all able to take solace. And in the immediate aftermath of that campaign came the campaign of Howard Dean. We believed in him and in the fact that victory belonged to those who said what they meant, and stood for change.

I, for one, stayed up all night on election night 2002, wondering what I had fought for, and where my party went from here. I was in college and interning for the DLC at the time -- and I was totally aware that we had been instrumental in handing Bush the Senate. We had a war that was about to begin, and a base that was angry at us. But that night gave me my Bulworth moment -- I was not going to live through that kind of defeat again. We may lose, but as far as I was concerned, we weren't going to lose because we had once again forgotten the people who put us in power.

Now I'm no angel, and after working at the DLC, I interned for a conservative, pro-war Democratic Senator in the beginning of 2003 -- just as we were starting the run-up to war. Yup, working for him during the week, and marching in war protests on the weekends. I suppose I was a bit of a hypocrite, but that was okay: I could get my paycheck from the Establishment, and give my heart to the Activists. And on that little black and white TV on my desk, I watched Howard Dean talk about the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" and I tried not to show my excitement.

But I grew up a bit that year; Dean lost in Iowa, and I could no longer justify my affiliation with the Washington based Democratic Party. I left that and moved somewhere in the mid-west to help out a Congressional candidate with little Washington support. Lost that one too, as most Democratic campaigners lost in '04. Came back home again, with at least a conscience clearer than it had been two years earlier.

But here we are, 2006. Now we have a shot at the House. We have a shot at the Senate. And all that fight and inspiration seems to have left us as we once again look for the politically adroit way to win now that we have the opportunity. We listen to Rahm Emmanuel -- a man who is as much responsible for this decade's Democratic defeats as anyone -- as though his word is the gospel and the way to Democratic victory. And to what end? I hope as much as anyone that Democrats win in 15 days. I am a proud, lifelong Democrat, and I will cede ground to no one on how excited I am to see Democrats finally control Congress. But there is a part of me that misses the victory from the defeat four years ago. There is a part of me that feels that if we win, we will lose our edge -- we will become the "party in power." We will lose that Bulworth moment that I had that night.

I remember reading that following the hugely successful Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 - 1956, the people who helped to sustain that boycott felt a sense of disappointment. Yes, they had won a great victory over injustice, and they had defeated the leadership in Alabama. But could they sustain a mass movement in the face of victory? It took almost four years -- when the student sit-in movement began -- for the fire that was sparked in Montgomery to spread. I AM excited about our prospects this November, but let's not forget why we got here in the first place. Let's not disregard the helplessness of Karl Rove's glory days. Let's not forget a Party leadership that abandoned its own members to court "the moderates" and the activist Democrats that brought us back to a position of power within the Party. Let's not forget the glory we felt watching Ned Lamont beat those Democrats that ignored us on August 8th. Let's not forget that John Kerry -- a deeply flawed candidate in his own right -- learned the lessons of his defeat and turned to the activists for his political future. Let's not forget that we set out to change this Party; that MoveOn has moved from a fringe group on the Left, to a real player in Democratic politics; that Howard Dean has gone from an asterisk in 2003 Primary polls to the Chairman of our Party. We took this Party back. We led it to victory. And shame on us if we ever let them forget who they are indebted to again.

A moment of nostalgia

2006-10-24T01:04:00.000-04:00

Commentary: Howard Dean, a new American maverick

CHRIS MATTHEWS, host: As I've said before on this show, the greatest thing about politics--being in it, covering it, caring about it--is to be out there all alone, then some day be proven right. Maybe I'm a maverick and maverick-lover by nature. I find that there's nothing so ennobling as the leader who risks all to stand for what he or she believes, to speak out when it seems everybody in the world is saying, `You're wrong. Go away. Shut up. Give up.' Say this for Howard Dean, the five-time governor of Vermont, he took a stand that the occupation of Iraq was wrong with American history and wrong with--for America's future. He asked Americans to say so.

Former Governor HOWARD DEAN: You have that power. You have the power! You have the power!

MATTHEWS: I know a lot of people disagree with Dean's tough position, but somewhat smaller numbers still do. They had their say; he's gone from the race. The people I want to talk to here and now are those whose hearts once soared at the very notion of this man, this former governor from one of the original 13 colonies, showing all the passion and ideals of an early American revolutionary, a real Green Mountain boy come out of the Vermont hills to fight the good fight. To those who joined Dean's rebel cause, I salute you. From the time of Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine and, yes, John Brown, and Martin Luther King, the people who have moved this country have not been those marching to the American band, but those gutsy few out ahead. You Dean kids of all ages can now take your place in that proud tradition. You can tell you kids that you were with Dean.

Another Joe Klein masterpiece

2006-08-13T14:07:00.000-04:00

Joe Klein is at it again... more comment to come...

"Three Cheers for Triangulation
What Lieberman's primary defeat means
By JOE KLEIN
Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman in last week's Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut precipitated the expected torrent of rubbish from left-wing blognuts and conservative wingnuts. There was a nauseating triumphalism on both sides, the unblinking assertion that this one poorly attended summer primary provided a lesson of earth-shattering significance to the future of American politics. Maybe it did, but I hope not.
The wingnuts used Connecticut as a rationale for continuing to wave the bloody shirt of Islamist terrorism as a partisan bludgeon. Vice President Dick Cheney, the nation's wingnut in chief, actually said Lieberman's defeat would give aid and comfort to our terrorist "adversaries and al-Qaeda types." On the other side, Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org and therefore, perhaps, the nation's blognut in chief, proposed the "death of triangulation"—that is, the end of Clintonian moderation—in a Washington Post Op-Ed piece and announced a return to ... well, the party's stupid excesses of the '70s and '80s.
Much was made of Cheney's venting, and it is a bit too easy, after six years of this bilge, to dwell on the Vice President's aura and miss the essential felony of the Bush White House—that it has tried to run a war without bipartisan support. Indeed, it has often attempted to use the war for partisan gain. To be sure, there is some grist to the Republican portrayal of Democrats as a bunch of wimpy peaceniks. All too often in the post-Vietnam past—the first Gulf War, for example—the default position of the Democratic Party has been to assume that any prospective use of U.S. military power would be immoral. But Bush's initial post-9/11 response was not one of those times. The invasion of Afghanistan and an aggressive effort to destroy al-Qaeda were supported by just about every Democratic politician. Many leading Democrats even gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, although most did so, I suspect, for reasons of political expediency. One of the most convincing arguments offered by the bloggers is that the Democratic establishment should have been far more skeptical than it was about a pre-emptive, nearly unilateral assault on an Islamic country.
In 2004 Bush and Karl Rove managed to flummox the Democrats by conflating the war in Iraq with the war against al-Qaeda and insisting that any Democratic reservations about Iraq were a sign of weakness. This was infuriating. It was Bush's disastrous decision to go to war—and worse, to go to war with insufficient resources—that transformed Iraq into a terrorist Valhalla. It is Bush's feckless prosecution of the war that has created the current morass, in which a U.S. military withdrawal could lead to a regional conflagration. Rove may avert another electoral embarrassment this November with the same old demagoguery, but his strategy has betrayed the nation's best interests. It has destroyed any chance of a unified U.S. response to a crisis overseas. Even the Wall Street Journal's quasi-wingnut editorial page cautioned, in the midst of a typical anti-Democratic harrumph, "[No] President can maintain a war for long without any support from the opposition party; sooner or later his own party will begin to crack as well."
There isn't much point in detailing the chest thumping of the various blognut extremists. Their reach is minuscule, largely limited to the left's upper crust, and their angry spew is beginning to seem sooo six months ago. But Pariser's anti-triangulation argument deserves attention because it represents the latest expression of a perennial self-destructive urge within the Democratic Party. "Originally employed as a survival mechanism by a Democratic President in the wake of 1994's Republican revolution," he writes, triangulation "no longer makes sense in an era when any attempt at bipartisanship" is seen as Democratic weakness "and exploited accordingly." He has a point. The Bush Administration has made a mockery of bipartisanship.
But Pariser and the MoveOniks can't seem to get Bill Clinton's success out of their craw. They persist in seeing "triangulation"—which was the consultant Dick Morris' odious term for Third Way liberalism—as a mere political strategy rather than a governing philosophy. It was a bit of each, of course. But the philosophy was both successful and profound. It proposed the achievement of liberal ends through market-oriented conservative means. Welfare reform, which combined a work requirement with significant financial incentives for the working poor, was the best example of how the philosophy might work. Unfortunately, Monica Lewinsky's thong show prevented further successes—and Al Gore and John Kerry foolishly sidled away from the Third Way, toward the party's electorally lethal special-interest groups.
Pariser calls for an era of "bolder, principle-driven politics." But we've suffered all the boldness we can handle these past six years. In the end, the real alternative to Bush's Republican extremism isn't Democratic extremism. It is bipartisan moderation—which has the additional advantage of being the highest form of patriotism and the only route to victory in a time of war."

Idealism, democracy, and an argument against growing up

2006-08-11T16:47:00.000-04:00

A response to Ed Kilgore: Scroll down for piece about Feingold attacking centrists.

So, on one hand, yeah that’s me. DLC = bad; activist Democrats like Dean and Lamont = good. I am a MoveOn member. I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I’ve done all those activist-y things like marching in protests, reading Huffington Post, and wishing like hell that Al Gore would make another go at it. And yeah, I do think Feingold’s “rant” was a profile in courage. Yup, you know me so well, Ed. And you know the funny thing? You think that I have the DLC pegged in the same two-dimensional world-view as the one you use to see me.

But, before you “blah, blah, blah” and “bark bark woof woof” through my viewpoint, or dismiss me as naïve because my political coming-of-age came during a “truly weird series of events,” and lacks the wisdom that comes from contradictory evidence, just try to understand what led up to my satisfaction on Tuesday night…

It isn’t that people like me (what did American Prospect call us? New New Democrats? MoveOn Democrats?) take it as gospel that the DLC is a bunch of soulless, corporate sell-outs that hurt the Party, provide cover to the Administration, and desperately seek the approval of FoxNews. These may be the conclusions that we reach, but please give us a bit more credit for sophistication than that. You honestly believe we can’t tell the difference between Bob Shrum and his “old interest-group liberalism” and the DLC because hell, to us, you’re all just The Establishment. We can create the boogey-man much easier without making the distinction, right? But just maybe we CAN see the difference, and choose to reject both. Maybe we see that activists are really shut out of both processes – by back-room deals and pet issues from the old Democrats, and by the constant taunts of “undisciplined,” and “unelectable,” and yes, the desire to compete for corporate cash from the DLC. Both are elites, both are anti-populist (And not the kind of populists that you claim “indiscriminately attack corporations” and “look nostalgically to a pre-capitalist past,” but Jacksonian populism, you know, little “d” democrat.) But back to Tuesday night…

Do you think that when I watched Ned Lamont get up there to claim victory, I cracked open a beer and said “Yeah, there’s a big F*** You to the DLC!” Naa… I wasn’t thinking about you guys. I was thinking about idealism. I remembered Al Gore’s concession speech, and the near-immediate calls to move on from that election from Republicans, the media, and even Democrats. I remembered Dick Gephardt standing on the White House lawn in support of Bush’s war resolution and realizing that for the first time I was out of step with my own party. I remembered the day Howard Dean dropped his Presidential bid, and everyone in Democratic circles – yourself probably included – enjoyed the moment (and, in the case of Al From and Will Marshall, reportedly bumped chests at a “victory” party). Well, I’m in my mid-20s, and I admittedly lack the wisdom that your experience might bring you, but I do know that I had invested quite a bit of idealism in that race, and maybe you should’ve taken a little less satisfaction in squelching that idealism and giving me a list of reasons why I needed to grow up. But I didn’t need to grow up. I needed to stay motivated. Because on Tuesday night, idealism won, and I got to celebrate the victory I had wanted for so long.

I know what you would say – that we haven’t cornered the market on idealism. That the centrist stance of the DLC is a reflection of actual principles, and not cunning calculation. But, if that’s the case, why is it that you feel the need to reassure that it is “really and truly a debate among Democrats about how--not whether--to drive Republicans from power.” If your stance is about principles and not political expediency, why is your only qualm with our politics about process and strategy?

I could give you the facts that you expect from someone on my side. I could talk about the need for our Barry Goldwater, and prepare my rebuttal for when you explain that that could never work on our side because the country is inherently more conservative than liberal, and how we tried that with McGovern, blah blah blah, woof woof, bark, bark. I could paint you in that two-dimensional corner and assume that you were a Lieberman supporter in the Presidential primary, or I could take that second look and acknowledge that you supported John Kerry from the start. Of course, that would be me giving you the kind of nuance you regularly deny people on my side. I could attempt to be witty and match your own Note-ish, Hotline-ish, and generally dismissive tone when writing about you. But no. I just wanted you to know why I was so excited about Ned Lamont, and why I was happy to read Russ Feingold’s comments. Maybe there is even a bit of dissonance in you – I can’t help but notice that you haven’t quite tipped your hand about your endorsement in this Connecticut Senate race. Maybe you have allowed yourself those rare moments where you stop playing defense and actually empathize with the rabble-rousing, MoveOn Democrats and the idealism we allow ourselves to feel about the political process. And hey, even if you don’t, can you at least give us the respect of not caricaturing our beliefs by assuming we know nothing about yours?

Howard Kurtz consensus on Katrina

2005-09-07T18:04:00.000-04:00

The Politics of Katrina
By Howard KurtzWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, September 7, 2005; 9:51 AM
For liberals, this has been the perfect storm.
Not that anyone would wish such massive death and destruction on Louisiana and Mississippi, but they now have a rare opportunity not just to criticize George W. Bush, but to paint his response to Katrina as a metaphor for his presidency.
This may be unfair, but politics is about performance, and in this case, even many Republicans acknowledge that the administration's performance was weak and confused.
After 9/11, the country rallied around Bush, and by the time the war on terror became politicized -- remember what city the last GOP convention was held in, days before the third anniversary of the attacks -- Democrats were wary of seeming to undermine that war.
After Iraq became ever more bloody, Democrats were muted in their criticism -- Kerry and many of his colleagues had voted for the war, you may recall -- and no one wanted to be seen as undermining our brave troops.
But the submerging of New Orleans, now that's a different story.
With missed opportunities before, during and after the storm, with FEMA run by an old pal of Joe Allbaugh's whose previous job had to do with horses, with Bush initially insisting the effort was going well when it most obviously was not -- here was a gold-plated chance for Democrats and liberals to slam the president. And few could resist tying the debacle to Sept. 11 and Iraq. I've culled the following examples:
Frank Rich : "From the president's administration's inattention to threats before 9/11 to his disappearing act on the day itself to the reckless blundering in the ill-planned war of choice that was 9/11's bastard offspring, Katrina is déjà vu with a vengeance.
"The president's declaration that 'I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees' has instantly achieved the notoriety of Condoleezza Rice's 'I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center.' The administration's complete obliviousness to the possibilities for energy failures, food and water deprivation, and civil disorder in a major city under siege needs only the Donald Rumsfeld punch line of 'Stuff happens' for a coup de grâce. How about shared sacrifice, so that this time we might get the job done right? After Mr. Bush's visit on 'Good Morning America' on Thursday, Diane Sawyer reported on a post-interview conversation in which he said, 'There won't have to be tax increases.' . . .
"Surely it's only a matter of time before Mr. Chertoff and the equally at sea FEMA director, Michael Brown (who also was among the last to hear about the convention center), are each awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom in line with past architects of lethal administration calamity like George Tenet and Paul Bremer."
New Yorker Editor David Remnick "To a frightening degree, Bush's faults of leadership and character were brought into high relief by the crisis. Suntanned and relaxed after a vacation so long that it would have shamed a French playboy, Bush reacted with fogged delinquency, as if he had been so lulled by his summer sojourn that he was not quite ready to acknowledge reality, let alone attempt to master it. His first view of the floods came, pitifully, theatrically, from the window of a low-flying Air Force One, and all the President could muster was, according to his press secretary, 'It's devastating. It's got to be doubly devastating on the ground.' The moment demanded clarity of mind and rigorous governance, and yet he could not summon them. The performance skills Bush eventually mustered after September 11th -- in his bullhorn speech at Ground Zero, in his first speech to Congress -- eluded him.
"The whole conceit of his Presidency, that he was an instinctive chief executive backed by 'grown-ups' like Dick Cheney and tactical wizards like Karl Rove, now seemed as water-logged as Biloxi and New Orleans. The mismanagement of the Katrina floods echoed the White House mismanagement -- the cavalier posture, the wretched decisions, the self-delusions -- in postwar Iraq."
Josh Marshall :
"It's almost awe-inspiring to see the level of energy and coordination the Bush White House can bring to bear in a genuine crisis. Not hurricane Katrina, of course, but the political crisis they now find rising around them . . . The storyline and the outlines of the attack are now clear: pin the blame for the debacle on state and local authorities . . .
"This whole conversation we're having now is not about substance, but procedural niceties , excuses which it is beyond shameful for an American president to invoke in such a circumstance. We don't live in the 19th century. All you really needed was a subscription to basic cable to know almost all of the relevant details (at least relevant to know what sort of assistance was needed) about what was happening late last week. The president and his advisors want to duck responsibility by claiming, in so many words, that the Louisiana authorities didn't fill out the right forms. So what they're trying to pull is something like a DMV nightmare on steroids."
Arianna Huffington is even mad at Clinton -- the "Suck-Up-In-Chief" -- for helping his successor:
"What the hell was Bill Clinton thinking, standing there next to President Bush and providing verbal cover for the administration's ludicrous claims that the problems plaguing New Orleans were unforeseeable? He even defended the administration's catastrophic response to Katrina. When asked on CNN whether the federal response was fast enough, Clinton bobbed, weaved, and fell back on this utterly absurd claim: 'You and I are not in a position to make any judgment because we weren't there.' C'mon, Bill, ' . . . we weren't there'? I know this sucking up business is hard, but you've got to do better than that.
"This disaster has been extraordinarily revealing, exposing not only Bush's failure of leadership, and the deadly consequences of his distorted priorities but also the many, many years of political neglect of the poor and the needy by both political parties . . . But it's mighty hard to have a teachable moment when you have Bill Clinton, still the reigning symbol of the Democratic Party, failing to connect the dots between the Bush administration's chronic abandonment of the poor and its recent abandonment of the poor in the Big Easy -- as well as the dots between the war in Iraq and the undermining of our security here at home."
Greg Mitchell , who runs Editor & Publisher, lays casualties at Bush's doorstep:
"While the 9/11 'My Pet Goat' episode was certainly illuminating, it's not certain what might have worked out better that day had the president dropped the book and taken action. But his failure to grab the reins in the hurricane catastrophe for three days this week probably doomed hundreds, or more, to death. This is not mere incompetence, but dereliction of duty. The press should call it by its proper name."
Andrew Sullivan who's hardly a liberal, is furious at the Bush team:
"I'm trying to think of what this event means in the national psyche. The complete collapse of effective government and of emergency procedures four years after 9/11 mean only one thing. We do not have an administration capable of running the country during the war on terror. They have bungled homeland security; they have mismanaged Iraq; they have dropped the ball in New Orleans. In each case, a conservative government does not seem to understand that law and order are always, always, the first priority. The glib self-congratulation of government official after official made me retch listening to them . . .
"I do think however that this crisis means an obvious shift in terms of Bush's successor. Two words: Rudy Giuliani. We need someone to do for the federal government what Rudy did for New York's. His social liberalism will now be far less of an obstacle. We need competence again."
Sullivan also rips "the blithering idiot, Michael 'heck of a job' Brown, hired with no credentials to run a critical agency at a time of national peril. I guess some of us pundits bear the blame. We should have known that someone who had been fired for being unable to run an Arabian Horse Association had the job of responding to a national disaster in the war on terror. He was hired because a Bush crony, Joe Allbaugh (also hired because he was a major Bush fundraiser) liked him. The good ol' boy network at its most brazen. If the president wants to recover even a little from what has happened to his reputation, he has to fire Brown. Now. That's the test of whether he gets it. Not his furrowed brow press conferences. Not his spin. Not the desperate attempts by Republican partisans -- once again! -- to blame someone else down the chain of command."
The Wall Street Journal editorial page cuts Bush little slack, saying that "the aftermath of Katrina poses a threat to his entire second term . . .
"Mr. Bush is going to have to recognize the obvious initial failure of the Department of Homeland Security in its first big post-9/11 test. The President created this latest huge federal bureaucracy, against the advice of many of us, and we're still waiting for evidence that it has done anything but reshuffle the Beltway furniture. If FEMA can't now handle the diaspora out of New Orleans to Houston, Baton Rouge and other cities, the political retribution will be fierce."
But Ankle Biting Pundits is having none of it:
"To say the Left's reaction to Katrina is a public and political disgrace would be an understatement. They have sunk so low, they now politicize the weather. They take a perverse, twisted joy in the suffering of others because they are now convinced after a catalogue of failed P.R. stunts (Joe Wilson, Richard Clark, Fahrenheit 9-11, the fake 60 Minutes memo, Cindy Sheehan), they will finally get him . . .
"Katrina has brought out all the Left's old tricks: victimology, anti-corporate rhetoric, class warfare, racial division, Bush-hatred. It's old home day in the twisted mind of an American liberal."
While the political sniping continues, the president is trying to regain the initiative, as the Boston Globe reports:
"President Bush, under fire about whether he acted aggressively to help tens of thousands of desperate people left homeless, destitute, and starving by Hurricane Katrina, promised yesterday that he would lead an investigation into 'what went wrong' with the government's response and will dispatch Vice President Dick Cheney to 'assess our recovery efforts' in the region.
"But two hours later, Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary, told reporters the president would simply 'lead an effort' in the escalating catastrophe. McClellan was unclear about whether Bush would look into his own actions and vague about when and how the investigation would start, and rejected questions about whether the president should fire anyone responsible for the problems."
Doesn't sound like much of an investigation, and the announcement brought more ridicule in the blogosphere. Josh Marshall dismisses the move as "Bush to lead investigation into his own failure," while Andrew Sullivan says: "This is becoming a farce. Can anyone put him in touch with reality?"
One conservative playing offense, at least on the question of race, is National Review Editor Rich Lowry :
"The victims in New Orleans are overwhelmingly poor and black, and it didn't take long for that to begin to elicit charges of a kind of racism. The head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), said at a press conference Friday, 'We cannot allow it to be said that the difference between those who lived and those who died in this great storm and flood of 2005 was nothing more than poverty, age, and skin color.' "First, this nation has been transfixed and heartbroken by the suffering of the black victims in New Orleans. It has been outraged by the acts of violence that have made their plight even more difficult. If the country is the least bit inclined to write off the misery in New Orleans as experienced by the wrong race and therefore not worth the bother, there is no evidence of it.
"Sadly, poverty and age have affected who got out and who didn't, as many of the poor and elderly didn't have cars or the resources to evacuate. Many of these people are black, but, pace Elijah Cummings, their skin color as such had nothing to do with whether they escaped the city. If the federal response has seemed flat-footed, does anyone believe that President Bush got on the phone with the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown, and said, 'Hey, Michael, let's slow-walk this thing -- we're talking about mostly black victims here'? Apparently some people do believe it. According to Jesse Jackson, 'Many black people feel that their race, their property conditions and their voting patterns have been a factor in the response.' Voting patterns! Louisiana voted for Bush and just elected a Republican U.S. senator. Is it plausible to think Bush wanted to watch the state's major city sink into chaos for political reasons?"
Geraldo keeps on saving people, says Stephen Elliott in Salon:
"Geraldo Rivera arrives in a Fox News truck. An elderly woman with blond hair grips his elbow. She's wearing thick dark glasses and a pink shirt. He carries her small white dog in his arms. He's wearing thigh-high waders unzipped to below his knees. We shake hands. 'Her relative called one of our stations,' Geraldo tells me, explaining how that call went to another station, and then another, and finally to him.
The woman had been stranded in her home for six days. Geraldo picked up the woman and her dog and brought them here . . .
" 'That's the second time he brought her here,' one of the doctors tells me, nodding toward Geraldo.
" What?' " 'They did two takes. Geraldo made that poor woman walk from the Fox News van to the heliport twice. Both times carrying her dog.' " 'Are you serious?' I ask. He says he is."
But don't be fooled: This is dangerous business. St. Petersburg Times reporter Marcus Franklin was shot in Baton Rouge Monday night while covering the disaster. According to a colleague, a man stopped Franklin at an intersection and asked him for money, and when the reporter drove off, the assailant shot him, with the bullet lodging in Franklin's stomach. Franklin is said to be hospitalized but all right.
Craig Crawford wants to cut the former first lady some slack:
"You just gotta believe Barbara Bush didn't mean it how it sounded, that the 'underprivileged' Katrina victims now in Texas shelters are better off than they were in their pre-hurricane homes. Let's be fair. They really are better off compared to being stranded -- or dead -- in their sunken homes. But it is a struggle to come up with a positive interpretation of what the First Mother said while touring Houston relief centers:
" 'Almost everyone I've talked to says, "We're going to move to Houston." What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this -- this is working very well for them.' " I'm sure they're just tickled pink.
Jeff Jarvis sees a linguistic whitewashing:
"It's shocking -- it's downright obscene -- that journalists acting as self-appointed nannies censored New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's angry speech demanding help for his city. The New York Times did it. TV did it. Journalists charged with reporting accurately bleeped 'ass' and 'goddamn' and they wouldn't let him say 'BS.' . . .
"What makes them think they should tone down his anger? He said these words for a reason. These words need to be said. Anger is justified. Shock is needed. These words are part of the story. But in our nannified culture today, in the era of the FCC and the PTC thinking they should control our speech, in this age of offense, these people think they need to protect us from words -- and thus from anger, from bluntness, from honesty. That is dishonest."
He's got a #@$&!!* point.

Matt Bai's take on the Dems...

2005-08-25T13:33:00.000-04:00

Machine Dreams

By MATT BAI

If you needed any more proof that Democratic politics were in a profound state of upheaval, consider this: on the eve of the 2004 election, there were three especially powerful groups, aside from the Kerry campaign itself, working to turn out votes for the party in critical states, and those were the Democratic National Committee, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and a lavishly endowed start-up known as America Coming Together. Nine months later, not one of these institutions has emerged entirely intact. First, Howard Dean staged a hostile takeover of the D.N.C. Then big labor unraveled on its 50th birthday. And finally, earlier this month, ACT announced that it was suspending most of its operations and closing down its state offices, effectively shuttering the largest independently financed turnout drive in history after a single outing.

It was hard not to think of ACT's demise as a kind of political version of ''Titanic'' -- a story of hubris and oversize ambition. It was a saga that began in 2002, when Congress tightened the nation's campaign-finance laws, making it illegal to contribute unlimited amounts of money to national political parties. The law did, however, leave donors a loophole: they could contribute as much as they pleased to outside groups known as ''527's,'' named for a section of the tax code. That's when three of the Democratic Party's smartest and most influential strategists -- Steve Rosenthal, the former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.; Ellen Malcolm, the founder of Emily's List; and the longtime liberal power broker Harold Ickes -- had the idea to raise money for a giant turnout machine that would essentially supplant the party's efforts. A couple of sympathetic billionaires, the financier George Soros and the insurance magnate Peter Lewis, liked the idea enough to contribute about $20 million each to ACT and a sister organization, Media Fund. Other donors then kicked in millions more. For wealthy Democrats, ACT was the best available vehicle for dethroning George W. Bush. As Soros once candidly told me, ''I used 527's because they were there to be used.''

Just how it is that ACT failed in this mission is a question no one seems able to answer. After all, ACT exceeded its own goals for voter turnout, and in most of the Democratic urban counties on which it focused, John Kerry received more votes than any Democrat before him. ACT didn't do much to change the balance in more conservative rural and exurban areas, but then persuading undecided voters was (and always has been) the candidate's job; blaming ACT for the loss of Ohio or Florida would be like firing the Yankees' grounds crew because Derek Jeter failed to get on base.

Even so, ACT wasn't supposed to simply increase the vote count -- it was supposed to win -- and in those grim months after the election, some of ACT's supporters turned their fury on the organizational monster they had helped bring to life. When it was announced in March that Ickes would become ACT's president, a typical response on the organization's blog read: ''I'm tired of these same old recycled insiders blowing one election after the next because they can't see the writing on the wall and step aside. We need new blood and new faces.'' Many of ACT's largest donors, apparently, concurred.

There is an important twist, however, to this story. It's true, perhaps, that the organizers who ran ACT were working off an outdated playbook, written when the great urban machines of the 20th century were able to dominate almost any state or national election, cleanly or otherwise. The nation's demography no longer confers such power on a handful of manufacturing centers. (Did anyone notice that sunny and sprawling San Jose just bounced Detroit from the list of the nation's 10 largest cities?) But to cast ACT as the last breath of a dying party establishment is to miss its significance. In fact, ACT represented the first serious challenge to the industrial-age structure of the modern political party. Before Soros and Lewis plunked down all that cash for ACT, liberal donors had assumed that their only avenue into the political system was through supporting the party and its candidates, both of whom seemed to regard them as little more than a cash machine with some annoying voice commands. Through ACT, Soros and Lewis showed Democrats, and more than a few Republicans, that there was a new way of doing business, and it didn't require fealty to an inefficient party apparatus. From this revelation -- no matter how Congress or the Federal Elections Commission may try to yet again amend the campaign-finance rules -- there is probably no going back.

In this way, ACT helped to usher us into the post-party world. We are now confronting a period in which the power and the innovation in American politics will reside not in some party headquarters on Capitol Hill but in a decentralized network of grass-roots groups, donors and Internet impresarios, all of whom seem to be increasingly entwined with one another. There's peril in this trend -- it would seem to favor millionaires over workers, and ideologues over pragmatists -- but it was probably inevitable. Everywhere else in American life, after all, we see evidence of what the Democratic speechwriter Andrei Cherny, in his 2000 book, ''The Next Deal,'' presciently identified as ''the Choice Generation.'' We surf hundreds of cable channels and endless Web sites, assemble customized computers with the click of a mouse and choose from every imaginable permutation of mortgage and credit card. Was it really reasonable, then, to expect the same top-down system that has governed American politics since the time of Martin Van Buren to somehow survive the revolution intact? In the end, ACT's contribution was to act as a bridge from the last political moment to the next, hastening the chaotic process of democratization -- even without the capital ''D'' that its founders would have preferred.
Matt Bai, a contributing writer, covers national politics for the magazine.

