Terry out. Get Howard in.

The McAuliffe reign has ended in disaster, with the Democratic Party in worse position electorally than when he came in as Chair in February 2001. We have lost seats in the House and Senate, and failed to cleanly take out the Worst President Ever.

While McAuliffe was an artful fundraiser, the party continued to lack the ability to develop a clear message or properly frame the political debate. And it's been killing us.

Even if Kerry can pull off the victory, it's clear the Democratic Party as currently constituted is on its deathbed. It needs reforms, and it needs them now. Quite frankly, the status quo simply won't cut it.

Howard Dean for DNC Chair.

In the House, the two Louisiana runoffs will determine whether we broke ever, or lost up to two seats. Jim Bonham and Bob Matsui failed to even make meager gains. Thrown them out.

Keep Nancy Pelosi, however. She has proven adept at taking tough stances while herding an ideologically diverse House caucus.

In the Senate, we're likely at 55-45, losing five seats unless something changes in late counts in Florida and Alaska. While I didn't hate Daschle the way some did, I did think he was compromised as Senate Majority Leader given the electoral challenges of representing ultra-conservative South Dakota. The GOP may have helped strengthen the Dem caucus in the Senate by ousting Daschle, which should bode well in the battle for the Supreme Court.

Dick Durbin for Senate Minority Leader.

•  Kerry concedes

  What (the fuck) now?

  by KingOneEye on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:10:12 AM PDT

  •  how could Kerry do this to us?

    not even COUNT the votes?  This can't be right.
    It just isn't even possible, is it?
    He promised us that he would hang in to clarify Ohio at a minimum.  FUCK.

    by kate mckinnon on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:12:05 AM PDT

  •  I hate to say it...

    ...but the Republicans were right.  Kerry is a spineless wimp.  All that macho tough-talk was a fucking put-on.

    by westside connection on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:24:48 AM PDT

    •  At some point reality must weigh in...

      136K votes behind with maybe 150K-200K to count. Not good odds when you consider the number of Bush supporters who went to the polls in Ohio. You are assuming virtually ALL the provisional ballots would be for Kerry. Not likely.

      Also you can be assured the GOP would tie this up with challenges far beyond the date in December when electors must be certified etc. and you have the same damn thing as 2000 when the House would have decided for Bush.

      Bottom line is there's an abundance of stupid people in Ohio who can't figure out how to vote their own best interests.

      by NebraskaDem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:01:32 AM PDT

  •  A Skull and Bones Sellout

    I will be quick to turn my back on John Kerry, because he was never my first choice for the Dem nomination. No Surrender, my ass.

    One year ago, I thought Howard Dean was the best bet, the people's choice. Then the DNC, the DLC, McAuliffe and Kerry got together to subvert the Dean campaign. If they had joined Dean rather than sabotage him, we would have had a chance for real change in Washington. However, the system crushed the revolution a year ago, and we are left to pick up the pieces today.

    To suggest that Dean would lead the DNC is naive. He might take the role, but it would be wrong to think that the Democratic Party has the ability to effect change in this country.

    After Dean gave in, they said that the revolution had to come from within: I bought into that for the sake of removing Bush from office. Now that the DNC has failed miserably at doing so, I am ready to work from the outside in. Tear down the two-party system. Fight an unconventional war against the political status quo.

    We do have a fight ahead of us, regardless of Kerry's willingness to run from the fight against corruption in Ohio and Florida. The hardest part is going to be finding the man or woman with the strength and integrity that Kerry did not have in the end.

    I saw some pundit say last night that by failing to unseat Bush, Dems lost "the cultural war", and America voted for hanging on to Christian morality and old-fashioned values rather than accept America for what it is becoming.

    I say that the cultural war is just beginning. I am not willing to fall in and sign the Bush oath of loyalty, not today, not ever. It was worth fighting for yesterday, and it is worth fighting for today. Let the dust settle, let someone else step forward, and let the battle of 2008 commence.

    by wanderindiana on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:20:08 AM PDT

  •  What's happening and what to do

    Let's be clear on what's going on.  I see loads of people assigning blame to one person or another, and I think that this is not particularly constructive.  That said, I'm not sure what I'm going to say is particularly constructive either, but I'm hoping it will get people thinking.

