It appears Howard Dean is good for his word and he will not be seeking another term as Chair of the DNC. According to HuffPo, Clair McCaskill may share the chairmanship. Bottom line, their circling the wagons and I'm afraid us liberals will be on the wrong side.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tra...
I guess any candidate like Clinton will have to work hard to crack that inner circle.
From the HuffPo:
"My sense is that the Obama folks are pretty insular and don't want somebody else building the party and haven't even decided what building the party means for them," explained one aide. "I bet they go with a split chair again ... McCaskill at Chair, and somebody like Steve Hildebrand [Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager] at Operational Chair."
- elixir's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
I've only seen McCaskill a few times
and no longer have TV, but IIRC she's not capable of being the face and voice of the Democratic Party. Every time I saw her, from election night on, she was a real disappointment.
It would be good for someone from the Obama camp to be in charge and have to listen to some feedback from committee persons in every state, half of whom are women.
Proof
If proof were needed, that we need better representatives.
Mccaskill's weak. Hillary got stronger during the primaries. Every woman in the US alive should be pushing and backing Hillary.
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
Wait...
I thought the 50 state strategy was a brilliant success?
I'm so confused. But then, I have two X chromosomes.
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
Having 2 X chromosomes is not an excuse.
The vaunted Dean/Obama 50 state strategy was ditched for a swing state strategy as soon as the heat turned up and the race tightened in the general. It was a tragedy because it generated a larger base while throwing various groups "under da bus."
I love this job!
I love this job!
they fired all the 50-state people last wk --
50 State Strategy Being Killed by Letting the Organizers Go -- http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/07/50-sta...
"... Basically, what's happening is that 50-state organizers like Susan Mariner (Hampton Roads) and Joe Montano (NOVA) will be let go at the end of this month, the program "suspended" and subject to "reevaulation" (excuse me, but don't you usually reevaluate first, THEN decide to "suspend" or not to "suspend?").
Talk about penny wise and pound foolish! This entire program costs only about $100,000-$120,000 per state, plus health care. In the grand scheme of things, that's miniscule. But the impact of this program is huge, particularly in many states with smaller populations and less developed Democratic Party infrastructures. There, what I'm hearing is that "these people ARE the party" to a large extent. Cutting them could be extremely harmful in the effort to build up our party around the country.
What I really don't understand about this is "why?" I mean, this is Howard Dean's main accomplishment as DNC Chairman. I find it very hard to believe that Dean would kill his own "baby," which makes me think that something else is going on here. With Dean's term running out at the end of this year, perhaps he's been overruled by powers greater than himself? Who might those powers be, and why - aside from the program's cost, which could potentially be funded by the netroots and other donors - would they shut it down? Any thoughts? ..."
-- http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do...
Control. Someone's a control freak. Or just wants own people
everywhere.
Axelrod? Plough? Obama? Rahm, already so soon having that kind of influence (or knew he would be chief of staff awhile ago?). Cigarette Man?
When is the DNC moving back from Chicago? Or is it?
There sure wasn't much coverage of the DNC in Chicago thing after it was announced, was there. WTF
was with that move anyway?
Oh. Control.
Or perhaps
just Obama's people pulling up the ladder behind them so they will always have the rep of having ran the bestest campaign evar.
Well, Obama wasn't really strong on party building during this
campaign. And the campaign seems to see his volunteers and email lists as a force to be mobilized to bring pressure on Congress Critters.
Okaaaay--a new party?
The question becomes
pressure on which Congresscritters? I'm betting it'll be on the Dems, because not accommodating the GOP would be, well, divisive.
Seemed like Dean was pushed to the side starting
just before the move of the DNC to Chicago.
I doubt Dean's happy to go, or to see his faction pushed out (to the extent it doesn't already overlap with The Apostles). He spent most of the summer shuffling around the country in a bus speaking to small crowds -- I'd think the Chairman of the DNC during not just an election year, but The Most Important Election Ever! might have been more usefully employed.
I can't say I can manage much sympathy for him.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
The update contains the scariest part.
Wow we didn't even have time
to set up a pool on how fast Donna Brazile would be floated as a possible DNC chair.