But the DLC just thinks we're "too negative"

2005-08-25T13:26:00.000-04:00

Thank God we have Al From to show us the way to victory...

Strong and Positive
By Al From

There's
nothing wrong with the Democratic Party that a positive agenda wouldn't fix.

Americans are increasingly fed up with Washington. They see scandal
dominating the nightly news. They see Congress tied up for weeks with the
Schiavo case while their everyday concerns like soaring gas prices and health
care costs seemingly never get addressed. The prospect of a protracted, polarizing, partisan fight over a Supreme Court nominee is likely to make the problem even worse.

Voters want leaders who will keep their families safe, assure them a
chance to get ahead, help them raise their kids in a difficult environment, and
fix a broken political system that seems increasingly remote from everyday life.

They certainly aren't getting the kind of leadership they want from
President Bush and the Republicans. But they don't see the Democrats offering
much either -- and they aren't likely to do so until the party rallies around a
positive agenda.

A recent Democracy Corps poll showed that Americans disapprove of the
president's leadership by 55 percent to 41 percent and believe the country is
headed in the wrong direction by 56 percent to 36 percent. That's hardly
surprising. Casualties are mounting in Iraq, forcing reservists to serve
extended tours. The military is overstretched and can't meet its recruiting
goals. The economy can't quite get going. The president has taken a position on
Social Security reform that the voters overwhelmingly reject. And the Republican
right wing seems intent on putting Americans through bitter cultural wars that
they don't want.

Despite all that, the Democracy Corps survey shows the Democrats
slipping more than the Republicans. According to the survey, the percentage of
Americans who feel warmly toward the Republicans has dropped 3 points since the
2004 election -- down to 43 percent. But just 38 percent of those polled felt
warmly toward the Democrats -- down a full 7 points since November.

That raises a critical question: How could the Democrats lose ground to
the Republicans when the GOP is performing so badly? The answer, according to
Stanley Greenberg, who took the poll, is that voters believe Democrats have "no
core set of convictions or point of view."

In short, voters don't know what Democrats stand for. Why should they? For the most part, congressional Democrats, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, and the party's new Internet activists have delivered a largely negative and pessimistic message -- talking more about what's going wrong than how to make it right.

The simple truth is that Democrats must do better than that. They need
a positive, strong, and optimistic agenda that puts country over party. If they
don't offer one, voters are likely to continue to be negative and pessimistic
about Democrats when they cast their ballots.
So what should Democrats do?
Here are five simple suggestions:

Think about the future, not the past. Forget about President Bush. He's
the past, a lame duck who is increasingly irrelevant. He's not on the ballot in
2008. Democrats should not let their anger toward the president blind them from
seeing the path to victory.

Put progress above partisanship. Don't get drawn into polarizing
fights. That's what the Republicans want, because when America is divided into
two camps, theirs is likely to be bigger. Criticize Republican policies when
they're wrong, but always put country over party. And avoid personal attacks.
Republicans are our adversaries, not our enemies.

Talk to the country, not to Washington. Members of Congress and
presidents are elected in the country, where people want answers to real
problems, not in Washington, which is dominated by partisans, lobbyists, and
special-interest pleaders.

Be strong and optimistic. Voters want leaders with the strength to
defend our country from enemies abroad and the toughness to make hard decisions
and say no to the special-interest pleaders at home. Americans love their
country and they want leaders who talk America up, not talk it down.

Most importantly, stand for something. Voters want to know ho their
leaders are and what they stand for -- the values and beliefs that guide them
and what they intend to do when elected. Democrats need to tell them. Campaigns
are about making an argument -- and it's a lot easier to make a winning argument
when candidates have strong convictions and a clear sense of what they want to
do.

What Democrats do in the next 18 months will profoundly affect what
happens in the 2006 and 2008 elections. If they continue to deliver a largely
negative and pessimistic message, their chances of regaining national power will
be sharply diminished. We can change the odds by shaping a positive agenda
for tackling issues that affect peoples' lives. For the sake of our country and
our party, we need to do that.
Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC.

From David Sirota

2005-08-25T13:23:00.000-04:00

DLC helps spread claim that 'progressives destroyed America'

There is a case to be made that Democrats should go on Fox News, even if it is a right-wing network, because the network blasts its content to the general public. But there is no case to be made that any non-right-wing lunatic should take part in an event at the fringe-conservative Heritage Foundation entitled "Did the Progressives Destroy America?" Unlike a Fox News show where you are speaking to potentially swing voters, there is no "general public" audience at this event - it is an event designed to perpetuate among the Washington, D.C. insider establishment the worst right-wing dishonesty. Any participation by our side helps legitimize this nonsense. Yet, incredibly, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is headlining the event.

That's right, Will Marshall - President of the DLC's Orwellian-labeled "Progressive Policy Institute" - is lending his name to the event and taking part. I guess we shouldn't be surprised - this is the same Will Marshall who calls Iraq War critics "anti-American." Sure, Marshall will disingenuously argue that he is there to "debate" the issue. But he's been in Washington long enough to know exactly what he's doing: deliberately helping to legitimize the worst right-wing lies. If there was ever a question as to whether the DLC is actively trying to undermine Democrats and the progressive movement in general, there shouldn't be anymore. The answer is, yes they are.

Gary Hart -- you kick ass

2005-08-24T00:39:00.000-04:00

Who Will Say 'No More'?

By Gary Hart

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

"Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool said to push on," warned an anti-Vietnam war song those many years ago. The McGovern presidential campaign, in those days, which I know something about, is widely viewed as a cause for the decline of the Democratic Party, a gateway through which a new conservative era entered.

Like the cat that jumped on a hot stove and thereafter wouldn't jump on any stove, hot or cold, today's Democratic leaders didn't want to make that mistake again. Many supported the Iraq war resolution and -- as the Big Muddy is rising yet again -- now find themselves tongue-tied or trying to trump a war president by calling for deployment of more troops. Thus does good money follow bad and bad politics get even worse.

History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we've blown up, and weakening America's national security.

But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping on any political stove. In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: "I was wrong."
To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration's misfortune is the Democrats' fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: "I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."

Further, this leader should say: "I am now going to give a series of speeches across the country documenting how the administration did not tell the American people the truth, why this war is making our country more vulnerable and less secure, how we can drive a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and outside jihadists and leave Iraq for the Iraqis to govern, how we can repair the damage done to our military, what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists' swamp, and what dramatic steps we must take to become energy-secure and prevent Gulf Wars III, IV and so on."

At stake is not just the leadership of the Democratic Party and the nation but our nation's honor, our nobility and our principles. Franklin D. Roosevelt established a national community based on social justice. Harry Truman created international networks that repaired the damage of World War II and defeated communism. John F. Kennedy recaptured the ideal of the republic and the sense of civic duty. To expect to enter this pantheon, the next Democratic leader must now undertake all three tasks.

But this cannot be done while the water is rising in the Big Muddy of the Middle East. No Democrat, especially one now silent, should expect election by default. The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin.

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we're way off course. We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began.

Who now has the courage to say this?
The writer is a former Democratic senator from Colorado.

Milbank on Sheehan = Rosa Parks

2005-08-18T12:47:00.000-04:00

Deploying Cindy's Antiwar Army
By Dana MilbankThursday, August 18, 2005; A03
It was to have been a silent vigil outside the White House last night in solidarity with Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star Mother-turned-antiwar activist. But the 500 demonstrators were not the sort to be silenced.
"Meet with Cindy!" they chanted. "Tell her the truth! . . . This war was for oil! . . . End the war now!"
"Cindy Sheehan," organizer Karen Bradley shouted into a megaphone, "you are an inspiration to us all!"
As Sheehan, mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq, camps out near President Bush's ranch in Texas this month in symbolic protest, foes of the war see the chance to achieve something that has eluded them for two years: galvanizing a mass antiwar movement. Sheehan, they say hopefully, could be their Rosa Parks.
Bradley, a volunteer for the liberal group MoveOn.org, which coordinated about 1,600 candlelight vigils across the country last night for Sheehan, certainly thinks so. "We've been missing this galvanizing, iconic figure," said Bradley, who lost a child nine years ago, to illness. "I think all the mothers of the world are going to come out and say, 'Enough.' "
That's what worries Kevin Pannell, whose knot of a dozen conservative counterdemonstrators was outnumbered 50 to 1 on Pennsylvania Avenue last night. Pannell, part of the Army's First Cavalry Division, lost both calves in Iraq last year when his patrol was ambushed in a grenade attack. He said he had never been to a political rally before, but he is worried about Sheehan's ability to spark an antiwar movement.
"She's stirred up a wasps' nest," he said, leaning on a flagpole to support his prosthetic legs. "It's definitely getting bigger. They're getting a little out of hand."
MoveOn.org is leaving nothing to chance as it tries to make Sheehan into a national icon. It supplied demonstrators with advice on media relations. ("When talking to reporters, it is OK to keep repeating the same message over and over. It may feel strange to do that, but the reporters are used to it.") MoveOn.org designed printable placards for participants proclaiming "Dogs for Cindy" and "Moms for Peace." It directed vigil hosts to declare "if you have pets your guests could be allergic to."
"We're also asking that you bring pictures of children," MoveOn.org requested, and it didn't matter "whether or not you have a child serving in the military."
"Every movement has a moment when it torques up," said Tom Matzzie, the group's Washington director. "Cindy is the Rosa Parks of the peace movement in 2005. Cindy, Rosa Parks, Paul Revere -- they're people who try to start something."
Sheehan will have to make her ride into immortality without the help of Longfellow. But is it possible this moment could make MoveOn.org what SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) was during Vietnam? "I'm only 30," Matzzie replied. "I don't really understand the reference that much."
Kristinn Taylor does. An organizer for FreeRepublic.com, a MoveOn.org counterpart on the right, he recruited a small group of conservatives to hold a counterprotest last night; they stood beneath the statue of Andrew Jackson and held a banner, stitched from three bedsheets, proclaiming: "God Bless Our Soldiers Liberating the World of One Tyrant at a Time."
Taylor handed out pictures of what he said was Sheehan meeting Bush. "You can see they're holding hands, and she's leaning into the kiss," he said, outlining his case to undermine Sheehan's credibility. Still, he acknowledged, "You've got a grieving mother. She is a catalyst for them."
In an unintended Vietnam reference, Taylor said he thinks Sheehan's success is also "galvanizing the silent majority" in support of the war. But the silent majority was a distinct minority in Lafayette Park last night, as antiwar protesters approached to heckle.
Tom Fahey, who works for an insurance outfit, told one of the Free Republic crowd that he wouldn't send his kids "to die for you and George Bush."
"Believe me, honey, I wouldn't send mine to die for you, either" came the reply from a heavyset woman, who offered only her pseudonym, Just A. Nobody.
"Amen, baby, but I'm not asking you to," Fahey said.
"You're not telling me to go over there? I have witnesses," Nobody retorted.
As the taunts continued in this vein, one of the antiwar crowd, Jerry Stein, tried to make peace. "We recognize your right to demonstrate," he offered.
"We recognize your right to be an ignorant moron," replied Just A. Nobody.
It was time to light the candles, and Fahey, joined by a friend who won two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, moved toward the vigil. "They say Cindy Sheehan is the Rosa Parks of the antiwar movement," he said, walking toward the White House at dusk. "I think, yeah. Americans have had a bellyful of this. The war is over. We're going to bring the kids home."
Fahey turned to his friend. "Now we storm the Bastille, eh?"

Dueling Events

2005-07-25T18:59:00.000-04:00

Couple of interesting developments today...

First, Columbus Ohio is playing host to this year's DLC National Conversation -- over 400 opportunistic Democrats from across the nation are gathered (today and tomorrow) to reportedly develop a "positive" agenda. I have a positive agenda too... I'm "positive" the DLC is fucking up the Democratic Party.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton is not so positive of this. She called for a cease-fire today in the intra-party wars at this year's conference. That makes sense... the DLC starts the wars, divides the Party, rides those divisions to victory with Bill Clinton, and now that they are on the defensive, has their rising star call for a cease-fire.

Naa... in the words of Harry Truman, "Put them on the defensive and never apologize for anything." The Democratic Party will not be able to make peace with the DLC.

And now they introduce a new generation of opportunists. Outgoing DLC Chairman (and 2008 Presidential hopeful) Evan Bayh, will today pass the torch to Iowa Governor (and 2008 Presidential hopeful) Tom Vilsack. Milquetoast "Democratic" Senator Tom Carper will replace California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher as the organization's Vice Chair. It's a beautiful day.

On the other side of the organizational front, Andy Stern's SEIU and Hoffa's Teamsters today split from the AFL-CIO citing differences with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. Stern has long-threatened to bolt the umbrella organization due to his emphasis on organizing over political campaigning. He made headlines last month for suggesting that labor should not blindly follow the Democratic Party (which he often views as too timid). During last year's Democratic Convention, Stern spoiled the Party unity mood when he told a Washington Post reporter that it might be better if Bush won (although he had endorsed Kerry) because it would teach Democrats a lesson about neglecting core constituencies.

Guess the cease-fire will have to wait...

So you wanna be a media source...

2005-07-06T16:54:00.000-04:00

Today, NYT reporter Judith Miller and Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper faced a civil contempt charge for failing to reveal the confidential White House source who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. "The Source" called Cooper at the last minute and waived the confidentiality, allowing Cooper to testify before the Grand Jury. While the contempt charge against Cooper was dropped, Miller was immediately remanded to custody and will serve up to 120 days in a D.C. jail.

Arguments over the first amendment aside (and I admit, that's quite an argument to just lay aside...), today's events bring us very close to the outing of the White House source. Karl Rove's lawyer has confirmed that Rove was "a source," but insists he was not the source who leaked Plame's identity. If Rove is the source, he is not only a traitor for his role in the scandal, but he is also a coward for allowing a reporter to serve jail time for his crime.

In any event, it is a bit difficult to digest the fact that Judith Miller is now serving time, while Bob Novak -- the man who actually exposed the identity of Valerie Plame -- is free.

But the source story of the day doesn't end with Karl -- er, the CIA leaker. Today, Woodward's book on Deep Throat (Mark Felt, as revealed last month) was published, and in an odd coincidence, L. Patrick Gray -- the FBI chief whose promotion was the likely motive for Felt's leaks to Woodward -- died today.

As a neat aside (and bringing the odd coincidences full circle), Joseph Wilson's NYT op-ed titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa" -- the expose that led the White House to exact revenge by outing Wilson's wife -- was published by the Times two years ago... today. Weird, huh?

Who will be the first to say...

2005-07-05T19:04:00.000-04:00

Impeachment.

A new Zogby poll out shows that 43% of the American public believes that impeachment is an appropriate response if it is demonstrated that Bush misled the nation to war. More surprising is the percentage of Republican respondents -- 25% -- who support impeachment in this circumstance.

But, once again, with a solid chunk of the electorate (and a majority of their Party's members) behind impeachment, Democratic leaders are silent on the subject. Unlike the Republican leadership, who responded to -- if not led -- the conservative outcry for Clinton's impeachment in '98, Democrats seem content to allow Bush to continue his term and retire with dignity, no matter what the charges warrant.

Most likely, Democrats are worried about the political consequences (rather than the legal merits) of pushing for impeachment, and believe waiting out the current term and allowing the anti-Bush hostilities to brew is a more prudent course of action. Without control of Congress, it is assured that impeachment preceedings would fail -- and fail big.

But forcing a discussion would likely create political pressure on Republicans who defend Bush, and would solidify the public perception that the war in Iraq was at minimum an unbelievable blunder and at worst a crime. Republicans who would fight impeachment preceedings would be placed on the defensive -- particularly those who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

The "I" word may seem risky, but if history (well.... history over the past five years) has shown anything, we can assume that what is considered radical at this point will become consensus very soon. When Bush was pushing for war with Iraq, only the "fringe" elements opposed it. Now, a solid majority of Americans oppose the war. The first politicians/commentators to argue that Bush misled (i.e. "lied") the nation into war were considered treasonous; now most Americans agree. The word "impeach" may sound shocking now, but is a growing sentiment with the Party's rank and file (and apparently even many Republicans).

Bush deserves to be impeached. He lied us into a war that has cost the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. He has tarnished our image throughout the world, and left us vulnerable to legitimate threats. He lied to Congress. He lied to the public. He is responsible for the disaster he has created. And he must be held accountable. But Democrats in leadership are afraid to hold him accountable -- leaving 43% of the American public without a mainstream stamp of approval.

Like other "radical" positions supported by Bush opponents throughout his Administration, impeachment is gaining a sizable constituency. Who will be the first mainstream Democrat to be the voice of this burgeoning movement?

What the hell is Edwards thinking?

2005-06-06T02:45:00.000-04:00

Edwards Undecided About Running in 2008

By GARY TANNER
The Associated Press
Saturday, June 4, 2005; 11:16 PM

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday that he has not decided whether he will run for president in 2008.

The former U.S. senator from North Carolina said his family is focused on the recovery of his wife, who was diagnosed with breast cancer the day after the 2004 general election.

"Our first priority right now is making sure Elizabeth gets well," Edwards said at an annual state Democratic fundraising dinner. "There's a lot of work left to be done."

Edwards also disagreed with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's controversial comment in a speech to liberal activists Thursday that many Republicans "have never made an honest living in their lives."

"The chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman for the party," Edwards said. "He's a voice. I don't agree with it."

On Saturday, Dean continued his barrage on conservatives while visiting Montana, lambasting the Bush administration for its fiscal irresponsibility and war on terror.

He said President Bush needs to get tough on real threats to national security, nations like North Korea and Iran that claim to have nuclear weapons, rather than nations like Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

"I would make the argument that America is safer when Democrats are in the White House, than when Republicans are in the White House," Dean said in a speech to Democratic supporters.

There was no immediate response from the GOP to Dean's comments Saturday, but RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said after Thursday's speech that Dean's "priority is to generate mudslinging headlines rather than engage in substantive debate."

The problem I have with Edwards' statement has nothing to do with Edwards personally, and it certainly isn't just a blind defense of Dean. The problem I have with Edwards' statement is that he distanced himself from tough anti-Republican rhetoric. Personally, I don't feel that my Party has to coddle Republicans, and I have a hard time defending milquetoast Democrats who claim to be "populists" and then back off Dean's old-fashioned populist rallying cry. The Republicans have no problem getting tough with us. They paint us as godless unpatriotic cowards. What's wrong with a Democrat (and yes, a SPOKESMAN for the Party) attacking Republicans for their elitism, greed, selfishness, and insensitivity to working people? Hasn't our Party learned anything?

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans know they're right. I'm tired of pretending that Republicans are just as good and just as honest as Democrats. I'm tired of pretending that we share a set of values, if not a shared idea of how to achieve those values. I want a leader to take a stand and go after the Right with the same zeal that they have gone after us. I cannot understand why a major figure within the Party (or two including Biden) would have a problem with that.

It seemed like it was time...

2005-05-28T16:33:00.000-04:00

To bring back RealDems...

The site itself should be back up (if not updated) within days. The Right is pushing for the confirmation of John Bolton, extremist judges, a complete dissolution of our nation's social safety net, and a stay-the-course policy on our disastrous efforts in Iraq.

If ever there was a time to make sure Democrats Stand Up and Keep Fighting -- this is it.

Too many of our best activists are still disillusioned by November's election results. Too many people believe that nothing can be done to stop (or even slow) the Bush regime's Right-wing agenda. Ironically, that apathy is threatening to become a self-fulfilling prophecy -- with the Right able to steamroll its way to absolute power because the people who would stop it failed to take notice.

On a more personal note... I am a political organizer, and am in the business of creating activists. Yesterday, I had to fire one of my favorite activists, after discovering he had been stealing from our organization's donors. Ironically, I had devoted last week to the overall context of our work. I spent less time dwelling on quotas or office goals, nuanced skills or canvassing tips. I spent last week outlining everything that is wrong in our country, and how we ended up there. I tried to inspire them the same way they inspire me by doing the work they are doing. "Context week" concluded yesterday with a showing of a documentary about Paul Wellstone. I discovered the truth about my canvasser hours before showing the film. The contrast between the idealism I had worked to instill and the reality that had occured did a lot to shake my own beliefs. I spent most of yesterday wondering if the fight for a true Good in politics is really just my own naivete. But spending some time with the rest of my staff yesterday evening helped shake those doubts. Many people came up to me and thanked me for bringing in the Wellstone documentary. Maybe idealism and reality can co-exist... the idealism of Wellstone may have inspired several people on my staff, while the reality is that it can't save everyone.

By the same token, those who are disillusioned by the direction of the country cannot allow the current national reality to interrupt their personal idealism. No matter how far away many of our goals may seem, it is the people who continue fighting for them that will become the heart of the movement.

I wanted to include a copy of my annoucements to my staff at the beginning of context week. I intended this to summarize the reasons our work (which can certainly be grueling) is so crucial.

Question of the Day: Why did you want to work here?

My answer: I wanted to be inspired. I believe so strongly in what we are doing – and not just the causes or issues we are working on – but the very concept of getting people involved in the political process again, reforming the Democratic Party, and building a new progressive
movement.

Context: Friday, instead of training and announcements, we will be showing a documentary on Paul Wellstone.

Situation in the country: Let me run down a bit of what we’re up against.

Today, 5 more U.S. troops were killed in Iraq bringing the total to at least 1,634.

Also in Iraq, 10 people were killed and over 100 wounded in a car bombing.

The House Majority leader is currently under investigation for at least 4 ethics violations.

Tomorrow the Senate will have a showdown over the “nuclear option” in their quest to have total control over the government and install far-Right judges.

The Republican leadership is trying to completely dismantle the social safety net in their attempts to privatize social security and by running up a budget deficit so high that it will be impossible to adequately fund necessary social programs.

How did this happen?

We can’t blame the Right for attempting to pass their agenda. The failure belongs to the Democrats for their complete inability to stop the Rightward trend.

Until recently, in the face of Republican assaults, the Left capitulated, and compromised their core values for short-term electoral success.

The results were disastrous. Not only did we give in to the Right on NAFTA, welfare reform, and the war in Iraq, but we lost control of the House, Senate, White House, and state houses in the process.

The people within the Party who worry about “electability” are the same people who have gotten us into this electoral mess in the first place.

The most sought after Democratic consultant in the 2004 electoral cycle, Bob Shrum, has gone 0 for 9 in Presidential races he has led.

As the Republicans have embraced their activist base, the Democrats have ignored theirs – often acting as if they were embarrassed by their activism.

And believe me, I used to work for the Democratic Leadership Council, and I used to work in
the Senate office of Joe Lieberman, so I know what I’m talking about.

The Democrats hit rock bottom in the fall of 2002.

First, more than half the Democratic Senators voted to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat whatsoever to the United States.

Less than a month later, the only Democratic Senator up for re-election who opposed the war, Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash, robbing progressives of their most prominent voice in government.

Ten days later, in a mid-term election, Democrats lost control of the Senate and lost almost every contested race in the country. My home state of Maryland has a Republican governor for the first time since Spiro Agnew in the 1960s.

Hope:

The good news is that Democrats seemed to learn from their mistakes.

The 2004 election cycle showed the power of grassroots politics and sparked a new trend on the Left. Groups like Grassroots Campaigns, MoveOn, America Coming Together, the Dean campaign, and Progressive Majority proved that the energy on the Democratic side is within the Party base. The new Chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, was one of the pioneers of the new movement, and that bodes well for the future of organizations like ours.

When you are out there canvassing, you are doing more than raising money for important causes. You are helping to make the Democratic Party more responsive to its constituents. You are changing the way politics is conducted in this country.

We talk a lot about numbers and quota and office performance here, and that is all important, but it isn’t the reason I’m here, and it probably isn’t the reason you are here either.

So, I want to thank all of you. You are the activists at the core of this trend. You are the only thing standing between George Bush and his Right-wing agenda. And together we will take this country back from its current catastrophic leadership.

I enjoyed this cartoon...

2005-02-19T03:44:00.000-05:00

The Party of George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and Ted Bundy

2005-02-18T15:17:00.000-05:00

One of the more interesting mini-controversies of the past few days is the saga involving the New York Republican Chairman, Steven Minarik, and his attempts to link the Democratic Party to the civil rights attorney, Lynn Stewart, convicted of aiding imprisoned terrorists. Earlier this week, Minarik declared: "The Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart, and Howard Dean." The attack was rebuked by NY Republican governor, George Pataki, who called it "outside the realm of appropriate political debate," and Howard Dean called for an apology or the resignation of Minarik.

The story took an interesting turn yesterday when Minarik attempted to push a photo of Stewart with various Democratic activists (Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, etc...). The only problem is that the woman in the photo was not Stewart. Some people would argue that using a photo of one person to prove something about a completely different person isn't exactly solid evidence (although it does bring to mind Bush's bin Laden-Hussein link). But not for Minarik. He is sticking by his story that Stewart is a registered and active Democrat.

Even if this fact was proven true, exactly what is he implying it says about the Democratic Party? I guess the values of a political party are responsible for the actions of its members. It makes me wonder exactly what Republican values drove activist Republican Ted Bundy to murder 16 women? Maybe, if we can dig up a photo of Bundy (or apparently even someone who isn't Bundy) standing with other recognizable Republicans (and I'm sure there are pictures from the days he campaigned for the GOP), then we could prove, once and for all, that the Republican Party is far far out of the mainstream. In fact, most Americans oppose serial murder, and would be shocked to know that the Republican Party has embraced them.

So get in the game, Democrats -- remember, you're fighting against the party of Ted Bundy.

When The Note is Wrong

2005-02-13T17:50:00.000-05:00

Alright -- I admit it. I may reject most insider opinion (and who can blame me when they are almost always wrong), but I do have one very inside guilty pleasure -- ABC News "The Note." Along with The Hotline, The Note is the political Establishment's Bible (and, unlike The Hotline, it can be accessed by the general public). Usually, The Note is actually pretty insightful, but I do think they missed the point a bit in their reporting on the White House vs. Harry Reid on Friday.

Last week, the RNC put out a 16 page release in an attempt to "Daschleize" Reid -- calling him an obstructionist, and trying to damage his reputation in the red state of Nevada. Reid became furious, and took to the Senate floor to accuse Bush of being disingenuous in his pledge to reach out to Democrats.

The Note weighed in on the politics of the dispute on Friday:

Note to Democrats: we shall repeat this again . . . a bit more slowly.

The reason . . . why . . . the . . RNC . . . is . . .going . . . after . . . Harry . . . Reid . . . is . . . to . . . make . . . him . . . mad . . . and . . . get . . . Democrats . . . all . . . riled . . . up.

Republicans do not truly believe that a few e-mails a month challenging Reid's record in Nevada is going to somehow change the dynamic of politics in that state; South Dakota and Tom Daschle are very different animals — just compare the Bush win percentages in the two states, and see how closely Kenny Guinn and John Ensign and Harry Reid work together.

The more Democrats whine and moan over the attacks against Harry Reid, the less they concentrate on more important matters to them . . . and the more they appear to be the party of opposition . . . rather than the opposition party.

My first reaction to the dispute was similar to The Note's -- but for different reasons. I am tired of seeing the Democrats' strategy against the ongoing Republican offensive as a mix of surprise and indignancy. If they haven't learned that this is the Republicans game, and that we need to fight just as hard, then they are apparently incapable of learning.

But Reid's tirade against the Republican Party may have actually been a shrewd move for a reason The Note ignores. As a soft-spoken moderate, Reid had yet to unite the activist base behind him. But by turning the fact that Republicans are attacking him (instead of working with him) into national news, he sent the signal to the Party base that he is not a friend to the Republican leadership. If Republicans are attacking him so hard, the Democratic base will assume he is doing something right.

The same type of strategy actually worked to Clinton's advantage in the '90s as well. His policies and rhetoric were centrist, and grassroots Democrats had reason to be suspicious of him. But the simple fact that the Republicans hated him served as a force to unite Democrats behind Clinton. The more they went after him, the more Democrats stood behind him. And unlike Clinton, Reid was able to line up his Party without becoming a divisive figure with Republicans.

A quick check of the liberal blogs proves the apparent success of Reid's strategy. Two weeks ago, there was widespread criticism of Reid from the Left, but since the incident, there has been almost lockstep support.

I am still not a fan of the strategy of whining about tough Republican attacks. I think it makes us look weak and inept. But maybe, just this once, Reid did what he had to do, and managed to rally the base to his defense. And maybe The Note missed that point.

The Rundown -- February 10 - 11

2005-02-11T02:43:00.000-05:00

February 11

The big papers are starting to weigh in on this weekend's vote:

The New York Times

The Washington Post (excerpt)

"'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.'"

And also this highlight from the Post article -- the Bruce Reed quote: "The job of party chair is different from party nominee. The party chair needs to be an ardent partisan. You can't send a vegetarian to do a red-meat job."

USA Today

Wall Street Journal

L.A. Times (this Brownstein piece is actually on the Democrats decision to sharpen the contrast with Republicans. It's the Must Read of the group.)

"In style and substance, Democrats are mounting a much more aggressive and unified opposition to President Bush than they did following his election in 2000.

"With the expected selection Saturday of firebrand Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Sen. John F. Kerry's rapid reemergence as a Bush critic, and the sharp congressional challenges to Cabinet nominees Alberto R. Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice, Democrats are consistently choosing confrontation over conciliation in their early responses to Bush in his second term...

"Liberal groups such as MoveOn.org are far more advanced than party centrists at building a grass-roots organization through the Internet, and are moving with increasing confidence to push the party toward a more combative strategy.

'We want to be in a position to give a backbone to the Democratic Party,' said Eli Pariser, the executive director of the MoveOn political action committee, which says it has 3 million members."

Liz Marlantes seemed to have a similar revelation about the emerging faces of the Democratic Party.

"Faced with the challenge of transforming themselves from a minority to majority party, Democrats are increasingly showing more defiance than doubt - and are now moving aggressively to challenge President Bush's agenda, with the party's public face becoming more dominated, for now, by figures on the left.

"This weekend, Democrats are poised to elect as their party chairman former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose full-throated opposition to Mr. Bush's policies - particularly the Iraq war - shot him to the top of the presidential primary heap before his candidacy flamed out with the now-infamous scream.

"Dr. Dean will join a chorus of aggressive Bush critics - from Sen. Barbara Boxer of California to Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts - who lately have grabbed the spotlight while the overall party faces something of a leadership vacuum, with no presidential nominee to set the tone."

