Jack's right. Let's get Zell Miller to chair the DNC.

As I've said before, Howard Dean on the left and John McCain on the right would make me very happy (though I was thinking presidential candidates) - some real people speaking to the rest of us real people and giving us a real debate that made a real difference. So next we need McCain to head the RNC. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

I say let Gov. Dean focus on DFA and the expansion of the grassroots movement that it started. This in turn will help the overall party in the close states.

From the DFA site: "Democracy for America played a large role in regaining several legislative chambers for the Democrats, including: the Colorado House and Senate, the North Carolina House, the Oregon Senate, the Vermont House and the Washington Senate. DFA also helped secure a tie in the Iowa Senate. As well, Democracy for America contributed more than $600,000 to 634 candidates for non-federal office. 319 of those candidates won--a 50% win-loss record."

Oh..this was only six or seven months of work, after Gov Dean withdrew from the presidental race, on the DFA agenda and supporting grassroots candidates.

I can not wait too see what will happen with more time in the next 2 cycles('05 and '06).

Yes, Jack. A governor from a rural state, with an A rating from the NRA and a solid track record as a fiscal conservative would never work in the red states. Instead we need a dignified democrat, someone who will proudly continue 10 years of successful electoral strategies. We need to draft Gray Davis for the DNC chair.

heh

We played - no, pandered - to the middle in the last three election cycles. Since that plan is not working, I say that we should be honest. Maybe we are further to left than some red state folks might like. But, I would rather them disagree with us than vote against because our candidate is wishy-washy. Dean is a progressive. He is passionate. He has had an amazing year, turning a very-public fall from grace into a successful grassroots movement.

I am all for it.

I would like him to stay at the grassroots level with DFA and truly build an unstoppable tour de force in 2008. At the DNC chair, a position that would pigeonhole him in too dealing with the petty bullshit of the party and impede the progressive movement severely. He can change the party with getting the progressive Democrats elected in 2005 thru 2007 cycles thru the grassroots level at the local and state levels. Then have the state parties nationwide be transformed in too what all of us what them to be. Therefore the national party as well would ascend in too, what Dean has been preaching for the last year and a half—a progressive proactive party and not a monolithic insipid reactive collection of dimwits. Let Wellington Webb or former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard take on the position of master cat herder. Let Dean take the lead in 2008 by staying at DFA and build an army of progressive Democrats and elected progressive leaders.

The DFA site must be swamped. It's taking forever to load, and it's already 9:04...

The one thing Dean has going against him is that silly liberal label he got smacked with in the primaries. I say, as DNC chair, that might be able to take a bit of a backseat and he can focus on getting the work done.

Truth is, this party is headed for a bit of a clash, and if we don't start working together, we're gonna spend two years bickering on whether pandering has ever gotten us anywhere. (It hasn't.)

I agree with many folks here: reform. Question is, is reform possible with Dean's image, or does that impede our chances of presenting a fresh platform? I'm not really sure. But Dean, progressive as he is, is centrist on some important issues. I say we go for it.

Considering the success that DFA had in the short period of time they were operating, I think throwing the full muscle of the national comittee behind every single race would, at the very least, force the Republicans to fight an actual battle.

If the grassroots are involved, there's no shortage of talent and willpower (something Dean gets).

And considering how much money Kerry held back, money that could have helped in other local or state races, I think there's plenty of financial resources to contest every election and not let a Republican run unopposed.

Cherry-picking works when you're already the majority, I think. But when you're the underdog you need to fight everywhere. And, again, I think Dean gets it when it comes to "red vs. blue" -- he said as much in this speech.

Aaron--has Gov. Blanchard announced he is running? That might be interesting. Our family always thought of him as Jamie Blanchard because that is what my aunt called him. We are originally from Michigan and my aunt and her friend had sons within about a year of each other, and were friends as their sons were growing up. The friend's son was Jamie Blanchard.

A couple decades ago, Jamie Blanchard was the architect while in Congress of the Chrysler Bailout legislation, which among other things put Douglas Fraser, the head of the United Auto Workers, on the Chrysler board so there would be no secrets between labor and management. Such a solution oriented approach might be a good thing.

Christy said. "Maybe we are further to left than some red state folks might like. But, I would rather them disagree with us than vote against because our candidate is wishy-washy."

Last night I saw a biography of Bobby Kennedy. I am old enough to remember the 1968 primary and the competition between Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. I DON'T remember any arguments about whether one was "to the left" of the other. Rather the debate was where they stood on issues, "are you for Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy?" and other more specific concerns. The biography showed Bobby's presidential announcement speech, saying "he came out swinging". But the clip show was "I am not running to oppose any man, but to propose solutions.".

My guess is that many who voted don't see a debate of right vs. left, esp. my niece in her 20s who said she was voting for Bush because she thought he was doing a good job. It seems to me that too many in the 2004 election answered such comments with "no he isn't" rather than "we can do better which is why we propose...".