Too bad I've already resolved not to give the national party any more money. Having her be chair (because you know it would never happen through any fair and accountable process) would be the icing on the worst cake ever. I'm sure the cheeto crowd is ready to acquire the requisite amnesia to cheer her on...
Yeah, Really
Many of us called this months ago.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
yahoo more money to go on vacation
Luckily Florida can rely on her to go down there on DNC money and get a tan .
http://www.correntewire.com/ye_olde_writ... fiction link
http://www.correntewire.com/ye_olde_writ... fiction link
Howard Dean's DNC legacy
Whether you like him or not, he was hired to do a job; he was hired to win.
February 12, 2005; Howard Dean assumes the office of Chairman, Democratic National Committee:
November 5, 2006 Elections:
November 5, 2008 Elections:
With Dean as Chairman, the DNC strategy resulted in:
Karl Rove was suppose to be some kind of genius, building a Permanent Republican Majority; Howard Dean kicked Karl Rove's ass - big time. I would take another 4 years, another 8 years actually, of Howard Dean at DNC; I would like to see the Republican Party ground to dust and Karl Rove with it. I am sorry to see him go.
Dean's "effectiveness"
How much credit does Dean deserve for all this? I ask that seriously.
The DNC was always short on money and it was the campaign committees and the Obama campaign that provided the resources. The weakest branch of the Dem Party over the last several years has been the DNC if you want to go by the "numbers". That doesn't mean Dean wasn't successful, but I think a pretty strong argument "on the numbers" can be made against Dean in addition to "the results".
Only tyrants rig elections.
Guess it was Obama then
Somebody's accomplishment, sure as hell if things had gone badly you'd be damning Dean - oh, wait - things went extremely well and you're still damning Dean.
Facts, figures, reality...never mind.
couldn't possibly have been, you know, planning or
teamwork or taking advantage of the opportunity the Maker gave us.
Yeah, I know, Bringiton.
Fifty-state tragedy, they're calling it.
Four states voted in tragically bad policies a week ago today.
The nation by and large made different and IMHO better choices. The decision to run everywhere, to contest every race, was Dean's.
I like his record on health care. I proposed that he be USG because it is a practical post more so than a political one. As has become habit, piling-on commenters then went off on their own tangent about HHUS, and argued themselves into exhaustion over why the person I proposed considering for one post should under no circumstances be considered for a different post.
Thanks for noticing that the Democrats won. I think Dean and Obama both deserve some credit, and so, likely, does the anybody-but-McBush vote. After all, if a few wingnuts and nutjobs and hardcases hadn't voted for McKinney or Nader or Barr ... McCain's vote might've been bigger. I'm a Democrat. I'll take my wins where I can get 'em.
:*)
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
There is no suitable emoticon
for this line of thinking. "Throwing up so some dribbles out of the corner of my mouth" is what's needed :-?...
GWB
may have had a tiny bit to do with the shift in numbers to the Democratic Party, what with the war(s), the economy, military torture, and the subprime credit meltdown. Hey, I know! Let's make him Chair! Correlation, causation, what's the diff?
I'm not sure how proud Dean should be of the Democratic Congress that voted for FISA, continued to fund the wars, and is rushing to hand out ponies, lest any Republicans actually try to leave the political stage. Sometimes, quantity and quality are not the same thing.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
PUMA strategic thinking
Democrats might win because Bush was so bad, therefore vote for McCain so things can get even more badder and then vote for Democrats...later...sometime...after everything is completely shot to hell.
Terry McAuliff and the Clintonista team had control of the DNC and gave us the Kerry campaign and another congressional butt-kicking in '04. Bush was just as bad then, and never changed; what changed between the '04 election and '06 was the DNC strategy, and that strategy continued on through this November is what carried a marginally promising presidential candidate to a sweeping victory and crushed the Republicans in both houses of Congress.
Dean kicked ass.
Either that
or the chicken's finally came home to roost for the Republican's horseshit policies after 8 years of epic failures, led by The Worst President Ever who was enabled by, in turns, first a lick-spittle toady Republican Congress, and second a feeble and fearful Democratic Congress.
But reasonable people can disagree. Mostly.