I'm also going to call this one a Must Read... The Boston Globe takes note of the odd inspiration of the Dean/modern progressive movement: The Christian Coalition.

"'Dean himself has repeatedly said that the Democratic Party can't win elections by being ''Republican-lite,' and his supporters typically express disappointment that Democratic nominee John F. Kerry wasn't bold enough in attacking the White House or opposing the Iraq war.

Dean's decision early last year to follow the Christian Coalition model grew out of his own aversion to a Washington establishment that first underestimated and then resisted his presidential candidacy, despite a volcanic outpouring of Internet donors and grass-roots volunteers who were drawn both to Dean's antiwar stance and his stinging condemnations of Republican opponents.

'''Changing Washington is going to be a lot harder than it appeared last summer,' Dean wrote to his supporters after losing both the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. ''The entrenched interests will fight to the end and are not going to be nice about giving up their ability to take our money and spend it on their friends."

"Early last year, as the Washington press corps turned its attention away from Dean and toward the Kerry-Bush race, the failed presidential candidate quietly began rebuilding his position inside the party by borrowing from the religious right.

'''What the Christian Coalition did has always been interesting to Dean and all of us,' said Roy Neel, chief executive officer of Dean's presidential campaign. 'The emergence of the Republican majority didn't happen overnight. The Christian Coalition changed the debate and fielded candidates. Governor Dean has always been impressed with that.'"

Much of the Democratic establishment, including Bill Clinton and John Kerry, attended a send-off party for Terry McAuliffe. The theme tended to be party unity and gushing praise toward McAuliffe. Fine -- I'm all for Democratic unity... but why are they only pushing unity after they've lost?

The Boston Globe takes a look at the meaning behind John Kerry's $1,000,000 donation to the DNC.

Russ Feingold gives an interview to a Wisconsin paper.

February 10

This is a Must Read, only because I was there, and standing directly behind Will Lester as he scribbled down his notes for this piece. It's just a write-up of Dean's appearance at Capitol City Brewery this evening.

Here's The Note's take on the event, and they have upped the number to 2,000:

"We arrived at the Capitol City Brewery last night expecting enthusiastic young men and women of a Democratic/Dean persuasion, and we were not disappointed. 2000 of them turn out and, in fact, they spilled out on the sidewalk to greet the former Vermont governor.

A 10-minute campaign-style speech was laced with Dean's trademark epanalepsis: "I believe . . . I believe . . . I believe . . . . . . What you need to do . . . What you need to do . . . "

He added an obligatory sentence promising to work with Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, and he mentioned Enron about a half dozen times. He promised to help Democrats defeat Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich in 2006 (big cheers) and promised to "terminate the Terminator" in California (groans, then cheers). The crowd loved it. It reminded several of them of a year and a half ago, and it left a few folks in tears.

Dean himself was surrounded by a cadre of aides, current and former. They included his new close counsel, Tom Ochs, Maura Keefe, a senior adviser to Gov. Dean's presidential campaign, Chris Canning, one of Dean's original presidential staffers who now works in Washington, Sarah Buxton, Dean's long-time personal aide, and a dozen others."

Here's my take of last night.

Byron York shares his viewpoint of last night's event in The National Review: (long excerpts from article)

For a moment in Washington on Wednesday night, it was 2003 again, and Howard Dean was speaking to a crowd of adoring twenty-somethings — and sounding much as he did when it appeared he would sweep the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and then the Democratic presidential nomination. Dean, clearly energized by his young supporters, even worked himself up into one of those "and then we're going to Washington D.C. to take back the White House!" rhetorical exercises that gave him so much trouble as his campaign was collapsing. "Piece by piece, bit by bit, vote by vote," he shouted at one point last night, "door by door, state by state, legislative district by legislative district, election by election, we are going to take this country back!"

The crowd loved it. But there was also an unmistakable sense of nostalgia among some of the Deaniacs who came to the Capitol City Brewing Company, a brew pub in a massive old federal building not far from the U.S. Capitol, to see their hero. Yes, they were happy that he is just days away from becoming chairman of the Democratic National Committee. But they remember when it seemed he might be president. One slight, somewhat forlorn young man wore a faded PEOPLE-POWERED HOWARD! SLEEPLESS SUMMER TOUR t-shirt as he watched the former Vermont governor speak.

Other Deaniacs were exultant, sort of, about Dean's impending takeover of the DNC.

"We won!" said one.

"We finally got a victory party!" said another....

"Dean's speech began on a self-effacing note. 'First of all, no congratulations allowed tonight,' he said, "because I remember Iowa and three days before Iowa" — a reference to the time just before his presidential campaign's disintegration in the caucuses.

But the crowd didn't want self-effacement. They wanted the old Dean. 'GIVE 'EM HELL, HOWARD!' yelled one woman.

Dean smiled. 'I'm trying to be restrained in my new role here in Washington," he answered. "I'm looking for a three-piece suit.' Then he started laughing. 'Fat chance,' he said....

"And indeed, as his supporters wanted, the old Howard Dean began to emerge. If any Democrats hoped his DNC agenda might differ substantively from the Dean presidential campaign, and that it might include gestures of moderation, they were probably disappointed. Instead, Dean's crowd-pleasing message could be summarized in three words: We won't change.

"There is, Dean said, 'room for a strong progressive voice' in the party. And he left little doubt that it would be his...

"That was the message Dean's young supporters had come to hear, and Dean found himself speaking over fans chanting 'Dean! Dean! Dean! Dean! Dean!'"

Strong editorial endorsement of Dean:

"With his blunt opinions and partisan toughness, the man is a lightning rod for GOP scorn. Yet his quirky personality may be the perfect alternative to the boring, robotic Republican Party spokesman, Kenneth Mellman. He would certainly liven up the familiar partisan debates on television."

CNN has a new poll out about what DNC members think the Dems chances are of capturing the White House in 2008.

People Powered Howard, beltway fans, and a belated celebration...

2005-02-09T23:53:00.000-05:00

About a year and a half ago -- just after the Sleepless Summer Tour, I had a chance to see Howard Dean speak in person at a rally in College Park, Maryland. It was an amazing day -- more than 4,500 University of Maryland students, and other area supporters (like myself) sat at an outdoor amphitheater in perfect weather at the peak of the greatest grassroots campaign in generations, listening to a candidate finally stand on a national stage and ask the questions Democrats across the country had been asking in their communities.

The celebration would end a few months later in Iowa, and as it turned out, over the next year, Democrats would have very little to celebrate. But 2004 is over, and with the ascendency of Howard Dean as Party Chairman, the Democrats -- and particularly the people represented by those 4,500 in College Park -- finally have a new reason to celebrate. And so, when it was announced that Dean was set to speak this evening to a group of grassroots supporters at Capitol City Brewery in DC, I hopped on the Metro and headed down there.

I couldn't believe the sight when I got off the train at Union Station. I arrived almost half an hour before the event was to begin, and lines were already snaked around the block. Loudspeakers were set up outside the Brewery, and music blasted as the supporters waited in line. After waiting for about twenty minutes, I was finally able to enter the brewery, and was equally stunned by what I saw inside. The place was absolutely packed. Signs that hung down from the balcony read "You Have the Power," "The Doctor/Governor/Chairman is In," and "I Want My Country Back!" -- all slogans, or renditions of slogans from the '04 campaign. At the front of the brewery was a stage, and a Democracy for America sign behind it. Above the DFA sign was the familiar slogan "People Powered Howard."

The crowd was mostly young -- average age of 25, I would guess -- and extremely enthusiastic. People lined the balcony, trying to get a better view of the stage, and the people on the main floor angled for a spot close to the stage. After buying a beer, I managed to work my way up near the front of the brewery -- near the TV cameras and print reporters. I ended up standing directly behind AP reporter Will Lester (a pretty big guy, who blocked my line of sight for much of the event). Everywhere I looked were reminders of the Presidential campaign, and it was heartening to see that the supporters were still there, and willing to turn out to celebrate an incoming Party Chairman. Several people had "I See Dean People" T-shirts, and several others had the Sleepless Summer Tour shirts.

At about 7:20, Charles Allen, the Chair of Democracy for DC took the stage and introduced "the next Chairman of the Democratic Party." The room erupted as Dean took the stage (I made sure to cheer especially loudly throughout the event so Will Lester would be more likely to notice the "enthusiasm" of the supporters,) and the loudspeakers blasted "I Feel Good." Dean thanked the supporters and noted that more than 1,200 people were in attendance.

The speech itself was certainly celebratory, and there were many reminders of the campaign sprinkled throughout. Early on, Dean acknowledged that some in Washington were afraid he would be an "unorthodox" Chairman. "And I will," Dean promised. He said his first move as Chairman was to endorse someone who isn't even a Democrat, but someone who has displayed great courage in the past few years -- Vermont Senator, Jim Jeffords. Jeffords, who was in attendance, took to the stage, and over calls of "Thank you, Jim" from the crowd, said that his decision to leave the Republican Party in 2001 was in part due to the knowledge that Dean may seek the Presidency in '04. He called his Party switch a "hell of a good thing," and said that Democrats would take back the White House in 2008.

Dean spent most of the speech serving up the same red meat that has made him an all-star within the Party. He said that we would send Bill Frist back to performing heart surgery -- "but not on me" he quickly added -- and that Arnold Schwartzenegger would be Terminated. He praised the supporters who had traveled around the country to knock on doors for Kerry during the campaign, and vowed to get people around the country to knock on doors on behalf of Democrats in their own communities. At one point, a supporter shouted "Give 'em hell, Howard!" Dean laughed and said with a grin, "Come on, I'm trying to show some restraint in my new position. I may even have to go buy a three-piece suit." He paused, and laughed, "Fat chance."

He wrapped up his speech by delivering his familiar promise that together we are going to "take our country back!" The opening chords of U2's "Beautiful Day" blared through the hall, and Dean was immediately mobbed by supporters as he stepped off the stage. One man standing near me turned to his friend and said, "This is the first time since the election Democrats have had a reason to smile." After taking pictures and signing autographs for about 10 minutes, Dean moved outside, where hundreds of supporters who had been shut out of the capacity crowd indoors were gathered, listening to the speech on the loudspeakers. Dean was handed a microphone outside, and addressed the overflow group.

Recalling another line from his Presidential stump speech, Dean began naming countries that gave all their citizens health insurance: "the British, the French..." The crowd caught on immediately and started saying "even in Costa Rica..." the country Dean's list always ended with. Dean smiled and said quietly, "even in Costa Rica."

Dean, facing the capitol dome, concluded his remarks by asking the crowd to turn around. He pointed to the Capitol and, reflecting the political realities of the next campaign cycle, said "In 2006 Democrats will make great strides in taking control of that building and by 2008, we will be in control." Once again, as he handed his microphone to an aide, he was surrounded by supporters on the steps in front of the Brewery. I had the chance to meet him briefly -- just long enough to shake his hand, and thank him for all the good he has done for the Party. I headed back to the Metro and enjoyed the long overdue Democratic celebration.

**As a footnote, Will Lester's AP piece on the event is already up on the wires. He didn't use the word "enthusiastic," but he did refer to the "cheering supporters." I wonder if he meant the supporter clapping in his ear the whole night. Hmm....

**The photo at the top of the post was not taken by me. I didn't have a camera with me, and I found this picture online. But the picture is of Dean addressing the overflow crowd after the original speech.

The Rundown -- February 9

2005-02-09T17:29:00.000-05:00

Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect seems to have made his peace with the new Chairman. In a piece in The Boston Globe, he considered the Republican machine and concluded: "The only way Democrats can compete with this is by energizing activists and building their party. It's a more selfless job than running for president. Let's see what Dean can do."

Speaking of making peace, Ed Kilgore tries to make peace on the New Donkey blog with Dean. I guess everyone has to concede when the game is over. He also warns that the activists will be disappointed if they think this is a revolution.

For the record, I can't stand Susan Estrich, but at least she sees more promise in Dean's Democrats than many other Democratic strategists.

Lambro gives a predictably skeptical write-up in The Washington Times.

And here's a nice write-up for us -- apparently, Dean's is a "victory not only for his personal powers of reinvention, but for the Democratic grassroots over the party establishment." Yeah. I like that.

I guess Mark Dayton really was tired of being lied to, repeatedly and flagrantly. He has decided not to run for a second term to the Senate.

I'm on the fence, but I'm going to go ahead and call this one a Must Read. In this piece, David Green says we are losing the framing argument and suggests we rename our opponents. Instead of conservative, we should call them regressives.

And Dean answers the MoveOn questions for Chair:

Top 5 questions from MoveOn members
and Howard Dean's responses
------------------------------

1) What will you do to insure that all voters, in each state, have access to a universally transparent, accountable voting system?
-- Sylvia S Pinyan, retired teacher
(January 27, 2005; Winston Salem, NC)

If elected Chair of the DNC, I intend to work with Members of Congress, the state Democratic parties, secretaries of state, the Democratic Governors' Association, other stakeholders, and the grassroots to ensure that every legitimate voter -- regardless of their political affiliation -- is able to vote and have their vote counted. We must address the obstacles that some voters in some locations faced this past November, like inadequate numbers of voting machines at certain polling locations, faulty electronic voting machines, and voting rolls that failed to include some properly registered voters' names. And critically, we must take steps to ensure the verifiability of all electronic voting. For instance, we need to use the referendum process (in states that allow this) to ban unverifiable voting machines and to protect voters from partisan secretaries of state.

2) What would be your list of 'ideals,' things the Democratic Party stands for and will fight for?
-- Tom Peters, commercial fisherman
(January 26, 2005; Eureka, CA)

Whether you call them ideals or moral values, there are a number of basic principles that I believe the Democratic Party should stand up and fight for. Here are a few: a livable wage is a moral value. Affordable health care is a moral value. A decent education is a moral value. A common sense foreign policy is a moral value. A healthy environment is a moral value. The feeling of community that comes from full participation in our democracy is a moral value. It is a moral value to make sure that we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with our debt.

3) What will be your strategy for sending the message that a progressive agenda is as much about "moral values" as is the Republican agenda, ie: that economic justice and equality, tolerance, civil rights and environmental protection are ethical and moral matters?
-- Anna Schwartz, physician
(January 26, 2005; Hastings-on-Hudson, NY)

I believe that there are no red states or blue states, just American states. And I am confident that Americans will vote for Democrats in Texas, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Montana and all over the Untied States if we show up, knock on their doors, introduce ourselves, and tell them what we stand for. But we will not win by being "Republican-lite" -- Democrats must have the courage of our convictions. Every chance we get, Democrats need to stand up for what we believe in, frame the debate, and call for reform. Each time that we do this we drive home the point that our progressive agenda is right where the majority of Americans are. Because Democrats -- not Republicans -- are the party of fiscal responsibility, economic responsibility, social responsibility, civic responsibility, personal responsibility, and moral responsibility.

4) What is your plan for creating an effective Democratic message machine to clearly and powerfully present our point of view?
-- Lynn O'Connell, advertising
(January 26, 2005; Alexandria, VA)

I am running for DNC Chair because I want to reform the Democratic Party and make it a truly national party. Improving the Democrat's message machine will be critical to our success. To drive home the point that we are where the majority of Americans are on the issues, we have to better integrate national and state party operations -- the success of the former depends directly on the success of the latter. Two, taking a bottom-up approach to the development of the Party's message, we need to set core principles that define the Democratic Party and what we stand for. Three, the Party must take advantage of cutting-edge Internet technology to fundraise, organize, and communicate with our supporters. And four, we must strengthen our political institutions and leadership institutes to promote our leaders and our ideas. All of this won't be easy and it won't happen overnight. It will require exceptional cooperation between the National Party and the State Parties, unprecedented use of the grassroots, unparalleled message discipline, and significant financial support. But taking the White House and Congress and every other office back from George Bush and the Republicans will make all of our time and effort worth it.

5) Many people like myself were energized during the 2004 presidential election. I volunteered to canvas neighborhoods and I made phone calls for democratic candidates. I made my first financial contributions for a political cause. How are you going to keep people like me involved? Do you want to keep people like me involved?
-- Lisa Scerbo, photographer
(January 26, 2005; Mechanicville, NY)

It was new supporters like you that were one of the bright spots in the last election cycle. If I am elected DNC Chair, we intend to make the Democratic Party a truly national party by becoming competitive in every race, in every district, in every state and territory. We need you and other grassroots volunteers to stay involved -- our vision won't become a reality without your help. And we will keep you involved by building on our grassroots successes, expanding community-building initiatives like Meetup, and getting ordinary people to run for office. It is time we support all Democrats carrying the message of reform.

Here's just kind of a fun list of the top 50 most annoying people of 2004. Keep an eye out for Ann Coulter, Alan Colmes, Al From, Tom Delay, Stephen Moore and Terry McAuliffe.

Transcript -- The Chris Matthews Show

2005-02-09T17:26:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting segment of last week's Chris Matthews Sunday morning show regarding the possibility of a Gore comeback in '08. Like the part about an opening for the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party...

Former Vice President AL GORE: (From December 9, 2003, speech) One candidate clearly now stands out, and so I am asking all of you to join in this grassroots movement to elect Howard Dean president of the United States. Thank you.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back. That was Al Gore showering Howard Dean with praise back in the 2004 election. Now they're both back on the scene. Howard Dean is the likely now leader of the Democratic Party. And get this, Al Gore is the comeback presidential contender in the year 2008.

Katrina, what are you hearing?

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: Hearing that he's talking to people about coming back. And you know, when you think last year when he worked with MoveOn, gave a series of really tough, very good speeches against the Bush administration, in a way he was preparing his comeback. But there is talk, and I think...

MATTHEWS: He was anti-war.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: He wa--well, more than anti-war. He was anti-war, he was laying out the critique of the civil--of this administration on civil liberties, on environment, whole slew of things. And he attracted the generation that's come to Dean as well. Very Internet savvy, connected.

MATTHEWS: Mm-hmm.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: I could see a Nix--Nixon scenario, by the way.

MATTHEWS: I can see that, too.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, Nixon goes around...

MATTHEWS: Howard, how goes...

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: ...to players in Congress.

MATTHEWS: ...the Nixon comeback scenario?

Mr. FINEMAN: Well, I talked to one of his closest advisers who told me he had had a long conversation.

MATTHEWS: On background or on the record?

Mr. FINEMAN: Well, the--the--the--the conversation is on background, but the guy said he'd spoken at length with Gore. And what Gore is saying is that the political winds are at his back, that he feels that the message and the tone the he, Al Gore, took in 2000, where he did that populous message, as he tried to put forth--and he got criticized for, was the right way to go. Not the DLC moderate, democratic way, but the full-throated populist way now makes sense and that's why the times have changed and the world or certainly the Democratic Party are ready for Al Gore. At least that's what he was saying to this very close adviser who, by the way, was taking him seriously. He wasn't laughing him off when they were discussing it.

Mr. DONALDSON: I don't see it. I--I don't think Gore's Nixon. I think Nixon was different. After Goldwater's defeat, yes, Nixon had been defeated in California, but the people who thought they would get the nomination in '68 were the Rockefeller Republicans. They were out of step with their party and Nixon wasn't out of step with the party. He became the nominee. I think there are plenty of people who are in step with the main Democratic activists in '08 that they don't turn to Al Gore.

MATTHEWS: We'll get to that in a minute. I think--I think there's an opening there for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

Mr. DONALDSON: That's...

MATTHEWS: Let's check with our Matthews Meter again. We asked 12 of our regulars: Both are long shots, of course, but which of these long shots, Gore or Kerry, would be--have a better chance for the nomination in 2008? Al Gore or Kerry? Eight said Kerry, but four said Gore.

Sam, that's pretty impressive.

Mr. DONALDSON: They can say whatever they want to.

MATTHEWS: That Kerry's--that--that--that Al Gore's coming back from the grave?

Mr. DONALDSON: Well, the Matthews Meter didn't give us a choice of a third of fourth candidate. Between the two of them...

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: But what--but what...

MATTHEWS: A pick-your-own meter.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: But you said--what you said, Chris, is true. The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party was where the energy was...

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: ...in 2004.

MATTHEWS: Hillary still went right. Hillary doesn't want to be that leader.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: No. And I don't think--and--and--and...

Mr. HEWITT: The difference--the difference from 19--from 1960 and Nixon was that in 1960 Nixon conceded, Gore didn't, made himself a hot point for the rest of the world. And in 1964 Nixon ran...

MATTHEWS: What do you mean Gore didn't concede?

Mr. HEWITT: Gore did not concede the election in 2000.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: No. There are a lot of people...

MATTHEWS: He gave a marvelous concession.

Mr. HEWITT: He fought on in Florida...

MATTHEWS: He gave a marvelous concession speech.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: Yeah, but a lot of...

Mr. HEWITT: ...for 40 days and he--he became a lightening flash for the right and for the center right. So he's tarred.

MATTHEWS: Why wouldn't Gore have fought on against the...

Mr. HEWITT: For the same reason Nixon did.

MATTHEWS: No, no, no.

Mr. HEWITT: It was not good for democracy.

MATTHEWS: But why--why didn't Gore have--have lesser right to contest the results in Florida than Bush did?

Mr. HEWITT: Well, he had every right, but it ruined him politically...

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: No it didn't.

Mr. HEWITT: ...because it constantly cast him...

Mr. FINEMAN: Not among Democrats.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: No. Not among Democrats, Hugh.

Mr. FINEMAN: Are you kidding? That's what...

Mr. HEWITT: It cast him as an absolute extremist...

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: Not among Democrats.

Mr. FINEMAN: That's what... 0 Mr. HEWITT: ...when it comes to politics.

Mr. FINEMAN: But that's what the Democrats...

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: There is a credible that he lost--that he was deprived of stol--the election was stolen from him. Kerry doesn't have that, I have to say. And Kerry, also there's a sense he's a very decent man but it was such a weird year. It was anti-Bush, anti-Bush. And I think Gore, as I said...

MATTHEWS: Gore's been staid.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: ...he also endorsed Dean, don't forget.

MATTHEWS: And remember he used to...

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: Dean--it's going to--Dean is going to bring a politics of conviction, of connection to the state parties, of the Internet, the grass roots...

MATTHEWS: OK.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: ...the net roots of the party.

MATTHEWS: I'm dying here to correct something. Gore's problem in 2000 was not that he called for a recount, but he called for a limited recount...

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: Yes.

MATTHEWS: ...of only the counties he would do well in. And everybody knew that meant he wasn't really playing fair square.

Mr. HEWITT: Gore's problem was he tried to get the military absentee uncounted. He tried to keep men and women...

MATTHEWS: OK.

Mr. HEWITT: ...in uniform from casting their votes.

Mr. FINEMAN: I was just--I was just going to say that John Kerry didn't impress Democrats with the campaign that he ran...

MATTHEWS: Right.

Mr. FINEMAN: ...this time. Which gives Gore, who really would be the populist Dean-type candidate...

Mr. DONALDSON: Wait a second.

Mr. FINEMAN: ...a chance.

Mr. DONALDSON: Gore should have been president. Had he shown up at those three debates and been a normal human being, he probably would have been president. Why do you want him back, if you're a Democrat, to show up at the debates and go, `Haah'?

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, what the...

MATTHEWS: Isn't the first primary, in your heart, if Al Gore decides to run he becomes a factor no matter what any of us say?

Mr. FINEMAN: Maybe.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: I--you know, I don't know. I mean, I think the most...

Mr. FINEMAN: Maybe.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: ...important thing...

MATTHEWS: A new fact...

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: The most im...

MATTHEWS: As Golda Meir used to say, `new facts'? It's a new fact he's running.

Mr. FINEMAN: If he can get out there and do it. If Hillary Clinton is going to be--in the Senate is going to be up to other things that she has to do, if he wants to get out there and stir the grass roots, Gore's got a chance to do it.

Mr. HEWITT: Run the video of the NYU speech where he's screaming `betrayal.' He cannot come back.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: But most important thing at this point is that the Democrats show a spine, that they have strength of conviction. And I really think Dean's going to give that to the Democrats and Gore could. There are others out there.

The Rundown -- February 8

2005-02-08T16:44:00.000-05:00

I've been a lot more stingy with the Must Read's lately, but this one makes it under any standard. Theda Skocpol, whose book, "Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life," was used by David Brooks to bash the elitism of the Dean Democrats last week, makes an extraordinarily powerful rebuttal. Samples:

"But MoveOn and the Dean campaign have gotten more people involved, not fewer, in the party. Republicans, meanwhile, can hardly brag that they represent the values of ordinary Americans. Their effort to destroy the popular and inclusive Social Security program, a plan hatched by ultra-right advocacy groups and think tanks, is a textbook case of manipulative elitism and faux-populist conservatism..."

"Through the 1990s, conservatives became more adept than liberals at building bridges between professionally run groups and surviving voluntary associations, learning to coordinate with evangelical churches and groups like the National Right to Life Association and the National Rifle Association. The Republican Party mobilized millions and reaped the benefits in the voting booth. By contrast, most of the Democratic Party's advocacy groups lacked local roots or the capacity to mobilize large numbers of citizens into politics. Issues also divided Democrats, as old-style New Deal liberalism was often at odds with "new" liberalism and public interest liberalism..."

"The Dean campaign encouraged voters to gather in one another's houses, not just send checks to a central office. And not all "educated class" Americans (Brooks' phrase) live in Berkeley, Calif., or Cambridge, Mass. My sister is a librarian in West Virginia who regularly gives small amounts to support MoveOn's ad campaigns -- which, Brooks to the contrary, are mounted on populist issues as well as in opposition to the Iraq war. These days, for example, MoveOn is running a campaign to expose the huge cuts in guaranteed Social Security benefits that privatization would entail. Republicans are suing to stop the campaign -- obviously concerned that it might resonate with ordinary voters well beyond Berkeley..."

"But Brooks should worry more about the elitist ideologues and unhinged advocacy groups in his own party and movement. Perhaps he should pursue a sociology of "W. Bushism," examining how the pet causes of right-wing think tanks could undercut the populist appeal of Republicans. Right-wingers determined to fetter government as a tool for spreading opportunity and ensuring security for most citizens are much more of an elitist threat to American democracy than "Deanism." Before long, millions of voters may come to realize this."

Wisconsin paper thinks now might be the right moment for Feingold to run for President, and argues that Kerry's failures and Feingold's successes in 2004 demonstrate that there is a place in national politics for progressive politicians that stand on conviction.

This is a good one -- the Democratic base is angry, and if our leaders don't respond, they will face consequences:

"The reaction of grassroots Democrats in almost every community in America to the tendency of Washington's elected Democrats to support the worst of Bush's appointments and policies is starting to have a real political impact. The impending selection of Howard Dean as the new Chairman of the Democratic National Committee highlights this development. Democratic Senators and House members are starting to get the message.

"The Senators who voted to confirm Gonzales as Attorney General and Rice as Secretary of State are facing a very angry base of Democratic activists. Many Democratic activists are encouraging primary challenges to these incumbents."

Joan Vennochi of The Boston Globe doesn't think Democrats have found the right tune to oppose Bush.

UPI writer, Martin Sieff thinks that Dean at the helm of the DNC will help Hillary in '08. Basically, if he fails in '06, she will run as a DLC centrist, restoring the Party to the moderate stamp from her husband's Administration. If he does well, and the "fiery grassroots activism" saves the party in '06, she will use that as a roadmap. Either way, the article seems to take for granted that Hillary is an opportunist who will run her campaign based on the prevailing conventional wisdom.

And The Village Voice takes a look at the multiple concerns by leading Democrats about Dean. An excerpt:

"Democratic pols are trying to get it up for Howard Dean, but they are very confused when the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate says he 'admires' Newt Gingrich more than Bill Clinton, and that Christian-right big Ralph Reed "created a real success" with the right, and how 'Clinton led the Dems into complacency and defeat.'

"The pros are mostly cautious. Asked about her worries, soccer mom surrogate Nancy Pelosi said, 'No more worries . . . I know he will work very well with Senator Reid and with me. And we look forward to whoever the members of the DNC choose.'

"'He wasn't my first choice,' said Joe Lieberman, somewhat resuscitated after receiving the Bush kiss. 'I felt we needed a bridge builder at this point. But I will respect whatever decision the DNC makes. And if it's Howard, I'll go along.'

"John Kerry, with his usual dismissive diffidence, said, 'He's going to be a spokesman in certain ways. Obviously the chairman has to go to the Jefferson-Jackson dinners and other things. Howard is going to be very good for the party. A lot of people are worried about it, I'm not. I think he's been out there in the country. He's listened to people. . . . He's a person who believes in grassroots.'"

The San Francisco Chronicle has a pretty standard piece that wouldn't even make the Rundown, if it wasn't for a nice first line: "Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has officially become the last man standing in the race to chair the Democratic National Committee -- a development heralded by many Democrats as the start of an aggressive drive to rebuild the party, and win elections, from the grass roots up."

On defense, Al From

2005-02-08T01:04:00.000-05:00

Last month, Chuck Todd wrote an article ("Clintonism, RIP" -- no link available) about the failures of triangulation and the problems the Democrats have had since the Clinton years. Ed Kilgore was the first to respond, using the New Donkey blog as a forum for a weak defense. Now it's the chief architect of Clintonism who has taken the opportunity to defend his ideas before they fade into oblivion.

In "Clintonism, Alive and Well," Al From describes Clintonism as "a future-oriented ideology and approach to governing. It asks Democrats to constantly challenge old party orthodoxies and to seek new ways of furthering the party's first principles and grandest traditions." Yes, apparently that would be the Party's "grandest tradition" of catering to corporate interests.

In the most ironic defense of DLC orthodoxies, From claims that the attempts to divorce the Party from Bill Clinton is "like telling Republicans to disown Ronald Reagan because he brought their party back from the political wilderness." Small problem. Rather than being the Republican equivalent of Bill Clinton, Reagan was actually responsible for ending the Republican Party's own struggles with "Clintonism." In fact, if Clinton (or From) had been a Republican, they would have relentlessly criticized Reagan for pandering to his Party's base, offering a coherent and unrelenting ideology, and running against Establishment notions of electability. Reagan's Party building success is evident in his legacy, where hordes of Right-wing true believers proudly proclaim themselves "Reagan Republicans." And those same hordes of right-wingers are now in the majority of government. Maybe Al From was too busy working with the Chamber of Commerce to enact the Republican agenda to notice this fact.