    The big picture, in my mind, is that the Republicans want to lock up control of all branches of government.  If they can get control at the state levels, they can gerrymander (as in TX) and ensure that they get more of their people into the U.S. House and Senate.  This then means that they are capable of ramming through judicial appointees. Additionally, it means that they can change local election rules, determine who gets to be in charge of elections (think Katherine Harris in FL).

    Don't forget about where we lost this time: FL and OH.  Both states are using some form of electronic balloting.  As a computer programmer, I was once quite enamored with the possibilities here.  I have since utterly and completely changed my mind.  The problem is that while the source is closed (security through obscurity), and while it is a felony (because of the DCMA) to peek at the code without permission of the Republican leaning Voting Machine Companies, it is possible to write into source any number of ways to ensure that your candidate gets on top.  So talking about "recounts" using such machines are meaningless.  

    Now some districts, you say, use paper trails.  While this is fine, as long as there is no suspected tampering there will be no recount.  And just because you think there was tampering doesn't mean that you can get a Republican appointed judge to order a recount of the paper receipts.

    Am I alleging that there was cheating? No, but I am saying that it is certainly very possible considering all the tactics that have been employed in disenfranchising voters in FL and OH.  It would be very interesting to compare exit polling statistically with results in areas where elections were not in contention.  For example here in West Chester, PA, the results for Kerry/Bush in Ward 3 were 62.78% for Kerry and 36.46% for Bush.  This is fairly close to some of the exit polls I've seen.  If a significant number of exit polls in non-contested areas are compared to results from these areas it may be possible to predict the actual results (within some margin of error) from the exit polling data.  In the case that areas in FL and OH depart from these trends, it may be evidence that there was tampering with the voting machines.  The evidence would not be conclusive, but it would be interesting none-the-less.

    In addition to the use of electronic means to possibly ensure the win, we know that Republicans have:
    

    1. Tried to disqualify absentee ballots in some areas (including northeastern Philadelphia) on the grounds that they didn't get to see the list apriori.  At this moment I believe that in Philly, they were successful.
       
    2. Changed polling places at last minute in majority democratic areas.  This happened in Philadelphia as well as in my Ward in West Chester.
       
    3. Disqualified voters in FL based on past felony convictions despite ruling of the FL supreme court.
       
    4. Managed to be allowed to challenge "questionable" voters at polling places in Ohio. Again, this was a last minute thing made possible by the OH Supreme Court.
       
    5. Systematically removed non-whites from voter roles in FL, NM, and OH.
       
    6. Distributed misleading literature to minorities which said roughly "you can't vote if anyone in your family has had a traffic violation, etc..."

    So what I'm getting at is this.  First: I'm not sure our game was bad at all and that were the playing field fair (I know - not in politics), our side would have won.  Second: I suspect that the cards are stacked against a democratic win in the future, no matter what we do.  

    If all of this is true, as I suspect, the question is: what can we do about it legally without stooping to dirty tricks?  Any thoughts?

    by niiler on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:14:36 AM PDT

•  Kerry just called...

  ...to concede the race. We are so screwed. What has happened to our country so that we are now a Christian fundamentalist nation? What has gone wrong...

  by PsiFighter37 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:10:28 AM PDT

  •  maybe.

    We've always been a Christian fundie country?

    by devtrash on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:29:01 AM PDT

    •  huh?

      Did fundies elect FDR?

      by diversecity215 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:24:04 AM PDT

      •  Yes.

        
        sadf

        by Yamaneko on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:04:35 PM PDT

      •  What elected FDR....

        Was a Global depression and then a World War.

        by devtrash on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:46:15 PM PDT

  •  Two words:

    Channel Zero.

    by silas216 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:38:41 AM PDT

  •  Indeed. The God Nazi's won.

    I do mean God Nazi's. If that pisses anyone off, good. All Christians are not the same, I've known real Christians in my life. None of them lived lifes of vile contempt for their fellow humans like the southern fundamentalist God Nazi's. They have the same right wing mind set as the people who put Hitler in power. Most people don't know that the Nazi's were good Christians, just ask them. Their church's told them to vote for Bush. If George Bush had said,"The first day I am re-elected, I will cut off the penis's of all males over the age of 22" they would have voted for him. Because he is so moral. He's a giggling murderer.

    These are people who CAN NOT be reasoned with. The Republicans learned well from Jim Jones. If the Democrats do not start co-opting, in some fashion, in some faction, the language of "GOD", we aren't going to win. Unless we start attacking the right on their immorality toward the poor, their immorality toward their fellow man, etc., we will continue to lose.