Some say it's better to be lucky than good, and in Dean's case it is easier to prove the former than the latter, because in this case I don't think he made his own luck.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
The winning strategy...
... was fear of another depression in a Democratic year. Until Lehman went tits up, McCain was, amazingly enough, still in it. And, as usual, the winners are always hailed as geniuses, and the losers shunned as fools. Whether the American people are the winners -- which should, after all, be the point of all this for everbody but pros and wannabes -- remains to be seen; that can only be discerned from policy.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Winners and Losers
Lots of ways to define those, eh? Given our destructiveness, a “Win” for the planet would be electing Republicans thus raising the likelihood of Homo sapiens achieving self-extinction. Oh, wait, that was the PUMA thesis, wasn’t it?
Another success measurement approach for Dean is to look at the gains achieved relative to the available opportunity, rather than just the raw numbers of new seats. From 2004 to 2006, the Dem caucus increased in the Senate from 45 [yes, I made an error] to 51, a gain of 11% of the available 55 seats. In the House the gain was 32 seats, 14% of the 234 available.
In 2008 the gain in the Senate will be from 6 to 9 of the 49 available, 12% to 18%; the House gain will be from 23 to 28 seats of the 202 available, 11% to 14%.
When a new strategy is employed, especially if the strategy has to be forced into place against a very powerful set of entrenched interests, and the results are consistently positive (for the Party) over four years, credit should be given to the person/organization that formulated and implemented the strategy. Anything else is, well, wishful thinking.
As to Obama and McCain, the closeness of the race was not universally amazing. It was precisely the difficulty Obama would have that led me to campaign for Hillary. Others, I recognize, supported her for reasons that were not so, ah, cravenly opportunistic; all I ever cared about was winning the general election, and I felt that Obama would have a very difficult time.
What led to Obama’s victory was a complex of events. The economy had been tanking for more than a year but it was only a bubbling up in the public consciousness, an increasing concern but not a crisis. What tipped public opinion in favor of Obama was not the Big Shitpile Eco-meltdown but rather the candidate’s responses. Right or wrong in the specifics of their actions around the Trillion Dollar Giveaway, Obama was calm and deliberate in his manner while McCain was unhinged and that public meltdown cost him 3 – 4 points. His selection of Sarah Palin only added to the perception of instability. The more the public saw of her, the worse she rated and the more his image suffered; in the end she cost McCain 2 – 3 points. Together, those two effects made a 6-point spread.
Had the 50-State Strategy not been running for 4 years, it is not at all clear to me that Obama would have even been at breakeven at the first of October; certainly the structural registration and GOTV elements would not have been in place to allow exploitation of McCain’s faux pas.
The proof of this Obama-pudding will as always be in the eating. What we'll be getting served, nobody knows yet; I am slightly hopeful, but not more than that just yet.
Oh, please, prove your claim, do
in Dean’s case it is easier to prove the former than the latter
Prove luck.
Oh, and; what exactly is the point in being reasonable?
Isn't it reasonable
that the conservative Republicans have sucked shit for the last 8 (make that 40) years?
Isn't it reasonable that they were able to finally implement their horseshit policies and everybody now sees what a disaster that was?
Isn't it reasonable to attribute the Democrats winning to Republican failures more than Democratic successes? Especially when most people don't even know what the hell Obama and the Democrats actually want to DO, except NOT what the Republicans have done?
I'm not a believer in the "Great Man" theory of history. I think Dean and the Democrats have been lucky to have opponents like George W. Bush, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Jack Abramoff, Ted Stevens, on and on. I also think the clock ran out on the Republicans: the apparatus went kaput.
I don't begrudge Dean, I'm sure he is an able man, but there is nothing he did that any one of a hundred (or thousand) of Democratic operatives couldn't have done given the hand dealt Democrats after the last 4 years.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
Bingo
It's more than reasonable, herb.
And throwing out the word "PUMA" over and over and over again to try and discredit the argument simply isn't going to cut it.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
Come on, Damon, let's be reasonable
Throwing the word PUMA out cuts it if the reader is stupid. One should secure agreement any way that one can, right?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
PUMA PUMA PUMA PUMA
Just as valid as FISA FISA FISA at every mention of Obama, but hey who's comparing tactics?