I guess I should feel a bit sorry for Al From -- a man watching his New Democrat empire challenged like never before. In 2002, the DLC was able to draw five of the seven potential Presidential candidates to address their convention (Gore and Dean were the only two to decline). In the years leading up to the next election, I imagine Democrats will take some pause before feeding the DLC the anti-red meat that they crave. They no longer control the Party leadership, and they can no longer hand-pick our Presidential candidate. I guess all that stress has had an effect on the mental stability of DLC leaders -- how else could anyone claim that Bill Clinton and the practice of triangulation have "saved" the Democratic Party?

Forget the fairness doctrine... just win

2005-02-07T23:36:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the Armstrong Williams scandal, many progressives are calling for a return to the Fairness Doctrine -- the 1949 policy requiring that public policy news be presented in a fair (and balanced...) manner. The FEC killed the policy in 1986, and as the story goes, its death ushered in the birth of talk radio and paved the way for Fox News. So now, liberals want to bring back the doctrine in the hopes of ending the dominance of the right-wing media.

Am I the only liberal that thinks this is a really bad idea? Instead of decrying the success of the Republican echo chamber, shouldn't members of our Party be actively moving to counter it? This seems to be part of a disturbing trend where Republicans stretch the limits (and sometimes break the rules) for partisan advantage, while the Democrats stand on the sidelines and cry foul. As Democrats, we really need to toughen up, and find a way to beat the Republicans -- not just insist that they play fair.

This is an entirely different subject than media consolidation -- the practice of a few giant corporations owning a large chunk of the media. This game is structurally set up to benifit corporations (and by extension the Republican Party), and is a true disservice to the American people. Strict media regulations to prevent further consolidation, and pro-active policy to re-regulate the media (overturning Clinton's deregulation policy) are important priorities that deserve further attention.

But this issue should not be confused with a requirement for balance in policy discussions. If we stop complaining and start building, in ten years it will be the Republican Party insisting on a renewal of the fairness doctrine.

**For more information on the attempt of some Democrats to bring back the fairness doctrine, click here.

Tim Roemer's conversations

2005-02-07T16:44:00.000-05:00

I know... any decent person would give a person a break on the day they are forced to withdraw from a political campaign. I guess I'm just not feeling all that magnanimous toward Tim Roemer, who ended his bid to lead the Democratic Party today. I think the one thing that struck me was this section in his concession press release: "While we lost on the votes, we've certainly won on the conversations this party is going to have in the next 20 years."

Excuse me? Roemer's candidacy was a disaster. After entering the race with high expectations and the backing of both Democratic Congressional leaders, Roemer failed to build any type of momentum. Worse, instead of working to connect with the Party base, he lashed out at "special interests" that sabotaged his candidacy. By this, Roemer meant pro-choice factions... fully believing that his pro-life background is the only reason he was considered unacceptable to Party activists -- an assertion the media has entirely accepted. This simplification of his obstacles ignores his views on trade or his eagerness to seek common ground with Republicans, even if common ground means selling out Democrats and Democratic ideals. It ignores the hyper-political image he presents (he has a picture on his website for Chairman of himself with a young girl -- presumably his daughter -- outside mowing the lawn), his willingness to craft his position to whichever audience he is addressing, and his tired metaphors about "expanding the bus."

If anything, rather than winning "the conversations the Party is going to have," Roemer should be used as a cautionary tale for the conversations the Party believes are off the table. We are not in any mood for conciliation -- not after years of stepping back only to be steamrolled by Republicans who have no interest in compromising.

I am reminded of a story I read two years ago about a woman at a Dean rally who told a reporter she had once been a moderate, Clinton-esque Democrat. The reporter asked why she had changed, to which she replied "Grover Norquist said bi-partisanship is date rape, and I'm tired of being raped." Democrats are starting to wake up to the fact that Grover Norquist IS the Republican Party, and we certainly are in no mood to strike deals. We had a taste of red meat during the 2004 Primaries, and despite the DLC warnings that too much red meat is bad for the diet, we aren't quite ready to do away with it yet.

The conversation that Roemer began should be among the Democratic Establishement, and should include the considerations of why they are so out of touch from the Party's grassroots, why their hand-picked candidate cannot stir up support, and why they keep trying to paper over the differences between the Democratic Party and the Grover Norquist Party.

So long, Tim Roemer, and thanks for sparking these necessary conversations among Democrats.

Update: Is this Roemer quote in his statement today supposed to be a promise or a threat?: "I will be continuing this fight for the heart and soul of this party." I wish you the same success you've had thus far...

The Rundown -- February 7

2005-02-07T16:18:00.000-05:00

And that's the ballgame... Tim Roemer drops out.

ABC News takes a VERY in-depth look at the future of the DNC under Dean. This is very definitely worth the read -- and is as informative as Lizza's piece last week on the process to this point. The ABC News piece includes names being tossed around as part of the inner circle, the immediate plans for the next six months, and some angry quotes from Democratic (soon to be ex-Democratic) fundraisers. One even confesses that much of the anger comes from the fact that the National Party members are in open rebellion against their Washington counterparts, including consultants, Congressional leadership, and fundraisers.

This is supposed to be a pro-Dean column, suggesting that Establishment, centrist Democrats should embrace a Dean Chairmanship. Unfortunately, it scared me off with the last line, suggesting that Dean may even usher in Evan Bayh as a Presidential nominee (not deliberately). Still, the piece has its good points:

"And then there was the former governor of Vermont, his stature alternately enhanced and diminished by the company he was keeping. Substantively, there wasn’t much daylight between Dean and his rivals. Like them, he pledged to run a '50-state campaign,' ticking off his support in red domains such as Florida and Oklahoma. Like them, he caressed every local-party G-spot he could put his fingers on, promising a flood of DNC cash for down-ticket races. But unlike them, Dean sparked a genuine jolt of excitement, closing his talk with a story about an Evangelical Christian who, despite disagreeing with him about abortion and homosexuality, supported his presidential run because Dean refused to compromise his beliefs. 'We can change the way we talk,' Dean intoned to lusty cheers, 'but we need to remain people of deep conviction!'"

Novak thinks the Republicans are about to unleash their "Dean file" -- oppo research from the Presidential campaign.

What a shock... The New Republic's Noam Scheiber thinks the process for DNC Chairman is "too democratic" -- as in, not a backroom deal. Apparently, James Carville has an ally. And apparently, the DNC Chairmanship is not the only thing closed to debate in Scheiber's mind. He has also discovered the way for Democrats to win elections, and his theory is apparently closed for discussion:

"Making this kind of election democratic would almost invariably favor the liberal candidate. But, of course, it's the ability to win over moderates that determines whether a party can win a general election. (I don't feel like litigating the case all over again, other than to say that Kerry lost despite unprecedented turnout and energy on the left.)"

Just a fun sidenote... looks like the College Republicans are getting a head start on all that lying and cheating.

The Houston Chronicle catches on, and has a pretty standard piece on the Democratic Party wars.

Looks like Harry Reid may be learning that the RNC plays hardball, and the only way to win is to stop looking for friends and start hitting back. The RNC sent out a mailer entitled "Reid All About It" which called Reid the "chief obstrucitonist" and attacked elements of his voting record. This is a good example of why the leadership should come from an easy blue state, where they don't feel the need to sell out their party in order to stay in office.

Nicholas Lemann at The New Yorker has to ask the question: "Why is Everyone Mad at the Mainstream Media?"

Looks like we might soon know who Deep Throat is... according to John Dean, he is of ailing health, and Ben Bradlee already has the obituary ready to publish. Hmm... ailing health... Gerald Ford? William Rehnquist? The pope? The pope... I find the image of the pope meeting with Bob Woodward in a garage entertaining.

And I lied yesterday when I said I had found my all-time favorite letter to the editor. Actually, I didn't lie -- it's just that I've already found another letter that competes with, if not surpasses, yesterday's selection:

"Re "A Suicidal Selection," Commentary, Feb. 4: I am supporting Howard Dean for chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

"I am sick of the ignorant, corrupt, bullying, hypocritical liars who control the Republican Party and the country. I am sick of the GOP spin machines that distort every opposing view and portray even the idea of dissent as tantamount to treason.

"I am sick of the media, which are either in the pocket of the Republicans or so cowed by right-wing bullies that they dare not raise their voices to oppose the policies of the Bush administration.

"I am sick of policies that try to ram one party's view of religion down everyone else's throat, of the vilification of gays for political gain, and of immoral and unnecessary wars started on blatantly false pretenses. But most of all, I am sick of Democrats who do not have the courage to speak up against all of the many stupid and evil things that this administration has done, is doing and will continue to do as long as nobody calls them on it.

"Dean is not a perfect man, but he does have the courage to say what he knows to be true, even when it is politically risky.

"Dean has the intelligence and the courage to inspire people to join the party and the organizational skills to raise money and build a truly national party."

"Michael Vanier
"Pasadena"

RealDems column: Our National Spokesman

2005-02-07T15:14:00.000-05:00

Last year, after it became clear that John Kerry would be the Democratic nominee and all of his rivals had dropped out of the race, I wrote an open letter to Sen. Kerry. I explained why I hadn't supported him, what he could do to win over skeptical Democrats like me, and wished him the best of luck, because he was now carrying the hopes of the everyone who wanted to see Bush returning to Crawford, Texas.

Today, I have the pleasure of congratulating the new hope of the Democratic Party -- Howard Dean, who will become Chairman of the National Party on Saturday, February 12. Tim Roemer, Dean's last rival, dropped out today after garnering virtually no support from members of the Democratic Party (a Party Roemer may want to become familiar with if he would like a future in it).

Well, the pressure is now on. Finally, my candidate won, and I will be out of excuses if he is not successful. Based on the current slate of opinion articles, the general mood of the Democratic Establishment seems to be acceptance and reassurance. Yes, it now appears Dean will lead the Party, they concede, but most people can't even name the Chairman of either Party. And of course, they insist, he isn't nearly as liberal as his image suggests. Some Party leaders have even shot warnings at the incoming Chairman -- with Pelosi saying she believed Dean would take his lead from Congressional leaders, and even suggesting that his ascendency was an impending "crisis."

For the most part, Dean has played the role of the peacemaker within the Party -- promising that he will fall in line, that he will not publicly challenge elected Democrats, and that he will keep a low profile.

But Dean would also be wise to remember the unique opportunity he will have as the Party's chief spokesman. While the idea of "Dean as spokesman" may frighten the Party Establishment, it should be noted that Dean won this Chairmanship in spite of the Old Guard, and not because of it. He owes them nothing. I am not suggesting that he purposely make waves, but that he also shouldn't curb his instincts to please those who don't support him in the first place. Dean's support comes from the grassroots of the Party. That is his constituency, and that is the group that needs a national spokesman.

With the highest profile of any Democratic Chairman in recent history, Dean could not only be a successful Chairman -- he could become a new kind of Chairman. Just because most Party Chairs fade into the background and are rarely known outside Washington and a handful of political junkies, doesn't mean that the trend must continue. He should ignore the fears of the hand-wringing skeptics and emerge as a true leader of the Party -- not just a glorified fundraiser. He should bring the same skills to the Chairmanship that he brought to the Presidential campaign: a lust for going after Republicans, an olive branch to activists ignored by the Party, and a message of empowerment that made activists out of previously apathetic citizens. As Kathy Sullivan, Chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said of Dean: "He gave the Democratic Party its swagger back. He reminded them that they should not act like a beaten dog." It is that energy, and not just fundraising or tactics, that Dean needs to bring with him to the job.

Two years ago, Dean waged a Presidential campaign that seemed to defy all rules of precedent. For the first time, the outsider became the best-funded candidate in the field, defying conventional wisdom. Once again, conventional wisdom is at play in the minds of Official Washington. Party Chairs fade into the background. Party Chairs follow the lead of Congressional leaders. Party Chairs really don't matter. As he did two years ago, Howard Dean is in a perfect position to turn that conventional wisdom on its head. So good luck, Dr. Dean... the hopes of the Democratic Party are now -- finally -- with you.

Al From: Working to "help the Republican President enact his fiscal agenda"

2005-02-06T04:39:00.000-05:00

This started out being part of the regular Rundown, but it definitely deserves its own post. This is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

From The Washington Post: In the "well, that explains a lot" category, check out what team DLC founder and CEO Al From is playing for...

"After brief pleasantries on the phone the other day, Thomas J. Donohue got down to business with a top health insurance executive. 'We're in a new year and a new time," Donohue said smoothly. "Can we put you on the list and get your money?'

"The executive said yes, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was $100,000 richer. So, in effect, was President Bush's push to rein in trial lawyers and lower taxes.

"The chamber is at the forefront of a quiet revolution in business lobbying. Corporate groups now raise big money to advance broad issues, largely to help the Republican president enact his fiscal agenda. ...

"The chamber has hired the Swiss Guard of paid consultants from both political parties. Several showed up at a recent dinner hosted by Donohue at the chamber, including Al From, chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council.

"Donohue is careful to say, 'We're not an arm of the Republican Party. We need to engage the moderate Democrats.'"

RealDems.org Flashback -- April 16, 2004

2005-02-06T04:16:00.000-05:00

Howard Dean for Chairman of the DNC

Earlier this week, New York Times columnist Bill Safire outlined a hypothetical Kerry Cabinet. After "appointing" the obvious people to the obvious positions (Holbrooke to State, Gephardt to Labor…), he considered a role for Howard Dean. The solution became obvious to him - the former doctor should become the U.S. Surgeon General. Safire was not the first pundit tempted to incorporate Dean's medical background into his political future. In fact, in the months since Dean withdrew from the race, many have speculated that he will receive strong consideration to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. But there is a better position for Howard Dean that makes a greater use of his abilities: Chairman of the DNC.

Dean's contribution to the 2004 race, and Democratic politics in general, was not based on his former profession, and was not even based on his health care plan. His legacy in the race was revitalizing a lifeless Party and establishing a stronger connection between the voters and their leaders. These are qualities that the Democratic Establishment would be wise to embrace.

Practically speaking, Dean would be ideal for the position. The Chairman of the Party has three roles:

First, he must be a strong public advocate of the Party. Throughout the Primary season, Dean was the only Democrat to raise money for a Congressional candidate, the only major candidate to outline his hopes for a new direction for Democrats, and the only Democrat to attempt to reconnect the Party to its grassroots base. This, in addition to the new (and disproportionately young) voters he brought into the process, makes him the ideal choice to lead the Democratic Party.

Second, he must keep the Republican Party on the defensive. One of Dean's undisputed strengths throughout the campaign was the fervor with which he went after the Bush Administration. At a time when Democrats were afraid to highlight their differences with the President, Dean demonstrated the courage to speak out on the war, tax cuts, and Bush's unfunded education policy. Far from the political suicide the Establishment predicted, the public absorbed the harsh criticism, and Bush's stratospheric poll numbers began their long (and continued) tumble.

Third, he must be able to raise enough money to make the DNC competitive with their wealthy GOP counterpart. Dean's record-breaking fundraising totals during the campaign proved this ability beyond a doubt. More importantly, he revolutionized the way the money was raised - reaching out to small donors as opposed to the rich contributors usually targeted by the leadership of both Parties.

Many Dean supporters have become frustrated with the Party establishment, which they consider a coalition of the DNC and the DLC. But while the DLC has a deliberate centrist agenda, the DNC is only a vehicle for the contemporary Democratic wisdom. It is not in and of itself a negative force on the Party. If the leadership of the DNC were reformed, the power of the DLC within the Party would diminish.

Terry McAuliffe's term as Chairman of the DNC will expire in January 2005. Although the position is technically an elected position, a Kerry Presidency would give him overwhelming influence in the process (McAuliffe was handpicked by Clinton after being one of his most successful fundraisers). Kerry would be wise to demonstrate his commitment to the voters Dean energized throughout the campaign by advocating for Dean as Party Chairman.

The Rundown -- February 6

2005-02-06T03:24:00.000-05:00

Roger Simon spends four pages of U.S. News and World Report considering the "Dem Blues." Lots of quotes by Bill Daly (who has already been frustrating me lately) including one that since Vietnam, Democrats have had to prove they are pro-American. This from the guy who's father wasn't such a big fan of those protesters either...

Another little blurb on Feingold... this one has the interesting distinction of making several mistakes in just a couple of paragraphs... first of all, it ignores the new and powerful force of grassroots politics (the kind that makes frontrunners out of previously obscure politicians), and it also lists Howard Dean as a potential 2008 candidate. Um... he's out of the running, and busy with some other job.

Lengthy Boston Globe piece: Kerry considers his mistakes and looks to the future.

The Indy Star (hello to all my Indiana friends) takes a look at Bayh's odds of winning the nomination, and the Presidency. They conclude that he may not have a place in the Democratic Party. Bayh is a Democrat?

Two Indy Star pieces in a row... this one regrets that Tim Roemer's candidacy has (or will next week) failed. And of course, they take the cookie cutter view that his defeat has everything to do with his abortion views -- not that he can't relate to the Party's grassroots, not that he sells out his own principles at every opportunity, not that he is more conciliatory than any Party Chairman should ever hint at being, but because of a single issue, that the "activists" just can't look past...

George Will starts this Newsweek op-ed nobly enough, talking about Jefferson, but soon denigrates into yet another rant against the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party -- bashing Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy -- and throwing in Harry Reid for whom he reserves the observation that "Dean-speak is contagious."

The Rundown -- February 1 - 5

2005-02-06T02:30:00.000-05:00

February 5

And the last domino falls... Donnie Fowler drops out of the race and endorses Dean.

Will Lester summarizes the pros and cons Dean will bring to the job -- nothing new or interesting except for this fun quote from Kathy Sullivan (NH Dem Chair): "He gave the Democratic Party its swagger back. He reminded them that they should not act like a beaten dog."

Todd Purdum focuses on the "comeback" aspect of the story.

Jeff Zeleny gets virtually everybody who is anybody to comment on Dean as Chairman... Kennedy and Harkin sound promising... Durbin sounds nervous... Lieberman sounds depressed.

David Brooks joins the party (little "p") and uses his pop-sociology to dismiss "Deanism" and really the entire Real Democrat movement. Apparently, this is us, and we're just as elitist as Brooks has been claiming since Bobos in Paradise...:

"They tend to be to the left of the country, especially on social and security issues. They may not agree with Michael Moore on everything, but many enjoyed "Fahrenheit 9/11." Perhaps they are among the hundreds of thousands of daily visitors to Daily Kos and other blogs that savage Democrats who violate party orthodoxy.

"Many Republicans are mystified as to why the Democrats, having lost another election, are about to name Howard Dean as party chairman and have allowed Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy to emerge unchallenged as the loudest foreign policy voices.

"The answer, as Mickey Kaus observes in Slate, is that the party is following the money. The energy and the dough are in the MoveOn.org wing, which is not even a wing of the party, but the head and the wallet. Only the most passionate and liberal voices can stir up this network of online donors from the educated class.

"Howard Dean may not be as liberal as he appeared in the primaries, but in 1,001 ways - from his secularism to his stridency - he embodies the newly dominant educated class, which is large, self-contained and assertive."

Chris Bowers has a response to Brooks...

Adam Clymer might not be a major league asshole, but that doesn't mean I understand the praise he lavishes on Terry McAuliffe.

And one of my favorite all-time letters to the editor:

Where Are the Antiwar Activists? Everywhere.

"Dennis Drabelle has had trouble finding impassioned and eloquent opponents of the Iraq war, so he believes they don't exist ["Where Has All the Eloquence Gone?" Outlook, Jan. 30]. He is wrong. Such voices have been crying to be heard since before the war began, only to be ignored or dismissed by mainstream media, as has been well documented by groups such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

"Meanwhile those of us who seek out news from alternative sources have been moved, shaken to the core even, by the words of such speakers as Medea Benjamin, Frida Berrigan, Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Howard Dean, Naomi Klein, Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Arundhati Roy, Cornel West, Howard Zinn, members of 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, and United for Peace and Justice, to name just a very few.

"Open your eyes and your ears, Drabelle.

"Pick up a progressive journal, visit an indie media Web site, tune into a Pacifica radio station. You're going to be amazed at what you find.

"-- Phyllida Paterson
Silver Spring"

February 4

First news, than analysis...

Another Feingold for President piece... he says he will only run if the support is there. Why should we pay attention? Check out this section:

"Feingold said his double-digit victory in a swing state, despite Republican fire over his opposition to key Bush policies such as the Iraq war, the USA Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind education law, "gives me a little bit of a forum to say, 'Look, Democrats ought to be proud of their views, and stand tall to defend them.'

"That makes me think more about what we could do nationally if we had more of that kind of approach . . . I'm interested in sort of a spirited Democratic Party that would be not afraid to disagree."

News on the DNC race continues to move in the same direction, as Simon Rosenberg dropped out of the race today.

Bill Richardson says he is supporting Dean, and although he issues a warning that he needs to be more centrist, he concedes that Dean won "fair and square."

This AP article ends with an odd quote by Pelosi about Dean: "He hasn't been elected yet. Why don't we spend time on the crises we have."

And now onto some analysis...

Poor, poor Jonathan Chait... he's having a hard time coming to terms with the man who he once started an "I hate..." blog about taking control of the Party. And I'm sure he speaks for dozens of DLC Democrats who are watching their last hold on power waning. Sorry Jon, the bad old days are over. "Now it's our Party... we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."

I don't generally link to articles by complete unknowns, but this one by Rufus Foshee is pretty good in explaining the downfall of the Party leaders, and who we need to take the party back from.

February 3

Before I get to today's DNC news, I must highlight this Must Read on the ascendency of Progressive Democrats of America to battle the DLC.

And on another piece of random news, Peter Brown of the Orlando Sentinel writes about the "childish" Democrats who are obstructing Bush's agenda. He's complaining, but if we are finally going to oppose, I think it's a plus.

Alright, onto the DNC race...

This is a fascinating and smart look at the inside of the DNC race and how the rules have changed since past contests. This is definitely a Must Read, finally examining the intricacies of the insider/outsider question instead of relying on existing stereotypes. On the failure of the Stop Dean movement:

"But every attempt to rig the race failed, revealing that the levers of power in the Democratic Party have shifted out of Washington's hands. From the congressional leadership to the governors to the Clintons, top Democrats were all terrified of a Dean victory. They believe he will turn what is essentially a low-key fund-raising and management position into a lightning rod for GOP attacks, eclipsing other voices and emphasizing exactly the elements of the party that weeks of postelection soul-searching had determined the Democrats needed to play down (e.g., its liberal stance on cultural issues and its weakness on national security). And yet none of them could stop him."

Timothy Oliphant thinks that Dean has the perfect set of skills to lead the Party. Oliphant was not a fan of the Presidential campaign.

USA Today has a fairly dull (but there are some interesting quotes) on the vindication of Dean becoming Chairman, and the fear that is inspiring in some of the Democratic leaders.

Terence Samuel's column on Dean focuses on how the DLC types are adjusting to the idea that the man they see as a disaster is about to take control of the Party.

Garance Franke-Ruta has found the problem with the Dean campaign -- Deanie Babies.

February 2

First, some fun SOTU news of the day (although I'm convinced in this case a picture is worth a thousand words, and there is just no way to improve on the photo above.) Alright -- so Bush wants to destroy social security (which made for an interesting moment of Democrats booing?) and start a few more wars, even though he says that we do not impose our values on other countries (and then spends the rest of the speech talking about imposing our values on other countries.) The event will probably be remembered most for the shot of the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq hugging a woman who voted in Sunday's Iraqi election. May I also say that I found the ink on the index fingers of the Republicans in Congress to be cheap? I really don't think I was the only one...

Washington Post (emphasis on social security)

Tom Shales on Bush's performance and his perception-as-reality gig. He was one cocky son of a bitch, that's for sure.

Of course, the only thing that could actually top the State of the Union was the Democratic response. As embarrassing as this may be for me as a member of the Democratic Party, I'm afraid I'm going to have to include a link to the transcript on this one... this is very sad. Anything that starts out this way CAN'T be a promising sign:

REID: Now that you've heard from the president, I appreciate your taking a few minutes with us as we give our views on how we can live up to the American promise.

I was born and raised in the high desert of Nevada in a tiny town called Searchlight. My dad was a hard rock miner. My mom took in wash. I grew up around people of strong values, even if they rarely talked about them. They loved their country, worshiped God, never shunned hard work and never asked for special favors.

My life has been very different from what I imagined growing up, but no matter how far I've traveled, Searchlight is still the place I go back to and still the place I call home.

A few weeks ago, I joined some friends of mine for a bite to eat at the Nugget, Searchlight's only restaurant. We were sitting down in a booth when a young boy, about 10 years old, named Devon, walked up to us.

Carrying a skateboard under his arm, he said, "Senator Reid, when I grow up, I want to be just like you."

Well, the truth is Devon could probably do a lot better. But the point still holds, and it's this: No one ever had to tell young Devon to dream big dreams. No one ever had to teach him that America is a place of possibility. He knows those things because they're borne deep in all Americans."

Now I'll stop torturing the Democrats and bring up the one spot of promise within the Party (other than Barbara Boxer)... the DNC race, where the dominos have really already fallen, and the rest is just for show...

Ahh... Nagourney's piece today not only declares that Dean is almost assured the DNC Chairmanship, but it is the top story on the New York Times website.

And again with Dan Balz...

The Union Leader

The New York Observer has a piece on the differing tracks of Dean and Clinton (Hillary). Also has an unbelievable quote from a man who thinks donors should have a say in the process of selecting a Chairman: "If you look at the 400 or 500 D.N.C. members, somebody told me that only [a handful] have written a check to the Democratic Party, which is ridiculous... I mean, they’re good Democrats, but they don’t have a stake. But we who write the checks, we don’t get a vote!" If these are the kinds of Democrats that are threatening to desert the Party if Dean wins, good riddance.

From the San Francisco Chronicle, State Sen. Carole Midgen has endorsed Dean saying: "I take a page from the young people: He still sets the room on fire.''

This article is so damn good, I can't believe I got it from The Washington Times... long excerpt coming up:

"A greater contrast with outgoing Chairman Terry McAuliffe could not be imagined. Dean's now-expected victory in the election to chair and steer the party will mark the dramatic repudiation of the moderate centrist, third-way Democratic Leadership Council policies that the party has followed over the past decade and a half.

At first, these policies appeared to succeed brilliantly with the election and re-election of President Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. But they failed to prevent the Republicans winning control of the House of Representatives, with all its fiscal powers, in 1994 and holding on to it in four successive congressional elections since then.

Further, indecisive, shifting, self-absorbed and too complacent Democratic Party presidential candidates in 2000 and 2004 allowed President George W. Bush to win election and re-election while pursuing the most activist conservative agenda in more than 70 years, rolling back one long-established Democratic institution and policy after another going all the way back to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.

For the party grass roots, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's clear defeat in the national vote and across vast regions of the country Nov. 2 damned the idea of cautious "me too" political strategies. Kerry flip-flopped and temporized about his stand on the Iraq war like a liberal Hamlet. And the rose-colored, Pollyanna, feel-good messages crafted by his master-strategist Robert Shrum, who had also guided Vice President Al Gore to his political doom in the 2000 election, fizzled against the focused, raw-meat Republican personal attacks against him.

By turning to Dean now the Democrats are showing that they are determined to answer the Republicans back in kind:

Instead of waffling on Iraq, they are turning to the former Vermont governor who made his name in the spring of 2003 by being the first prominent Democrat to roll up his sleeves and blast the decision to go to war.

Instead of politely ignoring ferocious attacks framed in the politics of personal destruction, they will try to do the same thing to the president and other prominent Republicans.

Instead of pouring scores of millions of dollars into huge registration campaigns, they will emulate the successful Republicans and seek to use their vast financial and information-technology resources to target existing registered voters and sympathetic groups and mobilizing them.

Instead of letting the Republicans continue to brand the Democrats as the party of big government, the entrenched federalism that has defined America for more than 70 years, Dean advocates the kind of new de-federalization advocated by the likes of former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart: giving power back to the states and the grass roots.

Instead of focusing on national fundraising and credibility with national television and media columnists and producers, Dean and his new team will look to rebuild the old Democratic Party strength with its traditional Hispanic constituency. Bush and his own master-strategist Karl Rove's longtime wooing of that major community paid off big Nov. 2, when they won an estimated 40 percent or more of the Hispanic vote.

Also, Dean, a fiscal conservative during his more than four terms as governor of Vermont, will continue the remarkable reversal of the Democrats' traditional fiscal image begun by Clinton's success in balancing the federal budget while presiding over a booming economy. He will be a far more credible figure than Kerry -- successfully labeled as a big-spending liberal from his 20-year voting record in the Senate -- in presenting the Dems as the party of fiscal prudence and conservatism, the role that was held by the Republicans for more than 130 years from Abraham Lincoln to the current president's father, George Herbert Walker Bush.

Most of all, Dean will make the Democrats interesting again, and he will free them of the reflexive "me-too-ism" that has kept them on the defensive against the GOP for more than 30 years, with the exception of Clinton's remarkable, trend-defying career. For more than a generation, Republicans could count on firing devastating political missiles at the Dems with impunity. Only Clinton ever really succeeded in firing back. But in the coming era of Dean-ball, that may be about to change."

Great Donna Brazille quote in this one: "The door is shut. This thing is done. Put the fork in it."

American Prospect has a few different perspectives on the benifits vs. obstacles of a Dean Chairmanship. Tomasky (who is personally torn), articulates why firing up the Party activists is a good thing for the Party:

"Every presidential-election season, they watch as candidates scamper away from the word “liberal” during the primary-season debates; they come to terms with the fact that they’re going to for vote a guy who supported the Iraq War, or supported the death penalty, or was afraid even to defend the theory of evolution (to say nothing of the fact that Democratic nominees won’t articulate the central credo of liberal thought: that government exists to ameliorate the free market’s inherent inequities and has actually done many good things).

Generals have to make sure their front-line infantrymen get good food and liquor, the better to ensure that they’re willing to take bullets. And parties need to make sure that their front-line activists are engaged and feel represented, so they’ll go out and do things (yes, people “went out and did things” last year, but that was to stop George W. Bush, not because John Kerry or Terry McAuliffe inspired them a great deal). Dean as chairman could probably make the most loyal Democrats feel once again that they have a real stake in the party. And that could produce some energy, and the energy could lead to action, and the action could produce ideas, and the ideas could eventually get through to people like my friend in New York, who could, in a conversation two years from now, say to me something like, 'Hey, it’s good to see that the Democrats have some life in them again.'"

Dan Gougherty at Democratic Underground is encouraged by the "bark" of many Congressional Democrats and believes the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is finally being heard.