    I think if we start using the words of Jesus to attack Bush harshly, then they, Bush and the God Nazi's, have to either concede or explain why they hate Jesus. I will be couching my arguments with them in such terms in the future.

    If they want America to live according to the Bible, then I think it's time we started making them live by those rules.

    by Alumbrados on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:30:34 AM PDT

    •  Who's a Nazi?

      You are the one who is blinded by hatred.  Read your own post, then go take a long look at yourself in the mirror.  If you can stand it.

      by big squid on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 03:46:21 PM PDT

•  WHAT!???????????????

  I am hearing on CNN that Kerry called Bush to concede

  by jenhoward on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:10:33 AM PDT

  •  If you thought the media...

    If you thought the media was docile and fawning before, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    We'll be lucky to get anything reported that's negative for Bush in the next few years.

    Getting the message to Americans why these guys are crooks is going to get harder.

    by Hudson on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:49:42 AM PDT

•  Kerry concedes....speech at 1 pm EST

  at Faneuil Hall.

  by wingnut on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:10:42 AM PDT

•  John Kerry for Senate Minority Leader

  If he's to lose the presidency, why not make him Senate Minority Leader?  He's well-known, he from a blue state, and he did win more than 50 million votes in the past few weeks.  

  by Drew on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:11:20 AM PDT

  •  I doubt...

    Kerry will have enough gratitude among rank-and-file Dems for that.  With a lot of uncontrollables on his side (disastrous war, sluggish economy, etc.) he managed to lose ... by 3.5 million popular votes.  

    by wingnut on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:13:10 AM PDT

    •  I am sure the recriminations are coming . . .

      and I do not believe that Kerry ran the best campaign possible, but I think that we may have underestimated a significant part of the American public's unwillingness to change leadership when at war.  Also, the republicans were slick in getting the gay marriage on the ballot in Ohio.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if you did a study and find out that 200,000 Ohio Bush voters would have stayed home, but for that amendment.  Finally, while I am not a big fan of this economy the economic predictors were not against him.  The true mess that he has made of this economy is going to take several more years to show up.

      by comotion on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:23:00 AM PDT

      •  Sorry- that's crap!

        Dean or Clark would've won this race.  We needed someone who was AGAINST all of Bush's BS so they could run AGAINST him with passion and believability.  To all those "Kerry can beat Bush" namby-pambies... can we nominate a tough, straight-talking, unashamed Democrat next time?  One that doesn't try to have every issue both ways?  I don't think Kerry "flip-flopped" - he was consistent - but every stance he took was intended to allow him to have issues both ways.  People don't respond to that.  SNL nailed him when they had his impersonator say something along the lines of "I never flip-flopped on the war.  I have always been for the war in front of a pro-war audience and against the war in front of an anti-war audience.  That's not flip-flopping, that's pandering, and America deserves a Presidnt who knows the difference!"

        by Anaxamander on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:49:30 AM PDT

        •  Maybe Clarke but not Dean

          Dean could not have won. I know several center folks who voted for Kerry but never would have voted for Dean.

          by comotion on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:59:52 AM PDT

          •  NO offense

            but you never got a chance to see Dean run a general election campaign.

            by Joe Willy on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:09:40 AM PDT

          •  aoeu

            And I know several conservative folks who would have votes for Dean but not Kerry.

            by TealVeal on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:07:03 PM PDT

            •  You are correct.

              Anecdotally, I live by four households that went Bush but would have gone Dean. They supported me and Dean when I was a Deaniac, but they never supported Kerry.

              For one it Vietnam/Jane Fonda (ugh), and for another it was personal dislike. I don't know about the others, but all made it very clear that they would not support Kerry. I don't know anyone who moved the other way (no Dean yes Kerry... oh well.)

              It's all Monday Morning Quarterbacking anyway. Just like I say I wish Kerry would have beat Bush, I say I wish Dean would have beat Kerry. I can wish it all I want... but.

              by huppster on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:04:20 PM PDT

              •  aoeu

                Right, it's over now.

                Recriminations don't rebuild the party.

                by TealVeal on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:20:46 PM PDT

  •  I like that...

    I think Kerry would be the best leader we could get. He has nothing to lose, he'll be in the Senate for an indeterminate amount of time (he's from MA; even though he lost he'll get reelected easily enough), and it's best IMO to have the reminders of the wrongs of the past be everpresent to energize us.

    by PsiFighter37 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:14:17 AM PDT

  •  Losing is not a qualification I am looking for.