The same invalid arguments were made during the general election campaign under the guise of PUMA as are now being made disguised as a critique of Dean's accomplishments; if you weren't a slavish Hillary supporter and/or if you ever said anything remotely positive about Obama and/or if you ever demured from any attack on Obama however absurd or scurrilous, then you aren't worth shit.
Same people, same shoddy logic, same false arguments, same inability when challenged to respond with either fact or sound logic; same single-minded destructive obsession, same refusal to engage on anything positive and same fanatical bitter clinging to every negative connotation real or conjured, same comfort with simply making things up when facts are not supportive.
PUMA PUMA PUMA PUMA.
Hurts to have it pointed out? Tough.
Except for the part about "any operative"
Dean's 50-State program was objected to by the majority of the Democratic establishment at the time he rolled it out. He had to overcome opposition by the DLC and what was then the Clinton wing of the Party.
This was Dean's vision, not that of the Dem establishment. You are incorrect to assert that "anyone" could have seen the need or gotten it done.
You are correct in your point that the Republican Party has sucked for 40 years, but you are wrong in saying that they "finally" got their policies in place; have you simply forgotten the Reagan policies that are still defining the operational characteristics of both domestic and international policy? Republican regressive authoritarian policy has dominated and controlled America for more that 30 years, it didn't just bubble up now.
Yet until 4 years ago the Dems did very little but handwringing to try and counter the Republican lock on the Federal government. Dean saw what needed doing and horsed it through all of the naysayers and obstructionists. He moved the Democrats from a chronic minority in government to a solid majority.
To discredit Dean's vision and work at this point, to dismiss it all as lucky timing, is to expose the depth of your prejudice against the man. Like him or not as a person, and for myself I don't give two figs, he got the job done.
I have very little against Dean
I just don't make him out to be the superman you think he is. I'm leaving aside "I don't watch much cable tv." and all the rest of that garbage to focus on the results.
I agree the Republicans have sucked for a long time (that is why it is my main argument), but I think it is extremely revisionist to say that no substantive difference existed between when Reagan and Bush I were presidents with Democratic Congresses (at least the house), when we had a Democratic president, and the period between 2002 and 2006 when we had a Republican president, and both legislatures in Republican hands. I see a difference between the steady drip of Republican policies during the 80's and 90's and the raging torrent of the Bush II years, which includes the Iraq war, the Abramoff scandal, Terry Schiavo, Valerie Plame, LOSING AN AMERICAN CITY (NOLA), their (lost) fight to privatize social security, on and on.
In fact, John Kerry very nearly WON in 2004, against a sitting war-time president. During that same election (before Dean's tenure) Democrats PICKED UP seats they had lost in the 2002 "9/11" election. Democrats were already on the upswing as early as 2004!
Given all that, and especially given the horrendous unpopularity of Bush and the Republicans (for their FAILED POLICIES), and then adding in the complete collapse of the economy, it would be remarkable if the Dem's DID NOT gain seats, and in fact, they gained a lot less than projected, including some moderate seats that were very viable pickups in this "Obama/change" year.
I'll toss Dean a bone on this one though. I think Obama tapped out all of the funding for downticket races and didn't nearly help out those races as much as he could have. He also distinctly ran as a "post-partisan", leaving nobody any reason to support downticket Dems. That definitely hurt Dean's vision. You also have to wonder how moving the DNC to Chicago set back the operation for downticket Dems this year.
My bottom line on Dean, if they had 60 senate seats and had won all their moderate projected seats, you could call him a genius. He didn't hurt (much, unless you call the RBC, Florida and Michigan fiascos not hurting), but didn't do enough to prove he was any more than mediocre at this job.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
the RBC: another anti-Dean canard
unless you call the RBC, Florida and Michigan fiascos not hurting
FL and MI had nothing at all to do with Dean. After 2004, under then-Chair McAuliff and at the direction of a select committee that met during the 2004 convention, the RBC was empowered by the Party to act independently of the DNC Central Committee and the Chair to review and update the primary schedule. Again independent of the Central Committee and the Chair, a special committee was formed to make recommendations to RBC. RBC took those recommendations, tweaked them, and formulated rules for the 2008 primary process. At no time did Dean have any authority or input into the primary schedule decisions.