February 1

The big reporters weigh in on yesterday's DNC bombshell today...

First Nagourney...

Second Balz...

Tim Grieve... (alright, "big reporter" might be a stretch for Grieve, but I like him...)

The Christian Science Monitor editorial page hopes that the "centrist Clinton Democrats rise up soon" and stop the Democrats from "making a big mistake."

Dick Polman (Philadelphia Inquirer)... and this one features his "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for" line from Saturday. I can't believe people think that is a BAD quote for a potential leader of the Democratic Party to say. Hell, anyone who doesn't agree with that has no business seeking the post.

And Donna Brazille has an interesting piece in Roll Call (no link without subscription) An excerpt -- pay particularly close attention to the last paragraph:

"But just as you appeared to be on the verge of catching fire in the Iowa caucuses, the winter turned harsh. People loved you in their hearts, but they became frightened of what it would mean for the Democratic Party to have you serve as our standard-bearer. Some of those same people are now involved in a last-ditch effort to stop your candidacy.

Your youthful, tech-savvy supporters were new to the game of hardball presidential politics. They were playing in a league where the rules change based on who's in the game. Soon, some party insiders flush with cash went to work to cool your jets. You haven't quite been the same since the moment they made and paid for a video comparing you to Osama bin Laden.

Perhaps this time you will make it to the top. But, as you have experienced, the climb up the ladder from ex-governor, ex-presidential candidate to chairman can be steep. The hurdles now, like the obstacles you confronted in the Democratic primaries, are mainly about ego. For all its talk about inclusiveness, the Democratic Party is extremely turf conscious. Thus, it's incumbent on you to reach out and bring these people, the very ones who went to the mat to stop you, into the fold.

The bigger fish in the Democratic pond (the party is still swimming upstream) are truly bottom feeders eating away their young, casting aside callously their base and ignorant of the sharks circling our old coalitions. They have dismissed an entire generation of potential leaders when they held power by failing to lift up those who were coming behind. With you, some of the people who have been kept down found their voice. No matter what happens next week, keep fighting for them."

And as for today's AFL-CIO endorsement...

Well, it turned out to be a non-endorsement.

Which led to this important development: Frost dropped out of the race. The dominos are starting to fall...

Also, long shot contender (but fairly impressive in the forums) David Leland dropped out early in the day.

This DNC story is pre-endorsement, but post NY forum... Katrina Vanden Heuvel thinks Dean "gets" the way to mobilize Democrats and he must've studied up on Zach Exley's (former MoveOn director) letter to the next DNC Chair.

Jerome Armstrong of MyDD.com explains why Dean may be the only candidate who can unite the Democrats and what has made the Dean juggernaut so symbolic of the new, non-ideological intra-Party wars.

And in non-DNC news (fewer and farther between as the vote approaches...)

Russ Feingold says he is considering running for President in '08.

The Nation's Jon Nichols spotlights Dick Durbin, one of the most underrated Senators in Washington. On a sidenote, he's also one of the nicest Senators in Washington.

And to back up Nichols assertion... no article link for this, but MSNBC is reporting that Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin are calling for a filibuster on Alberto Gonzales. UPDATE: CNN is reporting that the filibuster is off. Damn.

And apparently Barabara Boxer is embracing her new role as the Democratic attack dog.

Why Bush Might Win on Social Security

2005-02-06T02:11:00.000-05:00

George Bush understands something about American politics that many Democrats fail to grasp. He understands that public opinion is fluid -- and that sometimes you can win just by sparking a debate. The Democrats seem content that a majority of Americans are skeptical of social security privatization, and that (for once) most Congressional Democrats are united against Bush's plans. But by raising the possibility of privatizing social security, Bush has changed the game and moved the entire debate to the Right.

As a candidate in 2000, Bush surprised the political Establishment by calling for "reform" in social security (long considered the third rail of American politics). The truly surprising aspect of it was how quickly he was able to sway public opinion and legitimize privatization as an option. Before long, Al Gore was calling for his own version of reform (Social Security Plus) and what had been viewed as a consensus issue was suddenly dominating the debate.

Of course, when Bush took office and the market went into recession, the idea of gambling away our futures didn't look as appealing, and the idea was quickly forgotten. Over the next four years, other issues dominated the headlines, and Bush's plan was barely mentioned in the Presidential campaign.

In order for Democrats to stop the Administration from dismantling social security, they must do more than stonewall, and they must under no circumstance compromise. Instead, they should offer their own proposal -- possibly raising the cap on payroll taxes to $110,000 -- a plan Bush would never accept. He will reject the plan, but at least by responding, he will be on defense.

Bush has demonstrated again and again that an oft-repeated argument (no matter how flimsy) can move public opinion. The Democrats cannot allow Bush to be the only one pushing on this issue. As with the rest of the Bush agenda, the Democrats must push back, forcing a response, and changing the debate.

Now that it's Dean, who will be Executive Director?

2005-02-04T16:26:00.000-05:00

Howard Dean already has the DNC race locked up with 250 public pledges -- more than the number of votes needed to win the campaign, and a small buzz has started about who Dean will choose as his right hand man.

Well, I will cast my vote (you know... if I had a vote) with Simon Rosenberg, who abandoned his own run for Democratic Chairman earlier today, and immediately endorsed and praised Dean. Rosenberg has made his career with the centrist New Democrat Network, and their are many issues on which I disagree with him. But, unlike the DLC, Rosenberg's NDN was not hostile to Dean's Presidential bid, and was quick to see the benifits of a grassroots campaign. He was early to recognize the power of the internet and its role in increasing democracy and activism.

As the executive director, his centrist positions would not have any impact on the positions of Democratic candidates, and his mere presence in the organization may satisfy (principled) moderates who are concerned about Dean at the helm of the group. And appointing Rosenberg would have the added benifit of annoying the DLC -- Rosenberg's rival group in the centrist movement (much has been made in the media about the not-so-friendly competition between Al From and Simon Rosenberg).

Many have suggested that Donnie Fowler, the "last man standing" against Dean (Roemer doesn't count) should be considered for the second in command at the DNC. Fowler has obvious appeal for reform minded Democrats, and his refrain about the "aristocracy of consultants" certainly struck a chord, even among die-hard Dean supporters. But Fowler is unteseted, comes across as overly ambitious, and has refused to back out of the race to create a consensus. Thinking back to the Democratic Primary, it is very unlikely that Kerry would've tapped Edwards if Edwards had opted to stay in the race through the convention. Fowler has every right to stay in the race to the end, and in some ways that determination is admirable. But it is not likely to earn him a shot under Dean at the DNC.

Emergence of an early dark horse...

2005-02-04T15:11:00.000-05:00

Looks like Feingold is getting a bit more serious about this Presidential thing...

In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feingold reveals that he has started a PAC, and plans to travel the country to gauge interest in a potential White House bid. But he also says he would not run unless the support was there. Feingold briefly considered a run in '04, but claims his chances of entering that race were never greater than 1 in 100.

The most promising section of the piece, Feingold explains his political philosophy, and his own beliefs about the best direction for the Party...

"Feingold said his double-digit victory in a swing state, despite Republican fire over his opposition to key Bush policies such as the Iraq war, the USA Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind education law, "gives me a little bit of a forum to say, 'Look, Democrats ought to be proud of their views, and stand tall to defend them.'
"That makes me think more about what we could do nationally if we had more of that kind of approach . . . I'm interested in sort of a spirited Democratic Party that would be not afraid to disagree."

"In the case of the 2001 anti-terrorism Patriot Act, Feingold was the only senator to vote no, although many Democrats who voted for it, including 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry, later joined criticism of the law."

The Democrats could certainly do worse.

Looking for a little romance...

2005-02-03T02:02:00.000-05:00

Some things need no comment. Captions are welcome though...

Lessons from Lazio

2005-02-01T17:57:00.000-05:00

Rick Lazio (as in, former Republican Congressman who lost a Senate race to Hillary Clinton and his been largely forgotten about since) has just suggested on John Gibson's Fox News show that Democrats should elect Joe Lieberman as a Chairman. Yeah, THAT might happen. Smart idea. Speaking of which, why haven't the Republicans named Lincoln Chaffee as their Chairman?

How to Speak Republican, Part II

2005-02-01T02:19:00.000-05:00

Last week, our lessons on learning to speak Republican demonstrated the translation of the popular Republican expression, "northeastern liberal." Like words from many languages, Republicanisms often become blended into regular English -- the same way we have borrowed "entrepreneur" from the French, and "kindergarten" from the Germans. As we discussed last week, when people say "northeastern liberal," they are actually using the Republican phrase for northeasterner" (which has subsequently become synonomous with anyone who was not born in a state that once belonged to the Confederacy).

This week, I want to take a look at the Republican expression "outside the mainstream." There are several definitions of this phrase in a Republican to English dictionary, but I will list the most common definitions...

1. Someone who believes in science.
2. Anyone who does not think Ronald Reagan belongs on Mt. Rushmore.
3. The 49% of Americans who did not vote for George W. Bush in the last election.
4. Democrats.
5. Any other non-Republicans.
6. Anyone who does not love war -- regardless of the country we are waging it against

The multiple definitions, of course, make it difficult for a beginner to use this phrase properly in a sentence. For instance, if I were to say, "Nancy Reagan is outside the mainstream" I would clearly mean that she violated definition 1 (for her support of stem cell research) and the context would clearly preclude definitions 3, 4, 5, 6 and especially 2 from being applicable.

Here are a couple other sentences to try...

A. "Barbara Boxer is outside the mainstream."
B. "Michael Moore is outside the mainstream."
C. "Joe Lieberman is outside the mainstream."
D. "Barry Goldwater is outside the mainstream."

Answer Key:

A. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
B. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
C. (3, 4 -- okay, probably just 4)
D. (3 -- it should be clear to all that Barry Goldwater could not have voted for Bush in either of his elections).

That concludes today's lesson. Be sure to check back next time when we will take a look at the phrase "liberate." One quick hint: liberate = BOOM!

The Rundown -- January 28 - 31

2005-02-01T01:09:00.000-05:00

Lots and lots of big DNC news -- the most determinate day in the race to this point -- and has even managed to make a dent in mainstream news, despite the wall to wall coverage of yesterday's Iraq election (summary: they voted).

So, the deal with the DNC... yesterday, a committee of 15 state party chairs (ADSC) voted to advise the full ADSC to endorse Donnie Fowler, which was being played as a major boost to Fowler's odds. But the endorsement was disregarded when the full ADSC voted today. Dean won an overwhelming majority, and easily won the endorsement on the first ballot. Lots of analysis on this development, which may end up being the knockout blow to the other candidates. In fact, following the announcement of the vote, Wellington Webb dropped out and immediately threw his support behind Dean. On to the analysis...

Beginning with The Hill, which declares that a Dean victory "looks like a sure thing."

With the support of those state Party Chairs, it looks like the DNC may be on the verge of representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

The story on Wellington Webb.

The next few stories were admittedly largely lifted from today's Note which came out before the endorsement was announced...

Dick Morris is a sick man, and it is unsurprising that he has "uncovered" yet another example of the Machiavellian tendencies of the Clinton family. But it is interesting to read the way a lunatic views the battle for the Democratic Party.

The Washington Post takes a look at the parallels between the Presidential race and the DNC race and determines that Dean's success thus far may be due to his optimism about the Party's future.

Brownstein also gets into the DNC game, saying (before today's ASDC endorsement) that the endorsement would essentially annoint Dean as Chairman.

And now for a complete subject change... New York Times magazine has a rather lengthy profile of Real Democrat and SEIU Chairman, Andy Stern.

January 30

The Boston Globe sees the basis of a Stop Dean movement beginning to take shape at the NY forum

January 28

Continuing our focus on the DNC race, the contenders meet in New York for their final regional forum. The vote takes place in DC two weeks from today.

Basic Dean v. Anti-Dean article in Salon.

Nice pro-Dean editorial.

And here's a really interesting development... Dean picked up the endorsement of Harold Ickes -- a sign of his independence from the Clintons or a sign that the Clinton's are resigned to a Dean Chairmanship?

And the L.A. Times gets into the DNC act (alright, in honor of the Ickes endorsement, I'll re-write that as the DNC ACT) with this conventional state-of-the-race piece by Barabak (Dean is still popular among the rank and file, blah blah blah, Party insiders have expressed concern, blah blah blah...)

Look -- some non-DNC news! Still on the current state of the Party, and if I'm not mistaken, still mentions the DNC race, but...

Also non-DNC... this one is just plain funny. Um... apparently the DLC has sold out to the left wing of the party. News to me. Let's declare victory and go home.

Excellent site that you will certainly want to check out and play around with. Newsmeat lists the political donations of every celebrity, media personality, athlete... important to note that Novak's declaration that he "thinks Johnny Carson was a Republican" appears to be inaccurate. Who would've thought Novak would get a story wrong?

More fun at the expense of the new donkey...

2005-01-28T18:09:00.000-05:00

The New Donkey Blog (written by DLC Policy Director Ed Kilgore) has come out in opposition to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales. Great. I'm always happy to gain allies. Particularly when they weigh in only after EVERY Democrat on the judiciary committee opposed Gonzales' confirmaition (including Feingold who supported John Ashcroft). But I do have a few comments about the last couple paragraphs of the post:

"But I don't, for the record, share the view of other Democrats that
"standing up" to Bush on Gonzales is some sort of political end in itself,
as part of a "strategy" of total opposition to everything Bush proposes on every
subject.

"Look, I dislike Bush and his administration far more than any I
canremember in a fairly long life. I certainly agree that an opposition
party must oppose, particularly when they have no power at all, and I definitely
want Democrats to oppose the many terrible things these guys are trying to do to
our country. But just blindly, and at a uniform decibal level, opposing every
single move Bush makes isn't "standing up for our principles"-- it amounts to
letting Karl Rove lead us around by the nose and completely determine our course
of action, in a way that obscures what we are for.

"It is very important that we pick and choose our fights. As a matter of
principle more than politics, I believe opposing Alberto Gonzales's confirmation
is a fight worth picking. But count me out of any future witch hunt against
Democrats who disagree, and let's think before we automatically move on to a
massive campaign to fight like banshees against every dim hack Bush tries to
appoint to relatively unimportant posts. "

Where to begin, where to begin. Alright, first of all, I appreciate the sarcastic quotation marks around "standing up." I posted several weeks ago that the differences within the party can be pretty easily reduced to the "Stand Up" Democrats against the "Reach Out" Democrats. That's an oversimplification, but... actually, it's not much of an oversimplification.

Second, I also appreciate the reassurance that Kilgore dislikes Bush as much as any President in his lifetime. I don't know why -- I just found that line amusing. Maybe it had something to do with my memory of David Talbot's article in 2003 about the mood of the Party in reaction to Bush ("they hate him and it's personal. They hate his frat boy smirk, his phony fly boy act, his cringe inducing mangling of the language...").

Finally, what is with this theory that Democrats should "pick our fights?" Why? Think of the (lack of) logic behind this argument: the law of fights is that you win some, you lose some. So, if you are only getting involved in the most important battles, you will by neccessity be losing some of those battles. I much prefer Paul Wellstone's theory that "sometimes you have to pick a fight in order to win it."

In a few miles, a sharp left turn...

2005-01-26T17:44:00.000-05:00

Richard Viguerie, one of the architects of the conservative movement and confirmed Right-wing nutjob, has written a book, America's Right Turn, on the ascendence of the movement. According to Viguerie, in the late 60s and early 70s, conservatives were looking for a way to bypass the media -- which they viewed as partisan liberal, and dismissive of conservatism. They turned to direct mail as a way to appeal directly to voters, and the results were immediately evident.

Viguerie is the first to note that Democrats have been very slow in competing with Republicans in terms of direct voter contact, but he believes that the past two years have shown the beginning of a movement built by Progressives. Of course, old fashioned direct-mail has been replaced by blogs and email campaigns, which holds even more promise because of the ability for voter interaction with campaigns and with other activists.

Conservatives were able to engage activists because they were the outsiders fighting against a center-left establishment. The sooner Democrats acknowledge that those conservatives ARE the establishment, the sooner we will see the results of our movement.

The Rundown -- January 26

2005-01-26T17:13:00.000-05:00

Deadliest day for U.S. troops since the beginning of the war... 37 troops are dead, most of them (31) in a helpcopter crash.

Brownstein covers MoveOn's entry into the DNC race. Best Pariser quote in the article: "Part of this, in the broad sense, is reintroducing the party and its base to each other."

Thom Hartmann tracks the history of the pro and anti-democracy forces in the U.S. and tells us why the tea is in the harbor. Best section:

"And, as in the days of the Minute Man, today we find inspiration in the Boston Tea Party-like effort of Barbara Boxer to challenge the Ohio vote, or her principled stand, along with John Kerry and Robert Byrd, against the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice.

The Founder's ideals - although under siege - are still alive in America."

They live on in the many Americans who support progressive causes with contributions, send letters to the editors of their local papers, make calls to talk shows, attend protest rallies, pamphleteer by email, correspond with their elected representatives, and support progressive candidates for office."

I was momentarily impressed with the headline: "Reed: Kerry’s vote on Iraq damaged his credibility." A quick look at the first paragraph showed that they were indeed quoting DLC President, Bruce Reed. Could it be that the DLC was finally conceding that support for the war was a mistake morally and politically? Nope. Reed was referring to the vote against the $87 billion. Some people never learn.

The vote for Alberto Gonzales broke down by party line in the judiciary Committee -- with even Russ Feingold (who voted to confirm Ashcroft) voting against Gonzales.

Rice was, as expected, confirmed with 13 no votes (12 Dems and Jim Jeffords).

Hmm... sounds like this former Kerry supporter is not exactly on-board for a second Kerry campaign -- and makes some excellent points about the problem with playing nice with bullies:

"Personally, I find it rather insulting that you would even consider running again. With all the political fodder you had at your disposal, you pulled your punches with an opponent that deserved to be embarrassed beyond all political belief. You chose to play nice with a guy who spread lies and innuendo about you and your military service. A guy who has done nothing but shirk his duties – even as President of the United States – and you let him get away with it by playing nice.

Remember, Senator Kerry, nice guys finish last in just about everything – especially politics. This is the crux of the problem for John Kerry and the Democrats. For the most part, they are all playing nice with the Republicans. Republicans who used dirty tactics to keep and further gain control. ou don’t play nice with bullies. You look ‘em straight in the eye and kick ‘em right square in the groin. So far, I’ve only seen a few Democrats that have the stones to do it. Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and Dennis Kucinich – to name a few – seem to represent the 'Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.'"

Do you speak Republican?

2005-01-26T02:00:00.000-05:00

In Republican, a person from the Northeast (and the northeast includes any state north of Virginia) is a "northeastern liberal." It's a fun game to play, and its the reason Republicans are able to classify John Kerry as a "northeastern liberal." Kerry's record in support of welfare reform, free trade, the Patriot Act, and the war in Iraq, and his opposition to gay marriage, may at first glance lead to questions about the use of the term when applied to Kerry. But a quick check of the record shows that Kerry's homestate is Massachusetts -- thus conclusively proving that he is a northeastern liberal.

The same quick test can be applied to Hillary Clinton -- who shares Kerry's support of welfare reform, free trade, the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, blah, blah, blah. Clinton is even able to one-up Kerry in the seemingly un-liberalness of her record by being a prominent member of the DLC, and by recently calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration and a more nuanced position on abortion. But once again, pundits have dubbed her a northeastern liberal (Clinton, of course, is from the New England state of Illinois).

I'm looking forward to the day when the term "northeastern liberal" can be applied to anyone in the Democratic Party and outside Mississippi. Daniel Inouye? Northeastern liberal from Hawaii. Jay Rockefeller? Northeastern liberal from West Virginia. Evan Bayh? Northeastern liberal from Indiana. But until the day that Republicans are able to stretch the term to include these names, I guess I will have to settle for a true northeastern liberal... Joe Lieberman.

The Rundown -- January 25 (part 2)

2005-01-25T15:23:00.000-05:00

Jesse Jackson Jr. participated in a panel in DC over the weekend for the Progressive Democrats of America.

Dean uses his column this week to discuss the importance of empowering voters and running elections from the ground up.

In the meantime, Dean announces another round of endorsements -- including the endorsement of Jesse Jackson Jr and several black DNC members.

The Nation picks up on a Media Matters report about the imbalance of guests on cable news on inauguration day. Nothing really new here, but it does help to prove the point for those stubborn conservatives who complain about a liberal media.

Also in The Nation, John Nichols gives Boxer the credit for the rare demonstration of backbone evident in Senate Democrats who today took to the floor and finally called the Bush Administration on its lies.

Another great piece on Barbara Boxer and her new role as spine of the Senate. One political scientist explains the dual strategies among Democrats in Congress this way: "Some members are bridge builders; ... others are bomb throwers."

I've almost never felt the desire to use the word "jaunty," but I will have to make an exception when trying to describe Dana Milbank's writing style in his Washington Post piece today on the Condi debate.

Will the fact that Michael Moore was snubbed from today's Oscar nomination finally stop the "liberal Hollywood" charge repeated by the Right-wing media?

Buzzflash editorial on the legacy of Paul Wellstone and a description of the new documentary, Wellstone!, on his life.

Speaking of Wellstone, Progressive News writes about building new movements to propel leaders like the late Minnesota Senator.

And in keeping with the Minnesota Senate theme, Mark Dayton declared today that he will be voting against Condoleezza Rice for Sec. of State because "I really don't like being lied to.. repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally."

The Rundown -- January 25

2005-01-25T02:35:00.000-05:00

The Sacramento Bee takes a look at Barbara Boxer and her new role in leading the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party (they didn't say that... but I really wish they had). Best line is the last line: " "But what I do believe in is keeping promises to the people," she said. "I told them election night - and I didn't know how prophetic this was - that if I had to stand alone, I will do it. I am not afraid."

Another article on Boxer -- this one from the San Francisco Chronicle. According to this piece, the split between the two California Senators (Boxer and the more moderate and accomodating Feinstein) illustrate the split within the Democratic Party. This one has several gems including:

"No one in the Senate has epitomized the term "bomb thrower" better than Boxer."

"The move was applauded by liberal activists, but she was derided as a leader of the 'X-Files' wing of the Democratic Party by Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas." (I just love pissing off Tom DeLay, and I want a T-shirt made with that X files comment on it...)

"Boxer's confrontation of Rice spurred Capitol speculation that she was trying to assume the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's role as the conscience of the Senate." (The Senate could surely use it.)

"Boxer has always made a point of being a fighter," Pitney said. "Feinstein's style is very different, and it is shaped by her record as a mayor. Mayors are generally dealmakers." (Yup, that's pretty much the Party split...)

"But some Democratic activists believe their party leaders in Washington were too docile during Bush's first term and failed to oppose policies such as the Patriot Act and the Leave No Child Behind education reforms." (You don't say...)

.... maybe it would've been easier for me to post the full text...

The Capital Times, normally a strong advocate of Russ Feingold, criticizes him for his approval of Bush nominees.

George Will has an interesting new reason for why moderates may prefer Dean to Frost for DNC: Dean may be the only candidate able to wrestly some power away from the Clintons, and thereby prevent Hillary from walking away with the 2008 Presidential nomination. Of course, Will also misunderstands the Democratic split -- calling John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton "northeastern liberals," as though they represent one wing of the Party. The truth is that Hillary is a DLC Democrat, Kerry is an Establishment liberal, and Dean is an activist Democrat. But no... for George Will, the fact that they all come from the Northeast region is enough to tie them together. I guess Lieberman would qualify as well.

Old Time Religion

2005-01-24T02:25:00.000-05:00

Self-proclaimed evangelical Christian Jim Wallis has been making the media rounds with his new book, "God and Politics," and talking up the need for politicians to turn to the Bible as a guide for political philosophy. But Jim Wallis is no Jerry Fallwell. When Wallis suggests turning to the Bible, he does not mean as a justification for hate -- but rather as a way to stress a moral duty to fight poverty and end war.

For years, Wallis has been working to reclaim religion for progressives through his organization, Call to Renewal, and his magazine, Sojourners. With the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious Right pouring money and activists into maintaining their hegemony, his task may seem daunting. But history is on his side. After all, religious progressives were at the heart of the abolitionist movement, the Progressive movement, and the civil rights movement. They fought to enact child labor laws, worker's rights, and almost unanimously opposed the war in Iraq. Nineteenth century Populist, William Jennings Bryan, is often considered a socialist by today's standards, but was also a religious fundamentalist who prosecuted the Scopes monkey trial. But his fear of Darwinism was not in the service of Right-wing reactionism, but out of a fear that an embrace of Darwinism would inevitably lead to an acceptance of social Darwinism in which the poor would be left behind. Even the question "what would Jesus do?" was first asked by a progressive Congregationalist minister in the 19th century, and has only in the past decade been appropriated by Right-wing Christians.

To be clear, Wallis is not suggesting that Democrats abandon their principle of religious freedom or separation of church and state (much less stop the teaching of Darwin in public schools). But he also believes that Christianity and progressive values should not be viewed as conflicting beliefs. He admonishes the Republican Party for claiming the mantle of religion while pushing a pro-rich, pro-war agenda. Not every Democrat will agree with Wallis' theology, but they should all acknowledge the need within the Party for the same moral certainty that often accompanies faith.

George Allen, "Darkhorse Frontrunner"

2005-01-24T01:38:00.000-05:00

Thursday's Hardball had an interesting tip for political junkies. Chuck Todd, editor of The Hotline and political prophet of official Washington (alright, he shares that title with Craig Crawford) was discussing the likely Republican candidates for 2008 with Chris Matthews. After Todd and Matthews tossed around the obvious names -- McCain, Giuliani... -- Chuck Todd dropped the lesser-known name of Senator George Allen calling him the "darkhorse frontrunner." Senator Allen, who defeated Chuck Robb in Virginia's Senate race in 2000, has kept a surprisingly low profile throughout his first term. But with the attention of Chuck Todd, Allen is sure to see that profile rise.

But the point of this post isn't to inform -- it's to gloat. You see, on this piece of punditry, RealDems beat the prophet of Washington. Check out this post from December 10:

"But onto the prediction game (guessing game?)... the dark horse candidate to watch on the Republican side is George Allen. He is young, attractive, and Right-wing. Besides sharing the politics of the far-Right of the Republican Party (to hold the base and attract the activists) he is not well known enough to be caricatured for his positions (the problem for Rick Santorum). In other words, Allen (if he has an ounce of charisma) is someone to watch... or at least watch out for."

Yup. I'll be waiting for my invitation to Hardball, Chris. You pay pundits, right?

The Rundown -- January 24

2005-01-24T01:12:00.000-05:00

On a day dominated by news of Johnny Carson's death (I looked and looked for a transcript of Clinton's '88 appearance on the show and Carson's lengthy introduction to post, but, no luck) political news is in the background. But there are a couple decent DNC race stories (right now, it's the best race in town...)

Howard Fineman uses this week's column to write up the DNC race and the deja vu conjured up with the pro-Dean forces against the Anybody But Dean crowd (and again, the Clinton's are leading the ABD charge.):

"If you think you have seen this movie before—"Dean Against the Machine"—you have. Ever since the early days of the 2004 presidential campaign, the country doctor from the State of Ben & Jerry has been the agitating principal of a confused, fratricidal and essentially leaderless party. Then, as now, Dean inspired an outside-the-Beltway, Net-based crusade whose shock troops adored his social progressivism and his fearless opposition to war in Iraq. Then, as now, a party establishment—based in Congress, governors' mansions and Georgetown salons—viewed him as a loudmouthed lefty whose visibility would ruin the Democratic brand in Red States."

As for the full slate, all seven candidates made their case to the western DNC members in San Francisco on Saturday. Another good quote:

"Democratic strategist and communications consultant Chris Lehane said the high interest in the race comes because 'the campaign chair has evolved into a proxy fight for the heart and soul of the party.'''

And I will end with the Must Read (with a permanent link) from Salon.com on the benifits of Dean in charge. An excerpt (although this definitely needs to be read in full...)

"This mischaracterization has led observers to miss the real source of Dean's appeal to a jaded electorate: He knows what he believes and he's not afraid to say it plainly enough for ordinary people to understand. His vision for Democrats is not about moving the party to the left; it's about Democrats standing for something that resonates with ordinary Americans -- a task that current party leaders have manifestly failed to achieve.

Dean believes the Democratic Party's allegiance to big donors and cautious incrementalism has alienated many of its logical voters. Alone among prominent Democrats, he recognizes that the party has little future if it cannot connect in an authentic way with the extraordinary grass-roots energy that propelled his own presidential campaign (and that later nearly got Kerry elected, despite the Kerry campaign's many shortcomings)."

Tone-Deaf Leaders

2005-01-24T00:41:00.000-05:00

At the urging of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Tim Roemer jumped into the race for Chairman of the DNC. But his campaign has been completely stalled since his entry. Roemer tends to believe that the obstacle to his campaign is his pro-choice view, and the pundits seem to accept this premise. But abortion rights are not Roemer's only weakness. He has no concept of the future of the Party or the mood of activists. Worse, Pelosi and Reid clearly believed that he had the charisma to gain the support of enough DNC members to Stop Dean. But even those who don't want a Dean Chairmanship are not flocking to Roemer. Non-Dean support has been coalescing around Frost or Rosenberg.

But the most telling problem with Roemer is not his conservative ideology, his lack of vision, or his annoying use of platitudes... it is with his instinct for capitulation in the face of opposition. This instinct was evident at a DNC forum on Saturday. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Roemer... who is antiabortion, directly addressed the issue of choice before the many skeptical pro-choice California delegates, assuring them he would stand behind Roe vs. Wade and the Party platform."

If Roemer can't stand up for his personal convictions for fear of losing an election, how can he stand up to Republicans who would challnge Democratic principles?

I don't agree with Roemer's pro-life position, but I am outraged by his willingness to compromise his position. Thank you, Tim Roemer. You just illustrated everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party.

The Rundown -- January 19-21

2005-01-21T18:32:00.000-05:00

January 21

The Washington Post covers the inaugural protest.

Well, one small victory is better than none at all.... Michael Powell has thankfully stepped down as FCC Chairman.

Robert Redford opens the Sundance Film Festival on the day of Bush's inauguration with a statement that he hopes the filmmakers will use their talent to better reflect the times.

This article found a way to use the words "Roemer" and "momentum" in the same headline.