    Sorry.

    by NoAlternative on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:17:36 AM PDT

    •  And yet, Howard Dean.

      I'm just sayin'.  He didn't win much either, beyond the admiration of the blogosphere - which didn't get him very far.  Yet he's the popluar pick for the next DNC chair.

      by Drew on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:18:31 AM PDT

      •  I'm just sayin'....

        That Howard Dean has a spine, has the ability to inspire and organize people on the grassroots level, and had a good lead until Kerry and Gephardt, Lieberman and the SCLM flung feces on him in Iowa.

        Dean might not be the candidate that people wanted but I damn sure believe he has what it takes to be the Democratic Party chairman.

        The DLC? They go into the wood chipper. Feet first. They're just one PAC within the Democratic Party but their reign of terror is over, as far as I'm concerned.

        by Kimberly Stone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:37:39 AM PDT

        •  Hmmm....

          I thought that "voice" sounded familiar.  Good to see you here.

          by Ret on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:20:49 PM PDT

          •  Howdy!

            We know each other from....?

            Refresh an old girl's memory here. Please? thanks.

            by Kimberly Stone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:44:35 PM PDT

            •  Sorry...

              From DFA.  Actually, I don't think we ever "spoke" directly, but I do remember getting quite a few chuckles (not to mention valuable information) from your posts.

              Hope all has been well with you in the past months.

              by Ret on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:15:26 PM PDT

              •  Ah, my DFA days.

                I miss those days very very much.

                To be honest, the last few months have been increasingly hard, with the worst being this last week. My father passed away Sunday, and he'll be laid to rest tomorrow. We are glad his suffering is over but we miss him something awful.

                Losing America to Bush and the vile Republicans for another 4 years is as painful as losing Daddy, in a weird way. It really is.

                by Kimberly Stone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:39:58 PM PDT

                •  Kimberly,

                  I'm so sorry to hear about your dad. I really don't know what else to say other than that my thoughts are with you and your family.  Truly.

                  by Ret on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 04:24:39 AM PDT

        •  Whatever.

          Dean ran an aggressively negative and dishonest campaign against his rivals in Iowa, then whined when they returned the favor.  Nothing was thrown at him that he didn't toss out first.  Dean supporters, of course, refused to see it, but to those of us who supported candidates reviled as "Republican lite," it's still very clear.  

          But it's also the past.

          Suffice it to say, I'm not sold on Dean's ability to inspire or organize.  He didn't inspire Iowa to vote for him, despite an organization awash in cash and volunteers.  So I'm hesitant to embrace him as our next savior.

          by Drew on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:01:00 PM PDT

      •  You mean

        Dean's the blogosphere's choice for the next DNC chair.

        I'd rather see Dean out of the spotlight keeping the base motivated, and someone more widely respected organizing the "official" efforts. Dean can motivate me to move mountains, but he doesn't do anything for my republican and independent friends.

        It's kinda if like the GOP using Pat Robertson to organize the religious right while trying to keep their own hands somewhat clean.

        by enigmamf on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:42:19 AM PDT

        •  Bill Clinton

          Bill Clinton for DNC chair.

          If he'd have us.

          Seriously.

          Our next presidential candidate had better be from the South.

          by Hudson on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:52:55 AM PDT

          •  I agree 100%

            Clinton is the exact person we need to head the DNC. Besides, it will put the fear of God into the other side. He's our Rove, only smarter!

            by Dont Just Stand There on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:59:36 PM PDT

        •  The DNC Chair

          isn't supposed to do anything for Republicans.  And if you're indie friends don't like him then they are unusual indies.

          Does Ed Gillespie make you feel warm and fuzzy?  Did Haley Barbour?  Did Bob Dole?  Bush Sr.?  Any of the other RNC Chairs we've had to put up with?  It's not their job to appeal to Rethuglicans and Independents.  It's their job to herd the Democrats into a saleable message and recruit candidates and raise funds to sell it!

          by Anaxamander on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:53:20 AM PDT

        •  For pete's sake.

          someone more widely respected

          Excuse me? What has Dean done to not earn respect? Yell in Iowa? I was 25 feet from him and couldn't hear it over the noise we were making.

          He's proven he has a spine, can motivate and energize the party, and he has a vision for a strong Democratic party that will never be cowed by Rove rhetoric.