LT,

Gov. Blanchard name has been mention to be the frontrunning counterperson between the "mislabeled ultra-liberal" Gov. Dean and the "ultra Beltway insider" Harold Ickes. I think that Gov. Blanchard is Jamie Blanchard; since that the Gov. Blanchard was a Congressman serving from January 3, 1975 to January 3, 1983. I don't know what district.

Christy,

I can't figure out what you mean.

The last three election cycles, I suppose that is 2004, 2002, and 2000. Ok, first we won in 2000. So it worked there except for the SC right? 2002 was the first election after 9/11 so I'm not sure that is analogous to anything. And you seem to ignore the fact that John Kerry received more votes as a Democrat than any other Democratic candidate in history.

If this isn't working, I'm not sure what is. And what would you describe what Clinton did? Pandering to the right? Whatever it was, it worked pretty well at the time.

Posted by: Elizabeth | December 7, 2004 04:32 PM

Elizabeth--the idea of competing in every race is a long-term goal and it is very realistic. Dean's point is that we have surrendered the red states and have let local parties/grassroots wither.

Whether or not our candidates win the first time, or the second or third time--voters must have the opportunity to be exposed to a progressive/Dem message, or nothing will ever change. Sooner or later, people will realize they still don't have any health care etc.--and there will be an alternative.

With grassroots involvement (as opposed to the top-down old way of the DNC), it is entirely do-able to run a progressive candidate for every office. Look how far we came just in the past several months.

As for the NRA rating--as I understand it, that was based on Dean working out habitat preservation compromises with hunters in his state.

The thing about Dean is you may not agree with him on every single issue (guns, death penalty)-- but as with you-know-who, you know where he stands and you know he has strong convictions.

Elizabeth,

Nice idea, but it is flawed just like the DNC.

Therefore, we need to position ourselves as the Party of the Upper East, Mid-Atlantic, West Coast, Mid-West, & Southwest.

If we would position ourselves in areas listed above in where we did not win like Mid-Atlantic States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia; and the Southwest states, of Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. However, since we got our asses handed to us in the Mid-Atlantic States, your idea is nice but not attainable. Yes, we could focus on the SW states and won the election, but two of those three states are not touchable. The closest race by any means was New Mexico (lost by less than 6200 votes).

Donna Brazile stated that Carl Rove knew that the GOP had 202 electoral votes in the bag as Nov. 1st approached; reasoning for this was that the Democratic National Committee did not have any presence in over half of the country. Why did we lose the popular vote? Because the DNC failed the membership of it's party for not having a presence of each and every state like the GOP at the very minuscule (Hawaii, since it was in play for a day or two) to full force level (all of the Confederate South)!!! If we as a party focus on all 50 states and do a full court press at every level of elected office--we will win! The GOP had races were they had no change in hell in winning here in Oregon--races against DeFazio and Blumenauer. They still got people to run as cannon fonder and make us use our resources. We need to do they same!!!

Elizabeth,

Competing nationally -- including in the South, the Southwest, and the Rocky Mountain West -- is important for more than just tactical reasons. A national campaign would force Democrats to develop a national message that would have broader appeal to swing voters in both red and blue states. That's important, because presidential elections are won not just by pressing your advantages, but by removing obstacles that keep people from voting for you -- and often even from hearing you.

Elizabeth,

the point I was trying to make was that the idea that Dean is a crazy leftist with zero appeal in the "red states" is bull. From what I remember of his gun rights position, the issue was one of states rights. You can and should have a different level of gun control in rural Vermont than you do in Washington DC. Personally, I don't vote for candidates based on their second amendment views, but some people do.

And Dean is not someone who will just concede those voters to the republicans because we are not willing to talk to them. In his stump speech he used to say that people in the south with gun racks on their pickup trucks should be voting for us because their jobs are at risk and their kids may be without health insurance. Instead of just giving up of the voters of a large part of our country, let's look at our progressive positions. Let-s take a look at ideas that we can use to start a great American conversation in those states, and in time let them come to the conclusion that the Democratic party is the one on their side, the one they should be voting for.

"So, why should we waste resources & time on Idaho or worse, Alabama (which is not going to change on that level no matter how hard we try), when a state with 10 Electoral Votes is trending our way & with a compound of resources could very well break for us in 08?"

Absolutely we need to push really hard on those very close states.

But part of this is focusing on local races--that's the real beauty of the Dean strategy, growing the farm team and making sure every school board, every city council, and so on is at least contested if not held by a progressive.

At the same time, assuming the DNC embraces the grassroots and gets its messaging act together, I disagree that we shouldn't compete for national races in all 50 states. Look at Montana, Colorado, Arkansas...no way we should retreat to a regional strategy.

We can win at least at some level, in all 50 states, starting now. If we don't try, we'll never win.

Of course, we do have to clear up the little matter of voter suppression and black box vote fraud... OT, but does anyone know what is happening with efforts to institute vote by mail nationwide? Are any OR elected officials on this?