January 19

Talk about a point missed. Jill Zuckerman highlights the differing strategies Democrats are offering to oppose Bush and and gets two of the more ironic quotes on the subject by Doug Schoen and Matt Bennett:

"'What's most important is that Democrats need an agenda of their own," said Doug Schoen, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton whoadvocates a move to the middle. "I don't sense that they have one. Isense a party that is adrift.'

"Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a group created to push Democratic senators toward the center, has a similar message.

"'What we believe strongly is you can't fight something with nothing," Bennett said. "Right now, we're seen as the party of the status quo, defenders of the status quo and tinkerers. That's why we'rein the minority.'"

Umm... the centrists are complaining that the Party doesn't have an agenda of its own and argues that you can't fight something with nothing. Well... yeah! Whose fault is that???

Will Lester writes up the plans of many prominent Democrats on the day of Bush's inauguration... including a cruise for about two dozen former Kerry staffers.

And the Republicans, always organizationally one step ahead of the Democrats, have already elected their new Party Chairman: Ken Mehlman.

Another take on the DNC race -- this one is very complete (although inaccurate in part -- the NDN is in no way a "front group" for the DLC -- the two groups are rivals.)

This one is a Must Read from L.A. Weekly. Joshua Bearman argues that Democrats need to stop looking to the next election and trying to find the center and instead should have their "Goldwater moment" and work to change the entire landscape.

"It was Tucker Carlson whom I first heard suggest that the past election might be a "Goldwater moment" for Democrats, and difficult as it is to take seriously a young man wearing a bow tie on television in the 21st century, I hope he’s right. Because that was when conservatives took the long view — and that’s what we need to do now.

"Recall that Barry Goldwater, backed by a new breed of conservatives, won only six states — one of the worst defeats in history. How did those conservatives respond? Not by soul-searching or compromise or blaming each other. They returned quietly to the drawing board and figured out how to win — not next election, or even the one after that. Instead, they set sights on a distant future when compromise would be unnecessary because their Idea would have grown deeper roots."

When the New York Post editorial page has a problem with you, you know you're doing something right.

The Berkshire Eagle covers the Counter-inaugural and the future of the Democratic Party.

My Day of Dissent

2005-01-21T16:48:00.000-05:00

I arrived at Malcolm X park with my brother and my niece a few minutes after 11am, just before the march to the parade route began. Most of the signs pertained to the Iraq war, including "Send the Twins," "Who would Jesus bomb?" and "Let's bomb Texas, they have oil." Hundreds of people made cardboard coffins, and draped either an American flag, a black flag, or a Peace flag over it (this made for an amazing visual image, but I got a bit tired of being bumped into by a "pallbearer.")

When we passed by Planned Parenthood, about seven women stood waving through an open second-floor window, and several people along the march gave us a thumbs-up as we chanted slogans like "hey hey ho ho, dictator Bush has got to go" and "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Bush and Cheney, go away." I was surprised that there was absolutely no counter-protest, and not one person who jeered as we passed.

As we came closer to the parade route, one of the protest organizers with a bullhorn told us to march to the checkpoint at 14th and Pennsylvania to try to gain access to the event. When we arrived, the police immediately shut down entry to the route and we were left in the street to continue the protest -- this time amidst the Republicans trying to get in to see the parade. A woman from Vermont public television interviewed us about our reasons for protesting, and a man handed us a few pre-printed signs from the group Not in Our Name reading "Not Our President" which I was grateful to have (I was one of the few demonstrators without any signs or buttons).

The Republicans in the line were so... "Republican" -- almost exclusively made up of middle age white people wearing expensive clothes. I have never seen as many fur coats in my life! One of the Republican women commented that the protesters "have no class," a comment that was so stereotypical that it became a point of endless mockery between myself and a fellow protester standing behind me.

At 2:00, we had to meet my mother and her co-worker at the MacPherson Square Metro stop -- near the checkpoint. My mother -- as a middle aged, neatly dressed white woman -- could've easily passed as a Republican, with the exception of the "Democracy: Access Denied" sign taped to her back. The five of us marched back to the checkpoint, which by this time was beginning to get a bit rowdy. About 50 police, dressed in full riot gear lined the street and eventually marched in formation toward the checkpoint.

One Republican man, upon seeing my "Not my President" sign, said "Well, he's my President," to which I responded "You can have him." Another woman (in the standard issue fur coat) took a look at the protesters and commented to her husband "this is what our colleges are teaching these kids." There was definitely the perception that the Republicans were the elites who were disgusted by the actions of the demonstrating riff-raff.

By this time, it was clear that we would never be admitted inside the parade route, leading to chants of "Let us in!" The only upside is that the closed checkpoints meant that some Republicans were denied access (I guess even the elite can be turned away).

Security fences were set up around the perimeter of the parade route to keep us out, and dozens of protesters shook the fences so hard that part of it opened. The police immediately blocked the opening, and nobody was able to get through. Someone from the crowd threw a snowball at a woman inside the event, hitting her (sigh) fur coat. She turned and glared at the protesters with that same "elite vs. riff-raff" look. One man climbed a tree and burned an American flag, while some onlookers began singing "The roof is on fire."

About a dozen Bush supporters (all white and well dressed) literally looked down on the protesters from a hotel balcony chanting "four more years" and giving us the finger. One man threw ice on the protesters, and one protester (with a very strong arm) managed to hit a supporter with a snowball. With the supporters shouting down at us, we began chanting "Jump!" in response, and some people attempted to tear down a red, white and blue trim on the building. By this time, the temperature was beginning to drop, and we were getting pretty hungry, so we began heading for the Metro.

A woman from a Maryland TV station stopped us and interviewed us. She seemed impressed when my 11 year old niece listed the Patriot Act and the Bush response to 9/11 as the reasons she was protesting. We took the Metro over to U street and had dinner at Ben's Chili Bowl -- absolutely exhausted by the day's events.

Goldwater Moments

2005-01-19T21:50:00.000-05:00

Josh Bearman writes in L.A. Weekly that Democrats need to have their Goldwater moment:

"It was Tucker Carlson whom I first heard suggest that the past election might be a "Goldwater moment" for Democrats, and difficult as it is to take seriously a young man wearing a bow tie on television in the 21st century, I hope he’s right. Because that was when conservatives took the long view — and that’s what we need to do now.

"Recall that Barry Goldwater, backed by a new breed of conservatives, won only six states — one of the worst defeats in history. How did those conservatives respond? Not by soul-searching or compromise or blaming each other. They returned quietly to the drawing board and figured out how to win — not next election, or even the one after that. Instead, they set sights on a distant future when compromise would be unnecessary because their Idea would have grown deeper roots."

Bearman is exactly right about the needs of the Party. Goldwater was a hero to Right-wing activists, and it was those activists who inherited the Party and effectively rid it of Rockefeller Republicans. That was the beginning of the Republican Party's political ascendence.

Transcript

2005-01-19T01:27:00.000-05:00

The following is a partial transcript from today's confirmation hearing for Condoleezza Rice (for a complete transcript, click here):

"Well, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you. I am -- Dr. Rice, I was glad you mentioned Martin Luther King -- it was very appropriate, given everything. And he also said, Martin Luther King, quote, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." And one of the things that matters most to my people in California and the people in America is this war in Iraq.

"Now, it took you to page three of your testimony to mention the word "Iraq." You said very little really about it, and only in the questioning have we been able to get into some areas. Perhaps you agree with President Bush, who said all that's been resolved. I'm quoting today's Post: "Bush said in an interview last week with the Washington Post that the '04 election was a moment of accountability for the decisions he made in Iraq." But today's Washington Post/ABC poll found that 58 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation, to 40 percent who approve -- and only 44 percent said the war was worth fighting.....

"Now, the war was sold to the American people, as Chief of Staff to President Bush Andy Card said, like a "new product." Those were his words. Remember, he said, "You don't roll out a new product in the summer." Now, you rolled out the idea and then you had to convince the people, as you made your case with the president.

"And I personally believe -- this is my personal view -- that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth. And I don't say it lightly, and I'm going to go into the documents that show your statements and the facts at the time...

"Now, perhaps the most well-known statement you've made was the one about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the image of, quote, quoting you, "a mushroom cloud." That image had to frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped...

"In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear-weapons scare tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "It was a case that said he was trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year." So that's what you said to the American people on television -- "Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."

"Well, that wasn't true, because nine months before you said this to the American people, what had George Bush said, President Bush, at his speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center? "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

"So the president tells the people there could be a weapon. Nine months later you said no one ever said he could have a weapon in a year, when in fact the president said it.

"And here's the real kicker. On October 10th, '04, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, three months ago, you were asked about CIA Director Tenet's remark that prior to the war he had, quote, "made it clear to the White House that he thought the nuclear-weapons program was much weaker than the program to develop other WMDs. Your response was this: "The intelligence assessment was that he was reconstituting his nuclear program; that, left unchecked, he would have a nuclear weapon by the end of the year."

"So here you are, first contradicting the president and then contradicting yourself. So it's hard to even ask you a question about this, because you are on the record basically taking two sides of an issue. And this does not serve the American people.

"If it served your purpose to downplay the threat of nuclear weapons, you said, "No one said he's going to have it in a year." But then later, when you thought that perhaps you were on more solid ground with the American people because at the time the war was probably popular, or more popular, you'd say, "We thought he was going to have a weapon within a year."

The World According to Jon Stewart

2005-01-18T23:10:00.000-05:00

The Democratic Message: "A moment of resistance, a lifetime of capitulation."

A Day Early...

2005-01-18T22:13:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the Iowa caucus that ultimately determined the Democratic nominee. Since that time, debate over the state's first-in-the-nation status has grown louder, particularly because of the caucus process itself.

Unlike a Primary election, in which the polls are open between certain hours and voters come to vote at their convenience, a caucus has a set beginning time and can last for a couple of hours. Caucus-goers gather in a room and make their support public by moving to a particular place in the room for their chosen candidate. If a candidate in the room gets less than 15% of the vote, their supporters are given the opportunity to switch their support to another candidate (last year, Edwards and Kucinich made a deal to encourage their supporters to switch their allegiance to each other if one didn't reach 15% -- a move that undoubtedly lifted Edwards' vote total).

There are advantages and disadvantages to the Iowa caucus. The complexities of the process certainly make it open to deal-making, and the effort required to participate ensures a relatively low turnout.

But the intimacy of the process, and the unpredictability of results offers an opportunity for lesser known (and poorly funded) candidates to gain footing in a race too often dominated by big media and poll numbers. In addition, the concept of neighbors gathering to discuss politics and take an active role in democracy is appealing.

The real problem with the caucus is not the process itself, but the demographics of the state. Iowa, like the other decisive state of New Hampshire, is overwhelmingly white. With those states almost exclusively selecting the nominee, black voters -- the voters Democrats count on the most -- are left out.

There are two possible solutions to this problem:

Give D.C. the first Primary. Washington D.C. fought for first-in-the-nation Primary status, and eventually did hold a non-binding Primary before Iowa. A majority of DC residents are African American, and the city is already denied a voice in Congress. Giving D.C. voters power over the Democratic nominee would send a powerful message that we do not intend to ignore our core supporters, and would also highlight the injustice of D.C.'s disenfranchisement.
End the front-loading process. Having a small state kick off the Primaries is not in and of itself a bad idea. A national Primary would disadvantage insurgents for the benifit of media-selected front-runners. But, the problem arises when the winner of the first caucus can use the momentum from that single victory to steamroll the rest of the field in subsequent caucuses and Primaries. If the process were more spread out, and allowed losing Iowa candidates to rebound in later states, than Iowa would not have the final say in the nominee.

The controversy over the nomination process has gained steam in recent weeks, with Peter Beinart arguing that Iowa voters are more sympathetic to foreign policy "doves" and are therefore dooming the Party's chances on national security. But Beinart has a very narrow view of national security strength. In his opinion, any war opposed by Democrats hurts the image of the Party. The core of Beinart's complaint is that the caucus overrepresents Party activists at the expense of the establishment favorite (admittedly, 2004 was an exception).
Of course, this argument about the heavy weighting of Party activists usually leads to suggestions for open Primaries, a practice that invites Republicans to help select a Democratic nominee (Bush v. Lieberman?)

In retrospect -- and to many of us at the time -- Iowa gave the Democrats a very weak candidate to put up against Bush. But before we do away with the system completely, there are advatages to consider. There are ways to reform the system to make the choice more representative of the Party's demographics, and to eliminate the possibility of winning the nomination based solely on momentum.

...And a Day Late

2005-01-18T20:48:00.000-05:00

Three days before the second swearing-in of the most frightening President in U.S. History, it's nice to have Martin Luther King day to honor a real hero. While Dr. King ushered in an era of undeniable progress, much of his dream has yet to be realized. Black Americans are still less likely that whites to attend college, and more likely to spend time in prison. Life expectancy is shorter and poverty is higher. Prison sentences for murderers of white victims are on average higher than sentences for murders of black victims. And racism, while less overt, still exists.

Instead of addressing these injustices and working toward Dr. King's dream, the President is leading the attempt to dismantle much of the progress that has been made over the past four decades. He lobbied to outlaw affirmative action (going public with this campaign just before MLK day two years ago), and opposes much of the social safety net that disproportionately benifits black citizens.

Martin Luther King symbolized social justice, peace, and progress for America. It is an unfortunate irony that his holiday is, this year, juxtaposed with preparations for George W. Bush's inauguration.

The "I Have a Dream" speech in full.

Criteria for Top Dem: O'Reilly's Approval

2005-01-18T20:27:00.000-05:00

Watching Fox News is almost always a mistake, but it can be good for a laugh from time to time. This is definitely the case with tonight's O'Reilly segment on the merits of Dean at the helm of the DNC. After trying the whole "Dean has an image problem," "Dean can't appeal to middle America" arguments, O'Reilly finally revealed the real reason Democrats should pause before annointing Dean: "I don't like him." He followed that up by saying that Dean is an "obnoxious S.O.B." and argued that it would not be good for the Democratic Party to select a leader that he didn't "like."

So, Democrats be warned. O'Reilly might not have a vote, but in his narcissistic world, the Party should base their decision on the candidate that he personally likes. I'm sure that opinion will carry considerable weight with DNC members.

On a sidenote, it appears that O'Reilly's dislike of Dean stems entirely from the fact that Dean has refused to appear on his show. So, add Dean to O'Reilly's already Nixonian-length enemies list...

A Hint from Chris Matthews?

2005-01-18T19:37:00.000-05:00

Last year, the White House faced a scandal when an unidentified staffer "outed" the CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame was married to Fmr. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent to learn about the allegation that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq. Wilson discovered the claim was false, but his reports to the White House were ignored, and the uranium story was used in Bush's State of the Union address. When Wilson used the op-ed pages of the New York Times to tell this story, the White House exacted revenge by going after his wife. A confidential White House source leaked the identity of Ms. Plame to several reporters, and Bob Novak put it in print. Speculation as to the identity of the leak has largely revolved around Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, and the crime of exposing a CIA operative is a felony.

One of the reporters contacted about Plame's identity was Chris Matthews. According to Joseph Wilson, Matthews called Wilson and told him that Karl Rove had said Wilson's wife was "fair game." Although Matthews never denied this phone conversation took place, he has refused to confirm it, saying "I'm not going to talk about off-the-record conversations."

This background made Matthews' tease for tomorrow's program a bit curious. Hyping a David Gregory interview with Karl Rove, Matthews grinned and noted that Rove was "fair game." His expression gave away that this choice of words was not coincidental.

We're Not in 2002 Anymore, Toto...

2005-01-18T18:50:00.000-05:00

A few years ago, Democrats couldn't buy their way into headlines. Even in the early days of the build-up to the war in Iraq, much of the dissent came from other Republicans or conservatives (Brent Scowcroft, Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak...) Democrats were too busy falling in line to bother asking questions, and the media largely ignored them. But judging from Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing today, Democrats don't plan on being ignored in the second Bush term. Led by Barbara Boxer, who questioned Rice's "respect for truth," Democrats managed to share the headline with Rice in virtually every news outlet.

The Rundown -- January 18

2005-01-18T17:57:00.000-05:00

Most of the day's stories involve Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing. Barbara Boxer came out fighting as usual, and called Rice on her inconsistencies and for the perception that "loyalty to the mission you were given to sell this war overwhelmed your respect for the truth."

A flood of DNC stories coming in today -- most likely sparked by Florida Chairman Scott Maddox announcement that Florida's DNC members are unanimously backing Dean. He is the... frontrunner (a term I hate using, particularly the day before the one-year anniversary of the Iowa caucus.) I'll begin the articles with the lead-in from The Note:.

Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean:
Monday's decision by Scott Maddox and the Florida Democratic delegation to the DNC to endorse Howard Dean will precipitate the quickening of opposition to Dean's candidacy (as well as give Dean the potential to break this thing wide open).

If the governors or Southern party chairs from other states want to stop him, they'll probably need to stop him by the end of next week.

It is hard to see how a Bob Kerrey or even a John Edwards entry in the race could reduce the number of votes that Dean ultimately gets. Look at his Hotline survey number, add in the Florida delegation (minus a few who are double counted) and he is fast approaching 100 votes, a number that some of his opponents think he has already surpassed.

He is now emphatically the frontrunner, though he has not yet accumulated more votes than the combination of his opposition, and 50 percent is the threshold.

"'The only knock against Howard Dean is that he's seen as too liberal,'" Mr. Maddox said. 'I'm a gun-owning pickup-truck driver and I have a bulldog named Lockjaw. I am a Southern chairman of a Southern state, and I am perfectly comfortable with Howard Dean as D.N.C. chair.' LINK

The three questions are:

1. Does Dean have a ceiling below 50 percent?
2. Is there someone in the race now who can coalesce the anti-Dean forces?
3. Is anyone else big getting in?

If the answers to those questions are "no," we all need to start thinking about the meaning of the phrase "Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean," but we aren't sure there are three "no's" there.

On the other hand, heck, if Jim Jordan is comfortable with his ex-arch nemesis, who are we to argue?

Jordan is doing work for Dean's bid for chair (as was eye-poppingly reported in Saturday's New York Times with atypically Nagourneyian understatement).

Perhaps Dean is still "an unemployed doctor with no responsibilities"* and still occasionally "slip[s] into incoherence"* but Jordan sees him today as the best candidate for what the Democrats need right now, and both men are smart enough to put aside their differences.

(* = recycled campaign quote).

"For most of 2003," Jordan — then John Kerry's campaign manager — tells us now, "I had a front row seat for the Dean Phenomenon, an up close view of just how powerful and transformative a leader he is. He has, I think, a real vision for the future of the party and solid ideas for how to take it there. So that's why I'm lending a hand. That, and because he asked."

The Boston Globe's Peter Cannelos, sensing the possibly inevitable, puts things in perspective:

"The anti-Washington tone of Dean's attacks is reminiscent of GOP attacks on Democrats in the '90s, when Republicans cemented their 'outsider' credentials. Traditionally, the DNC chairman, currently former Clinton fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe, is the consummate insider, and Dean could provide an important bridge to the party's grass roots. He was also an early advocate of injecting more talk of values into the Democratic side of the debate. Long before Senator Edward M. Kennedy was calling for a values-based dialogue with Republicans, Dean was consulting with University of California at Berkeley linguist George Lakoff, whose theories help explain why Republicans succeed at framing issues more clearly than Democrats."

"At the same time, Dean's tactics — Internet organizing and fund-raising, staged protests, sloganeering — come uncomfortably close to those of the political fringe, and Democrats must recognize that Dean's connection to anti-Bush groups like Moveon.org is a mixed blessing. Other political stars who had moments of fame in presidential politics, including Republican Harold Stassen and Democrat Eugene McCarthy, became perennial fringe candidates, seeking to relive their moments of glory like aged Norma Desmonds. It's possible to envision that happening to Dean."

But we'd say that Dean is not a candidate for political office. He's a candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee. He is winning support because he excites DNC members and restores their faith in their party. As a thought experiment, imagine what people would say about Terry McAuliffe or Ed Gillespie were they to run for elected office.

Using the same thought experiment, you can also see the downsides to a Dean candidacy: McAullife was partisan but not polarizing; he didn't bring to the DNC a political ideology that everyone who runs against a Democratic opponent in a purple state can point to (full-throated liberal instincts tempered, somehow, with fervor for balanced budgets. Oh yeah, and let the small states decide what to do about guns themselves.) And Dean's rhetoric suggests now that Democrats have a natural majority out there they're not tapping into because folks sense Democrats don't believe in their causes or because Republicans have duped socially conservative economic populists.

David Brooks, of course, believes the opposite, and if he's right — if there are today more conservatives out there than liberals and more moderates willing to vote for conservatives — than Democrats would do well not to allow Dean to become one of the chief public spokespeople for their party's values.

But even Dean supporters don't have to worry about that so much because the Democratic governors have already suggested they will claim the mantle of policy innovation, red-state organization nurturing and become the public elected-official faces of the party.

A lot to chew on . . .

Now dessert: The Washington Post's Mark Leibovich offers a succinct, wise, and wildly observant look at Dean, "the former rock star in a field of 'American Idol' contestants" in the race for DNC chair, who insists that politics is politics and he's running on the same message of reform that he always was.

........

My own take on the articles is as follows:

Dean has won unanimous support for DNC Chair from Florida Committee members.

Under the headline, Howard Dean: He Still Has the Power, Mark Leibovich finds the fall long from Presidential frontrunner, to one of the pack for DNC Chair.

Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe also takes a look at Dean's DNC challenge, and comtemplates his connections to the "political fringe" -- apparently made up solely of MoveOn.

The Rundown -- January 16

2005-01-16T04:17:00.000-05:00

Note: Some of The Rundown is taken directly from RealDems.org, and some of the columns have already been highlighted on this blog.

Eileen McNamara of The Boston Globe pens a Must Read about Ted Kennedy's stated ideals and how they are clearly linked to Dean's stated objectives for DNC Chair. Kennedy says of Dean: "he is talking to me aggressively, and I am listening." Although he is not prepared to endorse a candidate, Kennedy assures: ''I won't be part of any 'Stop Dean' movement." (this column's description and link found in previous post.)

Eleanor Clift also writes about Kenedy's speech in her column titled The Passionate Opposition.

Liberal Tiger, M.D.?

2005-01-16T03:51:00.000-05:00

In her Must Read piece, Liberal Lion Needs a Tiger, Boston Globe contributor Eileen McNamara argues that the goals outlined in Kennedy's speech last week to the National Press Club would best be achieved with Dean at the helm of the Democratic Party.

"With the nation mired in a misguided war and a stagnant economy, the need for a bold opposition party is as pressing as it has been in the 43 years that Kennedy has served in the United States Senate. He ought to use his stature to pressure his party to appoint a chairman who actually articulates Democratic values.

"Line for line, Kennedy's speech at the National Press Club could have been delivered by Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont who remains the bte noir of too many party insiders who do not know how much they need him."

Kennedy acknowledges about Dean: "he is talking to me aggressively, and I am listening." Still, he is not ready to endorse a candidate, but he assures, "'I won't be part of any 'Stop Dean' movement."

He also does something he failed to do in his otherwise great speech -- acknoledges the grassroots: Speaking of activists he has seen around the country, Kennedy said "There is a lot of energy out there we need to tap into."

Somehow, I don't think Tim Roemer is the man to do that.

The Rundown -- January 15

2005-01-15T01:30:00.000-05:00

Nagourney gives the insider's take on the DNC race, and to what extent it is being determined by ideology.

And speaking of the DNC race, the candidates had their midwest forum in St. Louis today. And Rosenberg doesn't want to follow Dean anymore.

A Fighting Chance

2005-01-14T23:40:00.000-05:00

Michael Crowley of The New Republic believes that Congressional Democrats need to practice the iron-fisted politics of Gingrich, and considers the reasons so many have been reluctant to fight as hard:

While [Democrats] may boil with outrage at the actions of House Republican leaders, there are limits to what they are willing to do. Many Democrats, especially older ones with memories of a more civil time in Washington, are squeamish about flamethrower politics. For seven years, they had observed an informal ethics "truce" with Republicans, and they were loath to shatter it.

I would argue that this problem would change as the older Democrats retire and a new class of post-Gingrich revolution Democrats assumes office. But that would of course beg the obvious sarcastic question: "Democrats have been elected since 1994?"

Begala = Colmes?

2005-01-14T20:40:00.000-05:00

I guess Paul Begala is angling to take over Alan Colmes position as the most useless "liberal" on television. I am often casually annoyed with the fact that he begins about half of his statements with either "I like [fill in the blank -- usually one of his conservative co-anchors or George Bush]" or "(to a conservative guest) you know, it may surprise you, but you and I agree on that point." But today, Begala may have surpassed Colmes in becoming a pawn for the Right. The whole thing started with this exchange about a Wall Street Journal report that "revealed" that Howard Dean had paid bloggers to consult his campaign.

NOVAK: Howard Dean is running for Democratic National Chairman the same way he ran for president: as the squeaky clean candidate. Well, he may have been squeaky, but he wasn't so clean. Zephyr Teachout, who was head of Internet outreach for the Dean campaign, has revealed the campaign hired two political bloggers to say positive things about Dr. Dean at the price of $3,000 a month -- that's play for pay. Meanwhile, one of the great former DNC chairmen, Bob Strauss, has endorsed one of the candidates, and it is indeed former Congressman Martin Frost, who, like Strauss, is a moderate and a Texan. Will the DNC members be that smart?

BEGALA: I don't know. First, if in fact people were paid to flack Howard Dean and didn't disclose it, that's reprehensible. We talked about that earlier with [right-wing pundit caught accepting Bush administration money to promote their policy] Armstrong Williams and the same standard should apply to liberals.

First, even most conservatives concede that this is a non-story, since the arrangement was disclosed publicly by all parties at the time. Begala knew that. His response was not, as he implied, ethical consistency on his part, but rather an attempt to discredit a leading candidate for DNC Chair because he prefers someone else lead the Party. Begala continued his "defense" of Dean by stating that Bob Strauss is one of the best Democratic strategists alive and this endorsement was certain to boost Frost's odds.

Later in the program, Begala referred to Terry McAulliffe as "the best Chairman in my lifetime," and proudly displayed a "poll" that showed DNC members' preference for Chair as 1) Bill Clinton, 2) Terry McAulliffe, and 3) God. Yup. Terry's THAT good. Who needs to win races when we can... lose badly?

At least Begala has been better about challenging the Bush Administration. When debating the confirmation of torture fan, Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General, Begala slammed the idea by saying:

“I know him a little bit from Texas days. He’s a fine choice. And I hope the Senate does confirm him." (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 11/10/04)

Way to go Paul! With Crossfire about to be canceled, can it be long before we see Begala moving over to Fox News where he can become yet another Fox liberal?

Full Disclosure: Nobody has ever paid me any money to write anything. But I wouldn't mind if they did.

I just hate passing along rumors...

2005-01-14T20:24:00.000-05:00

Apparently, there are now rumors circulating that Gore is considering a second run at the White House. This really is just pure gossip, but it makes for an interesting story for today, and, like the Feingold speculation, gives a reason for Real Democrats to find a reason to get excited about the future of the Party on the Presidential level.

"We have just begun to build"

2005-01-14T17:12:00.000-05:00

In the upcoming January 31 issue of The Nation, Bob Borosage (director of Campaign for America's Future) makes an argument strikingly similar to the argument made in the RealDems column "An Optimistic Note" (posted on the blog just yesterday). Borosage first argues the irony of the "corporate wing" of the Party attmepting to throw out the Party activists:

After a year in which progressives drove the debate, roused and registered the voters, raised the dough and knocked on the doors, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is trying to reassert control. Its assault on MoveOn.org and the Dean campaign--the center of new energy in the party--is reminiscent of 1973, when corporate lobbyist Bob Strauss became head of the party and tossed out the McGovern mailing list, insuring that the party would remain dependent on big-donor funding.

Borosage continues to argue that because of the new infrastructure, this attempted takeover will fail, and concludes with this call to arms:

So forget about the chattering classes and the corporate wing of the party, now fantasizing about purging the new energies unleashed in the last election. What matters isn't what they say in Washington, but what progressives do on the ground across the country. We have just begun to build. The radical agenda of the Bush Administration--and its abject failure--will continue to set the stage not for a retreat to the center but for a fierce, passionate reform movement.

This is a great piece, and is worth reading in its entirety. Borosage is one of the leaders of the new movement, and will likely become far more influential within the Party in the coming years.

The Rundown -- January 14

2005-01-14T15:13:00.000-05:00

EJ Dionne continues his attempt to end the dissonance between moderates and liberals -- this time, arguing that Ted Kennedy's "pale colors and timid voices" speech was actually a plea to conservative voters, rather than a call to arms for liberals.

Peter Beinart recommends beginning the Democratic Primary with a more representative state than Iowa. After the most recent caucuses, it's difficult to make an argument in favor of the process, but Beinart's solution wouldn't do any good. It would just be a different state that decided the Democratic nominee. Besides, his reasoning is that Iowa "rewards ideaolgical purity over intellectual honesty" (he uses this Al Gore quote from 1988). Essentially, he believes that Iowa ruins the Party's chances of nominating foreign policy hawks. Maybe Beinart would like to exorcise Iowa from the Democratic Party along with MoveOn and Michael Moore. Pretty soon, the only people left in Beinart's Democratic Party will be, well... Republicans.

RealDems.org column: An Optimistic Note

2005-01-14T04:31:00.000-05:00

As the "party wars" heat up, the election defeats set in, and the leadership of our Party once again seems to be buying the DLC spin, there is reason to hope -- in fact, there is reason to be confident -- that this time, the grassroots will prevail. This is not a statement of blind optimism, or the naive belief that we will win simply because we are right. This is the recognition that for the first time since the DLC seized power of the Party, they are up against structural odds they cannot overcome. Since their inception, the DLC has always been outnumbered by the Party activists, but they made up for this by having three essential benifits that kept them in power: money, organization, and media. While opposition to their vision of the Party was both broad and deep, the lack of these assets made a serious challenge almost impossible to sustain. But the past two years have seen each of the impediments falter, and in some cases, completely reverse.