Once states started trying to break the rules, RBC met and decided on punishments. The two loudest voices calling for punishment of FL and MI were those of Donna Brazile and Harold Ickes. Dean was not consulted nor was he involved in those discussions nor did he approve of the decisions. His calls for tolerance and moderation were rejected and he had no authority to change any RBC decisions.
Come spring, Dean again tried to moderate the process and was rebuffed by the RBC, this time led by Brazile. Ickes, mistakenly thinking he still had support from the majority of RBC, reversed his earlier calls for strict sanctions; he changed his position because he wanted to benefit Hillary. Brazile and the majority of the RBC, now favoring Obama, held to the strict sanctions until a deal was brokered to give Obama some of the delegates from MI and ensure that he would hold enough delegates to command victory at the convention.
What happened inside the RBC with regard to the primary and the FL/MI punishment and reinstatement was completely outside of Dean's authority and control. The only influence he was able to muster was to persuade the feuding camps within RBC to find some solution that would reinstate the full delegations.
There are plenty of people to blame for the FL and MI fiasco, starting with the state delegations and the state legislatures and the people of the states who did not rise up themselves to take control, along with the machinations of Clinton surrogate Ickes who argued one way when he thought it would benefit Hillary and completely the opposite when her gambit in Michigan did not pan out as they foresaw. Howard Dean has no fault in any of it.
Small potatos
Ok, even assuming everything you say (and saying that doesn't mean I disagree either completely or in any part), the problem with being a leader is that you get blamed (or take responsibility) for things which happen in the organization while you are leading that organization, even if those things are out of your strict control. And just like I would hold Pelosi or Reid responsible as leaders for what the congress and senate Dems do under their leadership, I think it is fair to hold Dean accountable for the performance of the organization he lead. If he didn't like what was happening, he could have publicly expressed his view more forcefully, especially before it became a football later in the contest.
To be intellectually honest, if you are going to give Dean credit for favorable events which happened while he was leader that were not directly in his control (f'rinstance the implosion of the Republican party) then you have to hold him responsible for unfavorable events which happened that were not directly in his control (FL, MI, RBC, etc.).
But anyway, having said that, I can completely concede that point and STILL find Dean not having proven he was any better than mediocre given all of the evidence I provided.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
Bottom line, then: What unfavorable events?
The Democratic Party presidential ticket won in both Florida and Michigan, Democrats increased their voter registration edge in FL to over 500,000 more than Republicans and gained two new House seats in Michigan. If we are to give full credit, as you say herb, for whatever happened in the end then Dean and his policies did no harm and much good for the Party in both of those states.
Regarding the R&BC, the net result of all the maneuverings was that the façade of voter participation in Party decisions was ripped off and the naked true face of power was shown for all to see. How is that a bad thing? Would you be happier if the delusion of a democratic process had been perpetuated?
As to who is held responsible for what, certainly the common view is one of Captain of the Ship; surely we can manage a little more discernment here. When speaking of over-all political import, the general public impression is important; when discussing the nuts and bolts of an administration, Dean or Pelosi or Reid or whomever, it is I think much more enlightening to differentiate between what they really have the power to do and what is outside their control. This is, of course, my own preference, and you are welcome - nay, encouraged - to espouse your own.
Thanks Amberglow. Your comment adds more to the post than
...the post. That article suggests that Rahm Emmanuel may be behind the decision:
"It is worth noting, however, that the 50 state strategy's biggest opponent, for years has been Rahm Emanuel. Rahm's new job? Chief of Staff. Wonder if Obama's ok with this?"
And to answer, Is Obama is OK with this?, absolutely. I don't think there's much done w/out his OK and as so aptly stated in the comments section, Obama may be burning the trail he's left so no one else can get in.
There's the real story.
I love this job!
I love this job!
anytime!
i'd heard for ages that Rahmbo hated the 50-state thing too.
Dean's successes in the house and the WH don't erase
his silence on several misguided events that fell squarely in his lap. I thought we talked about this upthread? Do you like the idea of winning at all costs? That behavior usually comes back to haunt you.
