Post from Julie's Blog:
Dean's battle for the 50 State Strategy
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
Link
All the quotes here are from a larger article by Bob Moser, a contributing writer for The Nation. Please use the link to get a take on the 'bigger picture' of the political situation at the DNC level.

Howard Dean has fought every step of way, first as a Presidential candidate, then for the chairmanship of the DNC. None of these battles were bloodless, but his victories are the only hope of strengthening the Democratic Party to a point where it can compete with the GOP machine.

Results count. Dean and his strategy are getting the results. Who is his opposition? The entrenched good ol' boy network in Washington, Nancy Pelosi, and the Centrist Hillary Clinton, and her anti-Dean staff.

In March 2006 House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader-to-be Harry Reid met with the miscreant from Vermont and, according to the Washington Post, "complained about Dean's priorities." To little avail. In May DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel and DSCC honcho Chuck Schumer had a similar contretemps with Dean, ending with Emanuel reportedly storming out with "a trail of expletives." And on CNN, Clinton consultant and longtime Democratic strategist Paul Begala tartly mouthed the insiders' consensus. "He says he has a long-term strategy. What he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose."


...a study of the fifty-state strategy's impact on the 2006 midterm results by Elaine Kamarck. While the project had not been designed to win elections in the short run, Kamarck found that it had done just that, "increasing the Democrats' vote share beyond the bounce of a national tide favoring Democrats." Comparing Democratic results in '06 with those of the '02 midterms, she found that the average Democratic vote went up by nearly 5 percent in 2006. But in the thirty-five Congressional districts where fifty-state staffers had worked on the campaigns, Democratic votes had soared by an average of nearly 10 percent.

"Nothing like a little straight analysis to cut through the bullshit, huh?" Kamarck says.


The real fear is that a second Clinton presidency would mean a return to the Washington-centric ways of the first--to party control by "the very people who ground down the activist base in the 1990s and have continued to hold the party's grassroots in utter contempt," as Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos wrote in the Washington Post. The harshest public critics of Dean's strategy are also among Hillary Clinton's most trusted advisers: Emanuel, Carville, Begala. As Thomas Edsall reported in The New Republic last year, many top Clintonites so loathe and mistrust Dean that their campaign is "laying the groundwork to circumvent the DNC." There is talk of Clinton's team keeping its own field staff with the campaign after winning the primaries, rather than shifting them under the auspices of the DNC for the general election, as has been standard practice. "The DNC is going to be peripheral" if Hillary wins the nomination, one Clinton aide said. Clinton acolyte Harold Ickes Jr. has raised millions for a private voter database, to avoid relying on the DNC's.


So, do we want a Progressive, grassroots-responsive Democratic Party, or do we want a Washington-insider run, good ol' boy network of a couple hundred big-money guys setting our priorities in 2008, and beyond?

Reader Comments
  
intersting info
By Steve Wilson Jul 25th 2007 at 2:00 pm EDT
but you are going to have to do better than that to persuade me.. We can all have our own opinions as to what was responsible for success in 2006 and quote statistic of our own. Besides, we need long term grass roots efforts to rebuild the party in the red states, and tactical use of limited dollars in key races. The gang you thouroughly discredit got our last Democrat to hold the presidency elected, not Howard. I admire Howard Dean and think he has done a wonderful job for our party. But you way over-hype the disagreement. Howard will be actively helping Hillary if she gets the nomination, and you know it. And you have been raising a lot of false hopes about what Dems can achieve with slim comngressional minorities, and that make grass roots efforts here in Texas almost impossible to get going, which I'm sure Howard would tell you. NOthing I saw in your link tells me Pelosi & Reid have that much against Howard's leadership. One quote in one article. Some big picture. Politicians that want the best for their party have differernces. Big deal.
Re: intersting info
By Steve Wilson Jul 25th 2007 at 2:06 pm EDT
correction: thin Congressional majorities
  
interesting but...
By Bentley Davis Jul 25th 2007 at 2:56 pm EDT
A couple of points. One, I wouldn't say the "'ol boy network" if you are following it with Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. Insider perhaps, but they are not boys.

Second, and more importantly, the party is here to support all of our candidates -- and we will continue to do so regardless of who the presidential nominee is.

The 50 state strategy is intended to build capacity in all 50 states. The vision is one of encouraging and supporting Democrats who are running for state office, county commissioner, Governor, and yes, national candidates as well. If the 50 state strategy is successful, it won't really matter whose field staff are on the ground. The volunteers will have been identified, trained, and ready to go.

Finally, the concerns of Representative Emanuel and Senator Schumer are not without reason. Traditionally, we would focus our money and effort in those areas where the seats seemed the most in play. (Or for the presidential, in "swing states"). Losing this focused strategy is frightening, especially when it is their seats in play.
Re: interesting but...
By Julie Jul 25th 2007 at 5:57 pm EDT
'good ol' boys' refers not particularly to gender, but to the sort of backroom politics that disenfranchises and disillusions voters about their chances for bringing about anything other than 'politics as usual', based solely on who the biggest contributors were. It's a Southern phrase, so maybe it strikes a dissonant chord with others, sorry.

I submit that, in their eagerness to be 'all things to all men' in the 90s, the Clinton remake of the Democratic Party is greatly responsible for the cynicism and apathy in what should be our base.

For too long, I think we have been running campaigns that are negative, meaning Dems as the NOT-REPUBLICAN-PARTY, than Dems as people who are offering something different and exciting to vote FOR. Sure, Hillary, if nominated, will get a lot of anybody-but-Bushies votes, but how much more passion and enthusiasm could we engender if we had something substantially different to offer?

I may be wrong, as I am pretty far to the left. Maybe Republicanlite is what people want. I think it's such a waste of time that I lose sight of how the majority of voters think.

I want the ANTIPUB...lol
<---Mme LaFarge here, getting out the knitting ^o^
Re: interesting but...
By Steve Wilson Jul 25th 2007 at 10:23 pm EDT
Republicanlite got us some seats in 2006. Not perfect, but better than losing and having no committee chairs to conduct oversight. I have lost a lot of idealism over the years and now will take what baby steps that can be achieved. Arnold wins in Sacramento, it scares me that he is Democrat light. I wish I shared your optimism about being able to generate passion and enthusiasm merely by having candidates with more to the left clearly definable positions. It seems the culture is going the opposite way to me. Independent, don't label me types are growing, not liberals. Gerrymandering has made the number of safe seats for both sides difficult for any challengers. I guess I am just a pragmatist now. And years of Clinton were a nice break between Reagan and GWB if you ask me. My state didn't become cynical because of Clinton, it was Reagan that is still the hero around here. What a great message, cut taxes and regulations and increase defense spending and all the problems will go away. Bill Clinton warmed up to big business and used triangulation but never came close to being Reagan-lite, in my mind. Our electorate is very gullable and self centered. And after 9/11, easily suckered into being afraid of over-hyped threats.

I am not responding with harrassment. Just arguments. I don't have a lot of knowledge of websites to get some expert to agree or quote self serving stats. I guess that makes me lazy and boring and unattractive. But liberal politics is not a hobby of mine.
Re: interesting but...
By Julie Jul 26th 2007 at 3:17 pm EDT
believe it or not, I know the difference.
I never mind an argument.
"In much counsel there is wisdom".
Except for the 1% of people who are true visionary geniuses, most of us do better compiling viewpoints and info, and trying to reach a conclusion based on as many opinions as possible.
We may not reach the same conclusion, but at least we know how the other guy thinks, and why. I'm all for that.