The first, and most obvious structual difference is the ability to raise money. Under the leadership of Bill Clinton (and most transparent in the appointment of Terry McAulliffe to lead the Party), the Democrats believed they had found a way to keep parity with the Republican financial base: woo the big dollar donors. They were especially careful not to offend the business community, and successfully stripped any hint of populism from the Democratic platform. Even Democrats who were not ideologically sold on the DLC's "third way" approach, became enamored with the money it brought in, and quickly became converts to the DLC cause. But the use of the internet to raise funds from small donors has quickly flipped the equation on its head. Instead of being the financial underdogs, the activist wing of the Party now holds the key to the Party's pocketbook. This is the message that Eli Pariser bluntly stated when he said to the Party elites on behalf of the grassroots: "We bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."

Second, the DLC had always enjoyed an organizational advantage over the activists. They understood early on that umbrella orgaizations that housed a coherent ideology would be far more effective than unaffiliated groups advocating their causes individually. As a result, they essentially adopted the structure of a complete political Party -- trumpeting the merits of everything from free trade to welfare reform to a hawkish foreign policy without a hint of dissonance within the ranks. The progressive wing of the Party was slow to catch up -- being crafted mainly by disparate interest groups, such as The Sierra Club, EMILY's List, and the AFL-CIO. There were certainly examples of a counter-organization, such as Campaign for America's Future, but the activist organizational structure was no match for the DLC (or later, the NDN).

But the past two years have seen a surge in progressive clearing-houses, and greater cooperation between already existing groups. At a separate event during the Democratic convention in Boston, Campaign for America's Future held a "Take Back America" conference. Many leaders of progressive organizations took part in the event, and helped to outline both a progressive agenda and a grassroots approach for the future of our Party. The list of groups helping to end the organizational deficit is impressive; while MoveOn's success has garnered the most attention, other groups such as DFA, Wellstone Action, Campaign for America's Future, SEIU and 21st Century Democrats have all played a role. While some of these groups are new to the scene, others are beginning to gain fresh attention as part of this unofficial progressive coalition.

Finally, the DLC is indebted to a mind-numbingly centrist Establishment media to dissemenate their message to the public. On this point, the DLC still has the advantage, but the cracks are beginning to show. The mainstream media can still be counted on to parrot the conventional wisdom, and to dismiss any hint of citizen action. With the advent of the Right-wing press, and the subsequent Rightward shift of the elite media, the problem at first glance seems to have intensified.

But the traditional media has been steadily losing influence, partilcularly with younger viewers. And while the Right was first to fill in the news void, the Left has made great advances over the past year. Air America has been a surprising success -- expanding far beyond its original six stations, and signing Al Franken to a multi-year deal. While Franken is a self-proclaimed DLC Democrat, the Air America line-up also includes progressives such as Janeane Garafalo and Mike Malloy (Malloy's stated mission involves ridding the Democratic Party of DLC influence). The radio network was admittedly a DNC parrot during the election cycle has recently been criticizing Party leaders who refuse to provide strong opposition to the Bush Administration. On Friday's broadcasts, Randi Rhodes, Garafalo and Malloy all criticized Harry Reid's impotent leadership, and celebrated Barbara Boxer's decision to stand up to contest Ohio's electoral votes.

In film, Michael Moore has become the most influential political filmmaker of our time (despite Peter Beinart's attempts to flush Moore from the Party). "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke virtually every record for documentary films, and was undoubtedly a key factor in the Democratic turnout success of 2004. Yesterday, Moore won the People's Choice award for "favorite movie," and is currently working on a film, "Sicko," that will expose the health care industry.

On television, Jon Stewart's iconoclastic look at politics and the media has earned him the respect of critics and a loyal audience. His viewers rank as the most knowlegable of any late-night show (and most news shows) and his book has spent months at the top of the best-sellers list. This year, the new network founded in part by Al Gore, INdTV will debut. With shows in development by citizen journalists, the show has been described (on Fox News Media Watch) as the merger between blogs and television.

The DLC's structural advantage is crumbling, and their hold over the Party will soon follow. Without the loyalty of a grassroots base, they have relied on the money, organization, and media influence for their power. As those advantages dissolve, they will be left with no weapons in their arsenal.

The Rundown -- January 13

2005-01-14T04:19:00.000-05:00

Only a couple of notes for today's Rundown...

John Nichols gives his take on the DNC run, and how Dean's entry has changed the race.

One week before the inauguration and sadly, Kid Rock will not be able to perform at the ceremony.

Of course it has "nothing" to do with politics, but...

2005-01-14T04:03:00.000-05:00

I was just realizing that we haven't had a real terror threat in a couple of months. I guess the terrorists have gotten a lot less scary since the election...

Opportunity, Responsibility, and Improbable Defenses of Clintonism

2005-01-13T19:57:00.000-05:00

One of my new guilty pleasures is reading the DLC's "Blog Zoo" (New Donkey blog is written by DLC Policy Director Ed Kilgore and describes itself as "the sharp edge of the vital center"; The Bull-Moose is done by former McCain advisor, Marshall Wittman). While making the Third Way cool is a pitiable task, perhaps more deserving of sympathy than mockery, the temptation occassionally becomes too strong to resist.

Such is the case with the New Donkey's recent defense of Clintonism, written as a response to a Chuck Todd piece in The Atlantic Monthly. Todd's column argues that Clintonism -- or more specifically, triangulation, is at the root of the Democrat's woes. Seemingly undeniable, right? I mean, Democrats have lost considerable ground since Clinton became the President and default Party leader. And the more Democrats try to mimic Clinton's Third Way, the more they lose -- and they lose BIG. They lose Presidential campaigns, governor's races, Senate and House seats, policy debates, and self-identified Party members. Seems like a pretty tough course to defend.

But not for Kilgore. In a New Donkey post on Sunday entitled "Did Clinton Destroy the Democratic Party?" Kilgore argues that Congress was lost in 1994 BEFORE Clinton began pursuing the policy of triangulation (I'm sorry -- triangulation is not their preferred word. Kilgore explains that Clinton never "triangulated," he simply tried to "devise progressive answers to issues previously dominated by the opposition.") Apparently, according to this argument, Democrats lost because Clinton began his Presidency as a traditional liberal, and voters responded by bringing on a Republican revolution. However, Clinton learned the error of his ways and began triangu--er, devising progressive answers to issues previously dominated by the opposition, and the Party rebounded in subsequent elections.

It's hard to count the number of ways this theory is laughable. First of all, Clinton not only entered office as a New Democrat, but had actually been the DLC Chairman before running for office. Hardly an unrepentant liberal. Second, their concept of "rebounding" is a bit narrow. I haven't noticed the Democrats exactly reversing their losing ways. True, we haven't had an election quite as disastrous as '94, but I'm not sure we have enough people in office for the voters to throw out. In reality, we had nowhere to go but up.

So, several losing campaigns have not yet proved the ineffectiveness of the Clinton strategy in their mind. With tightly stretched excuses to defend their vision, and delusions of a left-wing Clinton beginning, are these really the geniuses we want preaching to the rest of us about electability?

Feingold '08?

2005-01-12T23:49:00.000-05:00

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Russ Feingold's name is being tossed around as a potential candidate for 2008. The article considers Feingold a long shot, but acknowledges that he has built his career on being a long-shot -- in other words, he has all the ingredients to make the perfect insurgent. Feingold is one of the most progressive individuals in the Senate. The article gives a rundown on his liberal credentials:

Though he has gained some notoriety in his work with U.S. Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz, to reform campaign finance laws, and as the lone vote against the 2001
USA Patriot Act, Feingold's name is not well known outside of Wisconsin and the
world of the politically attentive.

He is a hero to some liberals, however, because he has opposed the Bush
administration on just about everything, from the Iraq war, free trade and
environmental regulation to abortion rights, education policy and changes in
Medicare law.

Should he choose to run, Feingold may capture the hearts of activists who would be turned off by the rest of the expected field (Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh...). Although his record is among the strongest in the potential field, he will have to work on his speaking style. He is extremely thoughtful and soft-spoken, which is a positive trait for the Senate, but can seem inadequate when faced with the task of firing up the base.

For more on Feingold, check out this Wikipedia entry.

The Rundown -- January 12

2005-01-12T23:45:00.000-05:00

Ted Kennedy gives a kick-ass speech on the future of the Democratic Party. For a few notes on the speech, check out the blog.

Looks like there were no weapons in Iraq... and we're going to stop looking now.

Russ Feingold is being mentioned as a long-shot potential Presidential candidate. RealDems listed him as one of five people to support for a Presidential run in 2008. To read the full list, click here.

More on a potential Feingold candidacy in The Nation.

Frank Rich can barely control his outrage over the Armstrong Williams scandal and Crossfire's softball questions for the offender.

Day 2 of the Dean/DNC stories... here's the quick Rundown from The Note (important fact -- the title of today's Note was "What I Want to Know Is...":

"Perhaps Howard Dean's official entrance will prove a turning point, in that the other candidates can now step up and more aggressively debate the future ideological direction of the party.

"One of the reasons the race has so far lacked a frontrunner is that beyond a few sound bites here and there, the candidates have yet to break out of the normal (somewhat tendentious) Democratic candidate's rubric, which is to talk about priorities and proposals and ignore, often at their peril, the central question on the minds of voters.

"The voters here are the DNC membership, and it is to them that we look for clues about the direction of the race.

"Here's what we gather.

" —Howard Dean's floor may be larger than some of his opponent's believe, and there is nothing, aside from what appears to be an unquestioned conviction about the truth of alternative by his opponents, to suggest that he cannot really win the chairman's race.

"—Dean, Martin Frost, and Donnie Fowler have been the most aggressive in courting members themselves.

"—We gather that Simon Rosenberg and Donnie Fowler have slowly won support from more DNC members (even as second or third choices) than some of their opponents believe. We eagerly look forward to Rosenberg's 10:30 am ET conference call to learn about the "series of prominent national figures" endorsing him.

"—We don't know, and no one really does, in the end, how much the netroots support will mean to the final result. Suggestions welcome.

"—A Kate Michelman entrance could really shake things up, as could:

"*The decision by one candidate to go negative on another.
*Absent the entrance of another candidate, a poll that shows one candidate blowing the field away, or a negative campaign, it's hard to see how the status quo differs going into February.
*Citing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not guarantors of success here, and in fact some DNC members grumble that the two congressional Democratic leaders have performed rather poorly in shaping the contours of this contest.

"We eagerly await the next Hotline survey of DNC members.

"The first reporter to do a solid story on how much some of these folks are raising (and who they're raising it from) gets a gold star.

"The Hill says that John Kerry and other would-be presidential candidates have taken a hands-on interest in who the next chair will be. A must-read for those keeping score at home, and not just for the Jim Blanchard quotes.

"Kerry is apparently vetting the leading contenders for the chairmanship, and other possible 2008 contenders — including Sens. Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner — have been getting and making phone calls too.

"'. . . Kerry appears to be the only potential candidate in '08 to maintain an open line of communication with the DNC candidates and has further set himself apart by requesting that the next DNC chairman remain neutral three years hence, when the Democratic selection process begins anew. Last week, Kerry asked former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), whose home-state Democratic senator, Bayh, may run, to remain neutral."

"'. . . Kerry has also been trading phone calls with the man who ran his presidential campaign in Michigan, Donnie Fowler. Kerry's conversations with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean have increased in frequency.'"

"Pale Colors and Timid Voices"

2005-01-12T17:08:00.000-05:00

Today, Ted Kennedy gave a speech at the National Press Club on the future of the Democratic Party:

"I categorically reject the deceptive and dangerous claim that the outcome last November was somehow a sweeping, or a modest, or even a miniature mandate for reactionary measures like privatizing Social Security, redistributing the tax burden in the wrong direction, or packing the federal courts with reactionary judges. Those proposals were barely mentioned - or voted on - in an election dominated by memories of 9/11, fear of terrorism, the quagmire in Iraq, and relentlessly negative attacks on our Presidential candidate.

"In an election so close, defeat has a thousand causes - and it is too easy to blame it on particular issues or tactics, or on the larger debate about values. In truth, we do not shrink from that debate.

"There's no doubt we must do a better job of looking within ourselves and speaking out for the principles we believe in, and for the values that are the foundation of our actions. Americans need to hear more, not less, about those values. We were remiss in not talking more directly about them - about the fundamental ideals that guide our progressive policies. In the words of Martin Luther King, "we must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope."

"Unlike the Republican Party, we believe our values unite us as Americans, instead of dividing us. If the White House's idea of bipartisanship is that we have to buy whatever partisan ideas they send us, we're not interested.

"In fact, our values are still our greatest strength. Despite resistance, setbacks, and periods of backlash over the years, our values have moved us closer to the ideal with which America began - that all people are created equal. And when Democrats say "all," we mean "all."

"We have an Administration that falsely hypes almost every issue as a crisis. They did it on Iraq, and they are doing it now on Social Security. They exploit the politics of fear and division, while ours is a politics of hope and unity.

"In the face of their tactics, we cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices. We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose. As I have said on other occasions, the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties." (read the entire speech)

Every Democrat in Congress should read this speech. Democrats MUST hit hard, be clear about their values and confront Republicans on major issues. Kennedy understands this, and is correct to point out that this is an opportunity for Democrats to rebuild in a manner that is consistent with our progressive values.

But what Kennedy neglects to do is to sign up the grassroots to his crusade. His speech is directed to the Party elite -- encouraging members of Congress and other Democratic leaders to resisit the pressure to move Right. His call for citizen action is limited to a call for "the caring and involvement of our people." If he wants the Democratic Party to reform, he needs to directly engage and challenge the activist base. Trust them (us) to apply pressure on Democratic leaders to achieve the vision he outlined. Kennedy is dead-right on his ideas and vision for the Party. He just needs to recognize the way to achieve it.

Making the Case to Georgia

2005-01-11T14:18:00.000-05:00

I finally caught the repeat of the DNC candidates' Southern forum from last weekend. A few thoughts about each of the candidates (in the order they were seated):

Simon Rosenberg -- the Chairman of the centrist New Democrat Network seemed quick to recognize the structural ways the Party has changed; he paid lip service to the recent grassroots activism and the use of the internet as a fundraising/organizing tool. While much has been made of his "youth" (he's 41), I didn't think he came across as unseasoned in the least. But Rosenberg also had many negatives: beyond understanding the importance of grassroots organizing and the internet, he was unable to articulate why he would be the best person to expand on the trend. Like all the candidates, he struggled with offering a message for the Party in 30 words or less, resorting to the same tired platitudes the Party has been offering for decades. His worst moment of the event came when he snapped at a member ("I appreciate your misinterpreting me") who raised a question based on a report by Mara Liasson. Maybe he's "too angry" to be Chair...

Tim Roemer -- Roemer was by far the biggest disappointment at the forum, spewing meaningless soundbites ("DNC shouldn't stand for Does Not Change"), and annoying metaphors (in describing the need to expand the Party, he suggested that "we need to get more people on the bus"). Beyond mouthing the words "fifty state strategy," he seemed clueless to any change in the Party and offered no strategy for reform. His chummy stories which included the ages of his four children and a great aunt who wanted him to become a priest were as condescending as the tone he used throughout the forum. The fact that Nancy Pelosi personally lobbied him to get in the race is a testament to how out of touch the Party leadership truly is. He came across as a Democratic Dan Quayle, blandly attractive, vacuous, and lacking any evidence of original thought.

Howard Dean -- Even with the highest profile and the most to live up to/overcome (depending on the perspective), Dean gave what was objectively the strongest performance of the contenders, and was clearly the best received at this Southern conference. He offered bold ideas, including the suggestion that the electoral college be "reformed" (abolished?). His strongest response of the forum was predictably on empowering the grassroots, but he also gave very strong answers on recruiting women candidates, the need for political conviction, and why he chose to run for DNC Chair rather than President (he doesn't think a Democrat can win the Presidency unless the Party is reformed). He appeared to be put on the spot with the question about message, and stumbled a bit on his response. He also needs to work on directly answering the question asked, twice avoiding specifically asked questions (I still don't know whether he would abide by the "Fowler amenments.")

Wellington Webb -- The former Denver mayor gave the most consistent performance throughout. He was at times thoughtful, at times light (Webb, who is Black, had a good time responding to a question about putting minorities into positions of power), and almost always sincere. Unfortunately, he lacked charisma, occassionally pandered to the members ("Your state Party deserves much more than $5,000 a year from the DNC"), and at times waited for applause that never came. His ideas were solid, but not bold. He correctly pointed out that the Party could not abandon the base, but offered no plan to make that compatible with his stated desire to expand the Party.

David Leland -- Leland was the most ignored member of the panel, and through much of the forum, deservedly so. Most of his responses were forgettable, and he received virtually no applause throughout. However, on a couple of occassions, he gave stand-out responses (the audience still didn't seem to notice), and occassionally became passionate when making a point. His closing statement was one of the strongest at the event, and he thoroughly addressed a question about expanding the number of Presidential electors to include U.S. territories. He had a great understanding of the value of the Democratic Party, and was well-prepared to answer the questions. Still, while his ideas were solid, they hardly constituted a plan for reform.

Donnie Fowler -- I ended up with two completely opposing impressions of Donnie Fowler. The first, based on the ideas he articulated, is very good. He has spent most of his career as a political organizer, is openly critical of Terry McAulliffe and the current leadership, and seems legitimately interested in rebuilding the Party from the ground-up. He also has a very strong understanding of how to use the internet for political reform. But the other impression I was left with was based on his performance, and that impression is not quite as positive. He was at best awkward and at worst smarmy. On several occassions he blurted out downright weird statements, such as "I love money," and "Women are some of my favorite people." He also relied too much on his resume and not enough on his vision. His defense of his fundraising prowess was both self-congratulatory and boring. The jury is still out on Fowler: great ideas, poor performance. On a sidenote, his youth is much more noticeable than Rosenberg's, and I doubt the name "Donnie" has helped with the maturity image.

Martin Frost -- Frost predictably came across like a legislator. He was dry and certainly the "insider" of the group. He seemed singularly obsessed with his own campaigns, and particularly on the dangers of redistricting. His performance was workmanlike, and it was clear he did not connect with the audience. He did have one interesting, and on balance good, moment when he appeared to suggest that he wanted to lead the DNC to Congressional success in order to settle a personal vendetta against Tom DeLay. Frost never acknowledged a new way to lead the Party structurally, and seemed to believe only that the Party's ills rest entirely in its inability to win in Red states, which is in turn the fault of a liberal platform. His entire logic seemed to lie on a Left - Right continuum, and he is apparently oblivious to any discord between the Establishment and the activists.

That's my quick take on the candidates, based solely on their performance in Georgia on Saturday. There will be three other regional forums before the vote for a new Chairman in February.

Dean's In

2005-01-11T13:31:00.000-05:00

Well, it's official. Dean is running for DNC Chairman. He made his highly anticipated annoucement official a little less than an hour ago on the DFA blog:

"I'm Running

"As I have traveled across our country, I have talked to thousands of people who are working for change in their own communities about the power of politics to make a difference in their own lives and in the lives of others. Every group I have spoken to, I encouraged them to stand up for what they believe and to get involved in the electoral process—because the only sure way to make difference is to step up and run for office yourself.

"Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for the Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

"The Democratic Party needs a vibrant, forward-thinking, long-term presence in every single state and we must be willing to contest every race at every level. We will only win when we show up and fight for the issues important to all of us.

"Another integral part of our strategy must be cultivating the party's grassroots. Our long term success depends on all of us taking an active role in our party and in the political process, by volunteering, going door to door and taking the Democratic message into every community, and by organizing at the local level. After all, new ideas and new leaders don't come from consultants; they come from communities.

"As important as organization is, it alone can no longer win us elections. Offering a new choice means making Democrats the party of reform—reforming America's financial situation, reforming our electoral process, reforming health care, reforming education and putting morality back in our foreign policy. The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's positions. We must say what we mean—and mean real change when we say it.

"But most of all, together, we have to rebuild the American community. We will never succeed by treating our nation as a collection of separate regions or separate groups. There are no red states or blues states, only American states. And we must talk to the people in all of these states as members of one community.

"That word—'values'—has lately become a codeword for appeasement of the right-wing fringe. But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values.

"We cannot let that happen. And we cannot just mouth the words. Our party must speak plainly and our agenda must clearly reflect the socially progressive, fiscally responsible values that bring our party—and the vast majority of Americans—together.

"All of this will require both national perspective and local experience. I know what it's like to lead hands-on at the state level and I know what it's like to run for national office.

"With your help, this past election season, Democracy for America, already started creating the kind of organization the Democratic Party can be. This past election cycle, we endorsed over 100 candidates at all levels of government—from school board to U.S. Senate. We contributed almost a million dollars to nearly 750 candidates around the country and raised millions of dollars for many more candidates.

"Together, we helped elect a Democratic governor in Montana, a Democratic mayor of Salt Lake County, Utah and an African American woman to the bench in Alabama. Fifteen of the candidates we endorsed had never run for office before—and won.

"I also have experience building and managing a local party organization. My career started as Democratic Party chair in Chittenden County, Vermont. I then ran successful campaigns: for state legislature, lieutenant governor and then governor. In my 11-year tenure as governor, I balanced the state's budget every year.

"I served as chair of both the National Governors' Association and the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA). And as chair of the DGA, I helped recruit nearly 20 governors that won—even in states like Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi.

"All of these experiences have only reaffirmed what I know to be true. There is only one party that speaks to the hopes and dreams of all Americans. It is the party you have already given so much to. It is the Democratic Party.

"We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe.

"Thank you and I look forward to listening to your concerns in the weeks ahead."

Of course, Dean has already stated that if he wins, he will not run for President in 2008. That makes the news of this campaign a little bittersweet, but probably the right decision. RealDems has been advocating Dean for this position for nine months.

Some have expressed concern that if Dean loses this post, his image going into a Democratic Primary would be that of a two-time loser. I disagree. If Dean loses, I think that would be viewed as the Party good 'ol boys closing ranks and leaving us out. It would only demonstrate the Party's need to reform, and would propel a second Dean candidacy for President into another insurgent outsider campaign. So, if we win, we win... we will have changed the equation. But if we lose... well, that wouldn't be so bad either.

WWWD?

2005-01-11T00:22:00.000-05:00

The legacy of Paul Wellstone is one of my personal guiding moral forces. The example of political courage he set throughout his career as a professor, an activist, and a legislator stands in stark contrast to the cynicism evident in too many of his former colleagues. Wellstone consistently voiced and voted his conviction, and the people of Minnesota rewarded him by twice sending him to the United States Senate.

Days after his untimely death in a plane crash during the final month of his third campaign, his memorial service was widely criticized for the buoyancy of the crowd and the partisan tone of the speakers. The negative spin took hold, and before long, people who hadn't even seen the service were objecting to it, and most Washington Democrats were considering, believe it or not, the political consequences of the service.

But before the media was able to caricature the event, I had watched the entire (five-hour) service on C-Span and come away with a completely different conclusion: Would any other Senator's death draw such an outpouring of emotion from his constituents? Would we see a capacity crowd of college students, working people, and families gather to pay tribute to any of them? I saw thousands of people longing for the kind of politics practiced by Paul Wellstone. For me, that was a defining moment in my own political conscience -- and one of the moments I chose to reject the politics of capitulation.

With all the recent articles lately on the future of the Democratic Party, I've been thinking a lot about Wellstone -- wondering if his colleagues ever consider his legacy of conviction politics. So far, I've been disappointed. As Bobby Kennedy once said:

"Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields so uneasily to change."

It seems that I was not alone in remembering the Wellstone legacy lately. Anna Quindlen writes about the "ghost" of Paul Wellstone in the web edition of today's Newsweek:

"I miss Paul Wellstone. It is not that the senator from Minnesota was liberal, although he was, or smart, although he was that, too. It was that when he said he was going to do something, he did it, and because he believed it was the right thing, not because he'd been bought and paid for by lobbyists and pressure groups....

"And while I don't believe in ghosts, I hope the memory of Paul Wellstone will haunt the Democrats as they go about the very public business of finding themselves in the wake of their November defeat. Not because they will necessarily embrace his positions, but because they ought to assume his legacy of passionate conviction."

I couldn't agree more. I wish every Democrat had learned the same lessons I learned from Paul Wellstone.

The Early Choices for 2008

2005-01-07T01:46:00.000-05:00

There is no possible way to predict the outcome of the 2008 Democratic Primaries. Thinking back to December 2002 through January 2003, the "front-runner" for the nomination went from Gore to Lieberman to Kerry to Dean to Clark, back to Dean and finally, back to Kerry. The same is true of most non-incumbent elections. It was impossible to predict Clinton's '92 "comeback," Carter's Iowa caucus surprise, or, on the other side, the nomination of George W. Bush in 2000. And what about the waiting game with Ted Kennedy or Mario Cuomo? Cuomo never ran for President, while Kennedy gave only a half-hearted Primary challenge to the imcumbent Carter in '80. So, the "assured" nomination of Hillary Clinton in four years is anything but. She has at least as good a chance as any other potential candidate, but there is no easy guess for a Primary that is still several years away.

And while it also may be a bit premature to pick "favorites" for that Primary, it is not too early to give five examples of people who are good for the Democratic Party, and why any Real Democrat should be proud to support any of them in a Presidential campaign. (The following list is in no particular order).

1. Barbara Boxer: Boxer is one of the few Senators who proudly supports Democratic values regardless of the current political trends. In her Senate election this year, Boxer received the third highest number of votes in the entire country (behind Bush and Kerry) despite early rumors of a close race for her seat. As her role today as the sole Senator to sign the objection for Ohio's electors demonstrates, Boxer has the political courage the Party lacks and the tenacity to stand up against her own Party's timid leadership. In addition to progressive values and political courage, Boxer is a fiery speaker who could easily rally a demoralized Democratic base.

2. Howard Dean: It should come as no surprise that the man who inspired RealDems would get an enthusiastic endorsement for a second run. Dean saved the Party from its darkest moment -- the collapse of the opposition on the war resolution and the aftermath of the disastrous 2002 mid-term election -- and sparked an activist trend that brought in a record number of first-time Democratic voters against George W. Bush. From reforming the fundraising practice of the Party, to showing Democrats how to stand up to a failed President, to reaching out to a base that had been long-neglected by its leaders, Howard Dean deserves a second shot to take the country back.

3. Russ Feingold: A pioneer of campaign reform, and the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, Feingold has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to take unpopular stands in the face of Establishment opposition. A soft-spoken, good government champion, Feingold is the ultimate political reformer -- a Progressive in the original sense of the word. Word of caution: his political independence is not always well-advised: in 2001, he broke rank with many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee in casting a vote supporting Ashcroft's appointment. An ironic vote, considering his dissent on the Patiot Act.

4. Jesse Jackson Jr: Admittedly, it is rare for a member of the House to mount a serious challenge for the Presidency (can Dick Gephardt be considered a "serious challenge?") But Jackson Jr is the complete package, and could make an exciting insurgent in a Presidential contest. With both the charisma and name recognition of his father, Jackson has been a tireless fighter for social justice issues and a staunch defender of the underprivileged. Jackson is also a bold thinker who has called for Consitutional amendments guaranteeing the Right to Vote and the Right to an Education.

5. Al Gore: Al Gore has spent his retirement being at the forefront of the progressive Democratic movement. He was one of the earliest major Democrats to oppose the war in Iraq, he came out in favor of single-payer health care, he called for the repeal of the Patriot Act, he called for the resignation of Bush's foreign policy cabinet, he accused Bush of betraying the country, he legitimized MoveOn as an organization, and he stood against his former allies in his endorsement of Dean for President. Aside from this impressive record, too many progressive activists have refused to give him a second look due to his former DLC ties. That myopic view of his background is robbing our movement of one its most courageous voices.

Over the next several years, some of these names will surely fall from this list, and new names will appear. But with the mainstream media calling for Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner or Tom Vilsack to be the next Democratic nominee, it is heartening to remember there are still many people in the Party we can be proud to support.

Patriots For Al Gore Continuing Its Work In 2005

2005-01-03T13:04:00.000-05:00

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/1/prweb193254.php.

Patriots for Al Gore is a Federal PAC that began its work in January of 2004, to work to see Vice President and statesman Al Gore nominated at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. We hoped to achieve this via superdelegate vote, after trying a write-in campaign in the primaries that allowed such write-ins. We had minimal success, but had to abandon that endeavor due to time constraints, budget, and lack of participation because of our limited outreach capacity. We however, stuck with our convictions and worked right up until the convention by also endorsing Al Gore for President, because we believe this statesman is the epitome of honest visionary leadership for our future.

As the rightful President of 2000, Al Gore should have been allowed to serve the term the people and electorate of America elected him to serve for them. We then also have been working to investigate if there is a legal and constitutional way to restore that term to Vice President Gore, and a petition to that effect is on our site. The petition will remain there as long as it takes to see justice, if that day ever comes. We intend to send this petition to Congress this year in an effort to not only then seek a suitable remedy for this act of treachery, but to also work to see that legal and constitutional remedies exist for the future. We also believe Al Gore to be the only viable candidate in 2008 that can unite this country, heal its wounds, and bring back the prosperity and peace we knew prior to the judicial coup of 2000. However, at this time, PFG is working with other groups to fight for electoral integrity and the decorporatization of our democratic process in order to see fairer elections for all candidates and for all sides to be heard, as well as other important social issues that relate to our environment, civil liberties, and our children.

We will vigorously work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle regarding electoral reform, federal standards and oversight for federal elections, the restoration of the voting process to the people, climate change and it's relationships to terrorism, and the current state of our prison system in wake of the atrocities committed in Abu Ghraib and other prisons around the world. We will also vehemently oppose any such attempts to pass a Patriot Act II bill, a draft reinstatement bill, and any attempts to change the current Social Security system in place. We will also endorse candidates for the upcoming 2005/2006 elections, and work to see the decorporatization of our voting process, for we believe Diebold and companies like them are the antithesis to the true will of the people.

Should that fight be won, and should the Democratic Party leadership also wake up and remember that it is the base of this Party that has and will carry it through these next four years and not those whose votes were this time wasted on Bush, we believe that a 2008 Gore candidacy will be more viable. However, the current state of this country makes it morally imperative that we put those wishes aside at this time, and work first for the people and to see a better day in America that will be conducive to Al Gore and all men and women of such honor and integrity to run unemcumbered in order to truly represent the people of this nation with honor.

We hope all likeminded Americans will join us in that most important of fights either through our site, or through participation with other sites and organizations seeking electoral reform and social justice. This is not the time for silence and retreat. This is our time as Americans to show what we are truly made of. Patriots for Al Gore extends a thank you to all groups which work for peace, social justice, electoral reform, and adherence to the principles and true morals that made this country great, and look forward to working with you this year in that struggle.