I love this job!
I love this job!
I like the idea of winning very much
because the thing about losing? That really comes back to haunt you.
More silliness
It's not Republicans that are the problem; it's Conservatives. There's simply no point hating a party, and overwrought rhetoric that does so -- my own included, sadly -- is just foolish and a waste of time. Unfortunately, the smarter and more opportunistic Conservatives have happily left the Republican sinking ship and joined the
DemocratsObama organization -- ideology intact.NOTE Why hate Ron Paul, for example, who's right on the empire, or Bruce Fein, who's right on executive power? And look at the people who passed the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson bailout bill. Where there's such unity, why introduce hate?
UPDATE That is, the point is not whether a party wins, but whether the people win; again, policy. At this point, I question (FISA, bailout) whether the people win with either party, since they are both interlocking parts in the same bad system. Ironically, a bright spot is that people might have actually believed the hopey-changey shit, expect it to happen, and go to work making it happen when it doesn't. Expect plenty of "If only he Czar knew" (which is what "he had to say that" will morph into).
UPDATE Comments deleted. No point feeding the always hungry.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
deleted comments --
how KoSsian.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
It was my own comment
Sorry that was unclear. The other comments I'm perfectly happy to let stand on their merits.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
that's all I wanted to know. I often type
pages, and set in links, and then decide simply to close the tab rather than post.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Bringiton invokes PUMA to divert the crowd. Rah!! My point
remains that the 50 state strategy was orphaned once the general race tightened. Granted the FSS has been extremely successful especially in 2006 but I cannot excuse the shenanigans that Dean oversaw along with his partner in crime, Donna Brazile. They were less than noble. How do we know that this wasn't Dean's purvue? But as you point out a win is a win. And that's what we're all about, right?
:-#
I love this job!
I love this job!
Let's have a look at that "point" then, elixir
[PUMA are very dangerous, especially the rabid ones. Sending up a warning seemed the responsible thing to do when I caught the scent, but if you prefer let's just step past all that for a moment.]
e: "My point remains that the 50 state strategy was orphaned once the general race tightened"
Provide evidence in support of your claim, please. So far as I know, the DNC full-time state organizers stayed on through the campaign; if not, how is it that they're just now getting termination notices?
There was no slackening of the 50-State Strategy, not at all. The DNC effort in concordance with the state Party organizations was a major part of both the House and Senate gains I cited above as well as helping with state-level elections that increased the number of Democratic governors to 29 and increased the number of statehouses controlled by the Democrats to 27, maybe 28 when the Montana House recount is finished.
A major emphasis of Dean's strategy was to shift the principle responsibility for federal House and Senate race fundraising to the respective Campaign Committees, on the principle that they know best where money should be spent. DNC fundraising requirements and efforts were shifted to database upgrades and focused more on state and district level politics with the Obama campaign handling the presidential effort (as would have also been the case with Hillary.) The Obama campaign ran and paid for their own staff, and DNC funding needs were commensurately reduced.
Consequent to their taking control of their own destiny, fundraising has dramatically increased for both the DSCC and DCCC and they both overwhelmed the Rs on a district and state race level. The DCCC spent $75,254,290 on House races compared to just $22,778,080 by the NRCC! The DSCC spent $70,077,697 compared to $36,151,471 by the NRSC. Spectacularly successful.
There is no evidence - repeat evidence - that the 50-State Strategy is being abandoned. What is happening is the same thing that happened when Bill Clinton was elected, same as with every president, and that is a restructuring of the Party campaign effort with new blood. The across-the-board termination provides flexibility on rehiring without fear of discrimination lawsuits or claims of favoritism. Some of the DNC workers will be re-hired at DNC, some will find state campaign positions, some will move into the new administration and some will have to move on. The Obama team will place many of their campaign people into the 50-State Strategy effort, making it an Obama-loyalist organization; victor, spoils, all that.
It simply defies credulity that Obama, of all people, would suddenly abandon the organizational model that brought the 2006 and 2008 gains for Democrats generally, the model that built his own organization in both the primary and the general, and just walk away from the future of the Party - a Party he will need to be able to govern and to be re-elected. The DNC organization is being restructured and reorganized, but the aims and the basic model will remain the same.