Thank you,
Jan Moore
Chairperson,
Patriots for Al Gore

Erin Bidleman
Treasurer,
Patriots for Al Gore
http://www.patriotsforgore.com

*The opinions and statements expressed by Patriots for Al Gore are in no way endorsed by or affiliated with the Honorable Albert Gore Jr. Patriots for Al Gore is a Federal PAC, and a privately maintained grassroots organization funded by Americans dedicated to restoring Albert Gore Jr. to the Presidency of the United States, and in advocating for positive social change.

New Year's Resolution: "Stand Up, Keep Fighting"

2004-12-20T02:25:00.000-05:00

I did a bit of Christmas shopping today -- ordered a pizza for dinner, and cracked open a bottle of Merlot. Didn't pay attention to the news beyond a quick check of the local news to see if the snow was supposed to continue overnight. Finally checked the Washington Post online. DC is trying to come up with the funds to keep their baseball dream alive. Deborah Norville's show on MSNBC was canceled due to poor ratings. Sixty-four people were killed in various bombings in Iraq. Sixty-four people. Might as well be 164. Nothing we can do about it now. The election is over and the good guys lost. We are left with nothing except Ohio conspiracies, Obama hype, McAullife replacements, and Clinton predictions. And Christmas shopping, pizza and Merlot.

And I keep thinking about that Rumsfeld press conference. No, not THAT Rumsfeld "press conference," in which a National Guardsman questioned Rummy about lack of armor for vehicles. No, I was remembering a press conference from about a year and a half ago in which Rummy was delivering a statement and two young women in the audience stood up and began shouting anti-war slogans at the Defense Secretary. I watched it on C-Span, and I knew something was happening in the country. And I was right. We had massive anti-war marches, internet protests designed to tie up the phone and fax lines of pro-war Congressmen, energetic Dean rallies, and a record-breaking opening weekend for "Fahrenheit 9/11." We had Jon Stewart and the Dixie Chicks, and Sue Niederer -- the grieving mother of an Iraqi war casualty, arrested for her protest at a Laura Bush event. For a while, the apathy that marked the '90's faded away, and it really felt as though the people of this country were finally rising up to take it back.

But somewhere along the line, the energy was controlled and refocused. Instead of a mass movement born of outrage and responding to the lies of the Administration, we became a pragmatic voter drive. Instead of working to elect Kerry as a means to meet our goal, the election of John Kerry BECAME our goal. Suddenly, our "protest" of the Republican convention was sponsored by Mike Bloomberg, who offered discounts to Applebees for peaceful protesters. Suddenly, convention speeches by our 2003 Paul Revere's became toned-down rhetoric on the need for party unity. Sure, we were energized by the simple prospect of driving Bush from office, but that energy came with an expiration date -- November 2nd. But November 2nd came and went. The good guys lost and the Christmas shopping had to be done. And most of us didn't notice that sixty-four people lost their lives in Iraq today.

Well, it's time to pull ourselves out of our post-election slump. Remember what it felt like when we first started fighting back? The thrill and the empowerment we felt when we saw people marching down the street carrying signs condemning the war before those protests were bought and sold by the mayor of New York. The first time we heard a candidate stand up and challenge the Administration for its lies, before it became politically savvy to do just that.

I read this quote in a column today arguing for a rebirth of the anti-war movement:

"In 2003, and into early 2004, there seemed to be a real anti-war movement in America. Peace vigils in every town, mass rallies in big cities. In 2004, as we have seen, this turned into either the ABB movement, or spending so much time arguing with the ABBrs that not a march, not a rally was held anywhere that simply called for an end to the occupation(s) of Iraq, Palestine, Haiti."

The first chance we have to prove that we are still here and we are still strong will be on January 20th. As Bush is sworn into office (in what will undoubtedly be as cold and dreary a day as the 2000 inauguration -- at least in spirit), The Good Guys will gather to protest on the streets of DC, and the media will be there to witness the spectacle. Will they (we) show up in numbers that demand attention? Will we engage in enough civil disobedience (without resorting to violence) to discredit the critics who think protesters march not out of passion, but because protesting has become "fashionable?"

For those who can't make it to DC for the inauguration, what will you do to demonstrate our resiliancy? How will you help to silence the critics who believe our moment has passed? Let them know that this fight has just begun. A New Year is coming and no New Year's is complete without a resolution. So how about a pledge to speak out louder than before, to write a letter to the editor of your paper each week, to get your friends involved, to protest, and to organize. And mostly to promise not to let one stupid vote discourage us from further action.

So, by all means, finish up that Christmas shopping and enjoy your holiday.

But remember, after every holiday season, it's time to get back to work. See you at the inauguration protest.

Is there a recount going on?

2004-12-20T02:23:00.000-05:00

There is quite a bit in the news these days about the recount in Ohio, and I've had several people ask why I have given it such little attention. The main reason is because Democrats do not have the moral high ground in this fight. By "moral high ground," I am referring to the popular vote. The 2000 election was particularly frustrating because Gore not only won Florida's vote -- which would have given him the electoral count, but he was the undisputed winner of the popular vote. Even if by some miracle the votes in Ohio were properly counted, and Kerry was the actual winner, it would still be a win based on a technicality. Sure, I'd take it -- anything to get Bush out of office -- but I've been in favor of abolishing the electoral college since before 2000, and it's hard to get me to fight hard to make it count now. I do support the recount, but the outrage I felt four years ago is simply missing today.

2004-12-13T12:16:00.000-05:00

Why Don't Democrats Want Dean?

I listened to Pat Buchanan and Bill Press on MSNBC this past weekend, and Bill Press was against Howard Dean for DNC Chair. He said because he only relates to one issue, and that's anti-war. I'm sorry, but that is just bull. Howard Dean was against the Iraq War as many Republicans also were, like General Anthony Zinni, Scott Ritter, and others. Why do those in the Democratic Party leadership always push that excuse out? I would be more ashamed to say I was for this war of lies!

Are they against Dean then because they are afraid he will be successful in transforming this Party into a winning one? Looks like it. I mean, look Mr. Press, the Party leaders you support just lost another election, and this is now a minority Party. Just who do you think can ignite the base of this Party the way Howard Dean can? We know Al Gore can, but DNC Chair is out of the question for a man of his stature. President of the United Sates is the only job that is acceptable for him. Hmm, could that be why those in the "Clinton" camp are against Dean for DNC Chair? Not because of anything against Dean. They just don't want to sanction anything that could lead to Al Gore finally having what he earned. Well, fine. If it is a fight they want, it is a fight they will get.

Also, to clear this up, many in this country were and still are anti-Iraq War, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily anti-war should we be faced with a legitimate threat. I think that is an unfair distinction Democrats have placed on Dean, Al Gore, and others in this Party that has actually perpetuated the myth that Democrats are "soft" on defense. Actually, I think it is unfair to paint anyone who is anti-war as somehow bad. The DLC called Michael Moore and others they quoted as being on, "the left" as, "UnAmerican" for their stances. Are they then calling all Democrats who are against this war anti-American? Does that sound familiar? It should. Bush did the same thing. Remember the, "You are either with us or against us" ultimatum? The DLC really doesn't want their base to vote Democratic, do they?

What is wrong with wanting to work towards peace? You don't do that by waging perpetual war, BTW, you do it by seeking justice. I always thought that was what any human being of conscience stood for, and what the Democratic Party espoused. I think it still is (as was evidenced by the percentage of anti-war delegates at the DNC Convention who were stifled) and really, I am tired of a Party leadership which seeks to skew that for their political advantage, or what they think is a political advantage.

I don't know this Party anymore. It is as though they don't want success... That they are content to be relegated to minority status to get sympathy... That they are content to be Republican-lite. What is wrong with them all? Also, Bill Press stated he didn't want a DNC Chairman( Dean) who would go down to those conservative states. Why not? Does he realize that the reason perhaps why these people vote Republican is because Democrats ignore them?

Perhaps we need to change our style to shake things up a bit. Perhaps we really need to give the Republicans a run for their money and make them shake in their boots. Go where they go in the Bible belt and talk to those people truthfully about our beliefs and values, and prove to them that we are not what the lying leaders they follow paint us to be! Sure it is risky, but isn't the South part of America too? And is not the Democratic Party the Party of the American people?

I think it once was, and I think with Howard Dean as our DNC Chair we can see that again. I believe unless we show that we are, we will continue to lose elections. Supposedly, the DNC raised more funds than the RNC for the first time in over thirty years. What good will it do however, if they do not use that to its fullest advantage? I don't care if they have a state of the art headquarters, I WANT RESULTS. We must stop being a Party of followers, and start to once again be a Party of leaders. For too long we have allowed the other side to set the tone. It is time for all of that to change.

We have done so much as a Party to better the lives of Americans. That is a legacy worth remembering, reminding others of, and building on for the future. This past weekend, DNC Chair hopefuls met in Orlando to state their case as to why they should be DNC Chair. We know what was tried, and what did not work... It will then be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Jan

Al From's pessimism

2004-12-10T21:53:00.000-05:00

"Accept the truth. For the first time since before the New Deal, Republicans are now the majority party from the top of the ballot to the bottom. That's reality -- and we delude ourselves if we take false comfort in the closeness of our loss."

That was part of Al From's assessment of the Party written in a piece for Blueprint magazine, "The Road Back."

Two thoughts about this... first, how does he think we became the minority party? His organization has been in control of the Democrats for the past 15 years... do you think that might have had something to do with it?

Second, what is his prescription for the problem? More of the same:

"First and foremost, we need to bridge the trust gap on national security by spelling out our own offense against terrorism and clearly rejecting our anti-war wing, so that Republicans can no longer portray us as the anti-war party in the war on terrorism. We must leave no doubt that Michael Moore neither represents nor defines our party. "

That's right... instead of actually trying to win voters to where we are, we should simply move to where they are. So, the Republicans can continue to push the country to the Right, and when they are able to pull a few people over, the Democrats move over too. Forget pushing back. Forget making an equally forceful argument on our side. The fact that the country is moving to the Right is clearly just a natural occurance, and has nothing to do with the fact that only one side is putting up a fight for their principles, and the other side is just fighting to stay alive. That's never a recipe for victory -- that is a defeatist approach that automatically concedes our core principles (not that the DLC knows anything about core principles) before the political battle even begins.

"It's Our Party, We Bought It, We Own It, and We're Going to Take it Back."

2004-12-10T21:37:00.000-05:00

And with that line, MoveOn director Eli Pariser created quite the controversy throughout the Right-wing, cable news circuit (with both Democrats and Republicans alike). First, the media has misinterpreted the statement, continuously repeating the charge that he was referring to MoveOn itself owning the Party. He was not. He was referring to the grassroots activists that chipped in more money than the Establishment money interests that had previously kept the Party afloat. Pariser is dead-right. He called the Establishment class "professional election losers," a statement that should be so self-evident that it would fail to drum up any controversy. These same Democrats who are expressing outrage at Pariser's call to arms should instead thank him for keeping the divisions under wraps until the election cycle ended. They didn't seem to raise an eyebrow last week when The New Republic's Peter Beinart advised Democrats to purge Michael Moore and MoveOn from the Party. The problem is that the current Party leaders don't want an honest discussion about the future of the Party -- they already think they own it.

In any event, Pariser is right on the merits. It was the activist base that rallied the Democratic Party back to life, constantly fighting the tired Clinton Establishment in the process. We did donate $10 here and $20 there because we wanted to make the country better. The Democratic Party has always been the Party of the people. We own it.

Alan Colmes says the Democratic Party needs to "stand up"

2004-12-10T21:35:00.000-05:00

... of course, he meant they need to stand up to Moveon.org...

Donnie Fowler?

2004-12-10T18:20:00.000-05:00

Obviously, I have a strong preference for Howard Dean for DNC Chair, but if Dean decides against running, former Wesley Clark campaign manager Donnie Fowler seems like a fairly strong candidate as well. He has a strong commitment to grassroots campaigning, openly discusses the numerous failures of the current Establishment, and has expressed praise for groups like MoveOn. Sure beats most of the candidates.

Stand Up vs. Reach Out

2004-12-10T18:11:00.000-05:00

In the battle for the future of the Party, there is a quick trick to tell Us against Them. When this trick is applied, we can recognize the good guys and the bad guys by two simple words. Our guys say we need to Stand Up, while their side wants us to Reach Out. When pushed, both sides will claim that we can do both, but their first instinct is telling. When a Democrat talks about the need to reach out before discussing the need to stand up, we know they are not on our side.

Reflections and Projections

2004-12-10T16:52:00.000-05:00

Well... as we come to the end of 2004, and are approaching the one-year anniversary of RealDems, this seems like a natural time to examine our punditry track record up to this point, and make a few predictions about 2005.

What We Were Right About:

First, and most easily predicted, the candidate with the strongest support from the base of his Party won the Presidential election proving that moving to the political center at the expense of core supporters is a fool's game.

Second, we correctly called the DLC's effort to "Disown John Kerry." They have been following the strategy to the letter; claiming that John Kerry was a Northeastern liberal, and that his defeat proves we need a red-state moderate. And of course, they have been relentless in charging that we had the most united party ever, the best turnout efforts ever, and the most energized base ever, and we still lost. Of course, they're wrong, but you can't blame them for trying. And, unfortunately, as predicted in the column, their frame of the election is sticking with the media.

Third, not as much a prediction as a wish that has begun to be realized, the infrastructure gap described in "Watering the Grassroots" is starting to close. Although the Party elite is (as always) behind in the trend, groups like MoveOn, ACT, DFA, 21st Century Democrats, The Media Fund, Air America, Campaign for America's Future, and Center for American Progress (my least favorite of the group) have become major players within the Democratic Party. Most amazingly, with a couple of exceptions, most began during this election cycle.

Finally, the prediction of the year goes to April's column "Howard Dean for Chairman of the DNC." Sure, the column assumed a Kerry Presidency, and of course Dean's election to the position is far from certain, but it was a concept that never even occured to the brain-dead mainstream political press.

Now, things we got wrong...

Well, that column about an Emerging Consensus on Civil Unions seems a little off the mark now. Apparently, the backlash to gay marriage was a bit stronger than I had predicted, and the issue didn't quite fade as I believed it would. Eh, we all make mistakes.

And my most obvious mistake was my absolute belief that John Kerry would win the election -- or rather that despite Kerry's mind-boggling flaws, George W. Bush would lose the election. Even I underestimated the power of a base excited by the candidate.

Alright, enough self-flagelation. Onto the next cycle, and my first prediction for 2008. No, not Hillary, and not even the Democrats (it's no fun predicting the conventional wisdom... I was still privately predicting a Kerry - Cleland ticket until last summer.) But onto the prediction game (guessing game?)... the dark horse candidate to watch on the Republican side is George Allen. He is young, attractive, and Right-wing. Besides sharing the politics of the far-Right of the Republican Party (to hold the base and attract the activists) he is not well known enough to be caricatured for his positions (the problem for Rick Santorum). In other words, Allen (if he has an ounce of charisma) is someone to watch... or at least watch out for.

Well, that's the wrap-up for the year, and the first prediction of what to expect. As the year winds down, I'll add a few more predictions to the list.

Twelve Steps to Democratic Rehabilitation

2004-12-09T16:55:00.000-05:00

With the election behind us, and the recriminations in full force, I wanted to make my offer for the 12 Steps To Democratic Rehabilitation. Most of the people who have already weighed in on the Party's necessary direction have been the same political and journalistic professionals who have led us down the path of continued defeat. And predictably, they offer the following prescription: They see the need for compromise with the President on his legislative agenda (surrendering our ideals for political expediency that almost always fails); a reaching out to "Red America" (a foreign country in their minds that Democrats can only compete in by nominating Southern moderates); a need to beef up our national security credentials (i.e. Never oppose any war supported by Republicans); and the need to put forward a positive message (don't fight back hard, and never ever appear to be demagoging corporate America).

My ideas for the direction of the Party are a little different. I may be an amateur, but to borrow from Ross Perot in his 1992 campaign, it's true that I have no experience devising strategies that have turned a majority Party into a minority Party, a proud history of fighting for the underdog into a reputation for being weak-kneed and soulless. Maybe it's about time the Party started listening to its amateurs, because God knows, we couldn't do any worse.

Step One: Have Fun

While most virtues of democracy are well known to anyone who has finished first grade, there is one virtue that is often forgotten: Democracy is fun. It makes people feel good to get involved with something larger than themselves. Candidates should make their supporters proud to be a part of the campaign, by bringing energy and authenticity to the process. Create innovative and entertaining campaign ads, feel free to use gimmicks to gain attention or raise funds, and build a community of supporters that will spread the energy of the campaign. Politics does not have to be staid. We are the challengers, the opposition Party. We are in the perfect position to raise a little hell and have a little fun.

Step Two: Hit Hard

Fighters beat statesmen every time. We should never be afraid to go negative, never play defense, and never back down. From Andrew Jackson on, the Democratic Party has been the scrappy Party never afraid of an old fashioned political fight. As Harry Truman said "Carry the battle to them, don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and never apologize for anything."

Step Three: Hold the Base

Presentation isn't everything. We can't simply go into battle as the happy warrior without knowing exactly who we are going into battle for. The DLC would like us to believe that a "third way" can satisfy everyone -- that expanding our base does not mean neglecting our core supporters. But this is a fallacy. The definition of politics requires there to be a choice between competing interests. And when it comes down to that choice, we better know which side we are on. If we lose the support (or at least the enthusiasm) of the people who need us the most, then we do not deserve to win. And we will not win. In every Presidential election since 1976, the candidate that lost touch with his base lost the election.

Step Four: Don't Worry About Money

I don't mean this to imply that money is not important, but that money comes from momentum and not the other way around. Small dollar donors will donate to the candidate they believe in the most. Big dollar donors are more fickle; they want to back a winner. If the small dollar donors are behind a candidate, the big dollar donors will follow as well. There is no need to court wealthy segments of the population (i.e., Hollywood, trial lawyers, business community) to become financially competitive. If appealing to business helped in raising money, Joe Lieberman would have won the money chase in the '04 primaries.

Step Five: Be Willing to Sacrifice Discipline for Authenticity

Running a highly disciplined campaign is a positive thing. It helps to avoid gaffes and keeps the focus on the message the campaign is hoping to disseminate to the public. But as outlined above, politics is about choices, and unfortunately in this situation, the cost of discipline is inauthenticity. As a Party, we need to say what we mean... what our voters are saying everyday to their neighbors and coworkers. Too often, the things our leaders say are unrecognizable to Democrats around the country. We come across as cautious and phony. If a reporter asks a question, answer it. Don't fall back on soundbites and talking points.

Step Six: Offer Challenges, Not Promises

Americans participate in the political process out of patriotism and not just self interest. Give them a reason to feel patriotic. Instead of simply explaining how policies will effect their lives, we need to explain how policies will improve America. The value of inspiring voters to work toward a better America cannot be underestimated. Ask for sacrifice. Instill a sense of responsibility toward their community, toward their nation, and to their world.

Step Seven: Reclaim Our Populist Roots

The DLC has spent more than a decade trying to exorcise populism from the Democratic Party. They have associated the racism used by some early 19th century Populists with the greater call of the populist movement. They argue that populism is divisive -- that it's class warfare, and only survives by pitting one group of people against another. But why would we run from populism? Populists fight on the side of the majority of people -- those who are not well-served by the policies written by and for the economic and political establishment. The divisions exist, and to ignore them means to ignore the people who suffer as a result. For a Party accused of being elitist, wouldn't a return to these founding anti-elitist principles be well-advised? The real reason the DLC opposes populism is because they want the Democrats to court the powerful business leaders and the entrenched political establishment that populism would seek to overthrow.

Step Eight: Engage in a Debate Over Values

This step is not meant to be a response to the 2004 exit polls that were interpreted to suggest Democrats lost because of "moral values." Rather, it stems from George Lakoff's thesis in Moral Politics, and has been argued by E.J. Dionne in numerous columns. Democrats cede morality not by moving to the Left, but by moving to the Right. Instead of arguing our beliefs based on values, we too often use pragmatism, economics and strategy when making our points. For instance, in our attempts to shake the "bleeding heart" label, we often defend policies that help the poor as being economically beneficial to all. While the point may be valid, it is not nearly as powerful as the fact that helping the poor is moral and just. Another example is our response to the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. All Democrats, and in fairness almost all Americans, condemned the torture. But most of the criticism focused on the practical problem. Would our prisoners be tortured in response? Would the images of the torture strengthen the Iraqi insurgency? It wasn't until Al Gore delivered a MoveOn sponsored speech in May that someone made the obvious moral argument against the torture. Democrats need to regain the confidence that our values are America's values -- that America is a good country that will want to do good because it is moral and not simply out of self-interest.

Step Nine: Don't Run From the Activists

Activists are the true believers of our Party. They do the leg work, spread the message, and supply the energy. It is an insult to have the leadership of the Party they are working for embarrassed to be associated with their efforts. When the Party leaders try to distance themselves from Michael Moore, they are distancing themselves from every Democrat that bought a ticket to Fahrenheit 9/11. When they engage in efforts to "stop" an activist-favored candidate, the sleight extends to the supporters of that candidate. The greatest strides made during the 2004 election cycle -- the internet fundraising innovations, the impressive get-out-the-vote efforts, the edgy MoveOn campaign ads -- were made possible only by Party activists. Republicans reward their activists. We should stop insulting ours.

Step Ten: Shorten and Sharpen the Message

We should always know exactly what we stand for, be able to say it in less than seven seconds, lay out a call to arms, and make our message easily distinguishable from the other side's message. In Paul Wellstone's fateful 2002 Senate campaign, his slogan was "Stand Up, Keep Fighting." This message was succinct, called for action and could not be confused with the message of the opponent. The same could be said of Howard Dean's "Take Back America" slogan. Both of these slogans were brilliant, but both were only possible because the underlying message of the candidates was already known. We knew who Wellstone wanted to stand up and fight for, and we knew why Dean felt such an urgency in taking back the country. But for a Democratic Party that has had trouble defining itself, the dynamic slogans will have to wait. We need to start by outlining our values: social and economic justice, grassroots democracy, civil rights, and a moral foreign policy. That is a short and sharp message. It's what the Democratic Party has been advocating since its inception. We need a message that puts it into words.

Step Eleven: Campaign Nationally

One of the biggest mistakes we made as a Party in the 2002 midterm election was running separate campaigns across the country. The Party deliberately blurred any national message with the mistaken belief that the national message would hurt candidates in conservative districts. As a result, voters couldn't find anything that our Party stood for. We became an alliance of non-Republicans (it is helpful to note that the downfall of the Whigs in the 19th century came about when they failed to come up with a cohesive national message and instead became nothing more than an anti-Democrat coalition). The same flawed thinking about the limits of the Democratic Party are evident in national elections. We begin every Presidential campaign ignoring every voter we expect to win and every voter we expect to lose. We need one message that we are not afraid to offer the American public in Berkeley California and Nashville Tennessee. The trick is not finding a broad message that satisfies both, but finding a way to rally a majority of the country to our message.

Step Twelve: Be Bold and Consistent

Rather than voting on ideological grounds, swing voters tend to vote on intangible qualities, such as leadership, honesty and moral courage. Our mistake in our failed attempts to court swing voters is in our readiness to move to the middle to meet the swing voters where they reside. The Republicans have been far ahead of us in dismissing this strategy. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was extremely successful with swing voters, and he did not move one inch to the center. On the contrary, his swing voter success was partly attributable to the integrity the voters saw on his stands based on principle. As a Party, we need to challenge conventional wisdom, both in politics and policy. Ignore the polls (at least sometimes), and especially ignore the pundits (almost always). Focus on changing the minds of voters instead of selling out long-held principles in an effort to win those voters. Standing on principle is not only the best policy, it is also a winning politics.

The Democratic Party is famous for its post-defeat "circular firing squad." While some losses are just losses and don't need to be endlessly rehashed, the series of losses suffered by Democrats forces us to take a hard look at our problem. Our Party is better for this country than the Republican Party. With faith in our ideals and trust in the American people, we will put an end to the era of Right-wing rule.

Second deadliest month

2004-11-17T14:40:00.000-05:00

According to Pentagon reports, around 100 U.S. troops have lost their lives this month in Iraq bringing the total U.S. deaths to 1,210. Those numbers make November 2004 the second deadliest month of the war -- second only to April, when 135 troops were killed. Almost 9,000 have been injured since the start of the war-- about 500 this month alone.

New Donkey, Old Ways

2004-11-17T02:11:00.000-05:00

Well, the blog "NewDonkey.com" has come out in opposition to Howard Dean as Chairman of the DNC. Apparently, they are worried that Dean would not have the opportunity to maximize his influence within the Party in his coveted post, and are warning him off the dead-end job:

"And today, I strongly suspect that DNC interest in Dean is not about his ideas, or his reformist credentials, or even his grassroots support. I doubt they look at this born-again liberal from the bluest of blue states and see the face that will launch an assault on the Red State Fortress the Republicans have been building. I betcha money they look at Howard Dean and see Green, as in Long Green.

Now I doubt that's the legacy, or the mission, that the Governor wants to identify his movement with going forward. And even more generally, I can't imagine a less suitable vehicle for genuine reform than the DNC, at least as it's currently constituted."

A cynic might note that the blog is written by Ed Kilgore, policy director of the DLC and main author of the DLC's "New Dem Daily." This cynic may also note that the DLC has been attempting to derail Dean since May 2003 -- before most rank-and-file Democrats had ever heard of him. One could also speculate that the DLC may be concerned about waning influence within the Party since their preferred candidate in the primaries (Joe Lieberman) failed to win a single delegate, and their "electable" candidate (John Kerry) failed to live up to his label. But here at RealDems, we don't peddle conspiracy theories. I'm certain Mr. Kilgore is offering Dean this free advice because he is legitimately concerned about Dean wasting his influence with a silly job like Party Chairman. Thanks for the tip, Ed. I'm sure it will receive its due consideration.

Red Elections; Blue Elections

2004-11-17T01:16:00.000-05:00

With the "United States of Canada" and "Jesusland" maps creating a buzz, I thought it was only fair (and by fair, I mean "entertaining for me") to imagine the elections for President in these respective nations -- candidate archetypes intact.

Jesusland
Jeb Bush -- Establishment candidate with the early backing, but no momentum
Tom Delay -- Congressional hack who never gets the campaign off the ground
Sean Hannity -- Media personality who connects, but ultimately falls short
Ralph Reed -- Young, charismatic leader of a top Right-wing interest group
Zell Miller -- Crazy, old ranting madman

Winner: Zell Miller
Running Mate: Virginia Senator George Allen

United States of Canada
Hillary Clinton -- The "Jeb Bush" of the Blue team
Barbara Boxer -- Ideologically in line, but the title of Senator can only hurt
Michael Moore -- The Paul Revere of the Blues
Andrew Stern -- Um... Charismatic leader of a top Left-wing interest group
Howard Dean -- The darling of the revolutionaries who seceeded from Jesusland

Winner: Howard Dean
Running Mate: Georgia Congressman John Lewis (an immigrant to Blue Land)

Harry Reid: One day as leader, and already The Establishment

2004-11-17T00:56:00.000-05:00

Today, Harry Reid (who has disturbingly enjoyed positive press coverage on Fox News) officially became the Senate Democratic leader -- the "most powerful Democrat in Washington." What was his first act as leader? To endorse Tom Vilsack for DNC Chair. That's right -- only a few hours after becoming the Democratic leader, Reid assured the Democratic powerbrokers that he would fight for business-as-usual -- centrist leaders who offend few and fight for less. This makes the battle for Chairman a clear-cut battle between Establishment centrists (Vilsack also has the endorsement of Lieberman) and progressive insurgents (RealDems has been advocating a Dean-led DNC for several months). So let the battle for the soul of the Party begin. It isn't our side that is afraid of a fight.

Colmes voted for Lieberman

2004-11-17T00:29:00.000-05:00

Gotta love Fair and Balanced... while Sean Hannity is an avowed right-winger, timid Alan Colmes is a... Lieberman voter. On tonight's Hannity and Colmes, Colmes told Lieberman that he had voted for him. I realize there are very few liberals who claim Colmes as one of their own, but tonight's show should convince the hold-outs as well as provide further evidence to support the already conventional wisdom. In fact, I admit, I'm surprised by Colmes' admission. I had him pegged as a milquetoast liberal -- a man who believes in liberal ideals, but disapproves of heated rhetoric. I was wrong. The man is not simply weak, but also ideologically centrist. After revealing his support for Lieberman, Colmes went on to bash Michael Moore (he did his usual trick in which he defends Democrats by distancing them from their most passionate advocates... eg. "The Right tries to paint Michael Moore as the face of the Democrats.") Colmes manner of "defending" Democrats alienates the majority of the base who not only believe that Michael Moore does speak for us, but that many times, he's the only one who will. There are two basic responses to Republican charges that Democrats are liberal: 1. "No, we're not liberal," and 2. "So? What's wrong with being liberal?" Colmes obviously belongs to the first group.

What the hell do you know about electability?

2004-11-17T00:07:00.000-05:00

Are we finally at a point where we can put an end to the theory of electability? How many losses does it take before we acknowledge that the same people preaching about electability actually know nothing about it? Our party settled on Kerry for the sole purpose of defeating Bush. Nobody loved Kerry -- he was a hired gun. If we are not inspired by our own candidate, how can we expect him to rally the undecideds? The electability strategy predictably failed, and we are left not only with a second Bush term, but with the knowledge that we didn't believe in our own values enough to bring them to the fight.

Colin Powell is a coward

2004-11-16T23:48:00.000-05:00

What is with all my fellow liberals lamenting the departure of Colin Powell from Bush's cabinet? A moderating voice? What good is that when the man can't take a stand that may cost him political power? Powell KNEW the war was a mistake, and not only did he refuse to do the courageous thing and resign his position, but he allowed them to use him as the public face for the invasion. Without Powell's "credibility," the Bush team may never have garnered the necessary public support to invade Iraq. He gave a moderate stamp to a right-wing foreign policy. But Powell reamained loyal, and probably rationalized his decision by convincing himself that he could do more to moderate Bush's foreign policy from within. Bullshit. If Powell had resigned from the Cabinet and publicly opposed the war in Iraq, we would not have lost over 1,100 of our troops and created thousands of new terrorists. Condoleeza Rice may be a right-wing nut, but at least she advocates her positions out of belief and not cowardice. Good riddance Secretary Powell - hope your conscience doesn't bother you too much.