Now, the nonsense about Rahm Emmanuel. The analysis presented here is what is called "phenomenology." Two things happen, there is a tenuous connection of sorts, therefore the one must be the cause of the other.
While there is a connection, it is not what has been claimed above. Obama has no use for the DLC, a hotbed of Clinton support for which Emmanuel was a chief strategist. As well, Obama loves the 50-State Strategy, of which Emmanuel has been a harsh critic and would be a formidable enemy with Dean gone. By bringing Emmanuel in as CoS, Obama in one stroke decapitates the DLC and removes the major 50-State Strategy threat. As CoS, Emmanuel will dance to Obama's tune; certainly, it will not be the other way around.
The other effect of moving Emmanuel out of his House seat is to free up Pelosi in restructuring House chairmanships. With Emmanuel out, there is room to move a number of solid Progressive Caucus members (all Pelosi and Obama allies) up and into key caucus and committee positions. The result will be a House run by the Progressive Caucus and not the BlueDogs; Steny Hoyer is now all alone in the Democratic caucus leadership.
e: "I cannot excuse the shenanigans that Dean oversaw along with his partner in crime, Donna Brazile"
You do know they hate each other, don't you? Brazil wanted the DNC job and was mightily pissed that Dean got it. She's been campaigning to replace him ever since and been busy busy trying to undemine him for four years. They most certainly have not been working together.
What shenanigans, exactly? The R&BC business with FL and MI? Dean had nothing to do with that; all of the authority was with R&BC, Brazile and Harold Ickes teamed up to set the primary agenda and to punish FL & MI. If you want to blame Brazile and Obama for the primary decisions and the FL & MI punishments, then you have to also blame Ickes and Hillary; they were all on the same side of that deal.
e: How do we know that this wasn’t Dean’s purvue?
We read the Democratic Call; the rules are there and in related documents, if somewhat obscure. I posted extensively last spring on the Party rules and bylaws and the special provisions for setting up the primaries and punishing states that did not comply with R&BC directives; not going to go through it all again now. Other than lobbying R&BC along with Reid and Pelosi for inclusion of a Western state with a substantial Hispanic population, Nevada, he had no input into the decisions and absolutely no authority.
e: "as you point out a win is a win. And that’s what we’re all about, right?"
Winning in politics is everything; it is a totally digital experience, win or lose, and there is no medal for second place. I am all about winning, especially with the fate of the planet hanging in the balance; others, of course, may feel differently about whether or not that is important.
Watched the Celtics win a nailbiter. The Truth rules.
Dean has commented on the Rules & Bylaws Committee many times. He spoke to them asking them to play nice - http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRele... Thank you, Bringiton, for the links to your lengthy and turgid posts on the articles of the committee and Dr. Dean's non-involvement in the RBC decision. I'll stick with my position. He was.
With regards to "a win is a win", yes, a win is our goal in order that we may control the discussion. But will we be achieving that goal with a president-elect that's more than willing to give in on the issues we seem to care about?
Also, the "fate of the planet hanging in the balance" argument always seals the deal with me, well, right behind "women are going to lose the right to choose." You've officially swayed me on this one - we need to have a democrat in the White House to stop the destruction of our planet. Yup.
I love this job!
I love this job!
Please point out in Dean's remarks
where he so much as hinted at giving direction to the R&BC members. I don't see it and, even if he had, they were under no requirement legal or political to heed him. He Had No Authority.
You claim he did influence the committee in some way. You make the claim, you are the one who needs to put up proof to support it. I'm still waiting.
As to links to my earlier posts, since you characterize my writing on the topic as "turgid" I'm assuming you found them all on your own. Sorry to have not made the subject more exciting by, oh I dunno, maybe just making things up; seems to be all the fashion.
I doubt, seriously, that "we" - you and I - are going to be able to "control" the discussion. But with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic congress, we have an opportunity to influence decisions and help direct them in a way that is favorable to Progressive goals. With another Republican administration that would not have been possible; a White House win is a damn good start in the right direction.
And as I said, not everyone is moved by the threatened fate of human existence on this planet; hopefully, your indifference will not be an impediment to those of us who are.