          We need that. We need Terry McAuliffe as a stamp-licker in a minor state's smallest state legislature race. As a volunteer.

          It's kinda if like the GOP using Pat Robertson to organize the religious right while trying to keep their own hands somewhat clean.

          This is a crappy analogy. Dean isn't dirtying the hands of the Democratic party, in any way shape or form. He energizes the base AND also appeals to independents and the disaffected who would never be motivated by the piss poor leadership of the Democrats as currently constituted and would never be part of the Republican party.

          What's your beef with Dean? Oh never mind. Just get over it.

          by Kimberly Stone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:49:08 PM PDT

      •  Im sick of this

        Clear the doublethink out of your head and remember exactly WHAT happened to Dean.

        The major networks intentionally ran clips of him that were manipulated to make him look like a madman. They LITERALLY cut out the sound of the crowd he was yelling over and cranked his mic. And they admitted it days later. Add to that what the scum group Kerry/Gep formed did. As with Clinton 1, the press wanted a certain candidate and they got him.

        Clear out the faith based doublethink and work on reality. The reality is the guy, and ideological shift YOU guys: the Kerryites, the Free Traders, the Moderationists, pushed failed hardcore. We will wwin by becoming Democrats again. Jeffersonian democrats. John Kennedy Democrats. Franklin Roosevelt democrats. Rather than the weasels we've run of late for office.

        by cdreid on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:38:10 PM PDT

        •  I do remember.

          Hence the lack of sympathy.

          I'm not going to replay the primaries.  But I didn't see Dean as that ideologically different from Kerry.  They had a different style, and that was about it.

          by Drew on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:14:52 PM PDT

  •  Disagree

    We need a Senate leader who can articulate a clear, simple, sound-bite friendly message and strategy.

    I don't think Kerry is that man.

    I respect him, and hope he continues to work hard for his state and the country in the Senate, but I don't think Kerry is the person to be the spokesmen for the Senate Dems.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:20:23 AM PDT

    •  I quite agree.

      I wouldn't trust Kerry to lead a conga line right now.

      He ran a crappy campaign. He was a weakass candidate. He couldn't explain his differences from Bush to anyone's satisfaction. He has always been the junior senator from Massachusetts. And always will be. He wrapped himself in Vietnam and couldn't energize the base.

      Kerry fucking lost to the worst President in memory, one who has done the worst things to this nation any President has ever done.

      I said this a YEAR ago. I said he'd lose. I said he'd run a crap campaign. I was right. Kerry's ascendance was due to the media getting out the long knives for Dean.

      I take no joy in this. The only joy I can take in this is accepting the bitter reality and changing that reality so this bullshit doesn't happen again.

      We have to radically change who and what we are as Democrats, and we have to do so in big enough numbers that the party cannot ignore us because we are the party. But if that can't happen, we can at least be a tremendously strong and organized PAC within the DLC. I'm ready to start that, right here, right now.  

      by Kimberly Stone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:58:40 PM PDT

  •  no thanks

    If Kerry couldn't win this election, why do we think he'd be any good at leading the minority party in the Senate?

    by vince on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:26:16 AM PDT

  •  FUCK JOHN KERRY

    Make Mikulski Senate Minority Leader.

    Or, if you really want to shake things up, make Obama Minority Leader.

    by GrimReefa on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:32:50 AM PDT

  •  New Minority leader

    I agree that kerry is a choice for new minority leader.  But I have a list of people that I would rather see.  The senate over the next two years at least has to block all fringe agenda proposals of the republican government.  So I would like to see one of the following as leader

    1. Barack Obama
       
    2. Chuck Schumer
       
    3. Jay Rockerfeller (sp?)

    Each would bring energy and a perspective to the table as the vocal leader of the opposition.  Gone are the days in which the democrats nominate a relative moderate to the post.

    by flicker2 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:34:18 AM PDT

    •  I like...

      Obama or Rockefeller for the job.  Both are safe seats under almost any scenario, although I do worry about Rockefeller if we start confronting the judgmental Christian fundamentalists - as I think we have to do to break the current paradigm.  

      by eliza on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:50:44 AM PDT

    •  I love Obama

      But he doesn't know how the Senate works. We need someone that can skillfully wield parliamentary maneouvers to stop the worst of the GOP excessses.

      by kos on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:15:20 AM PDT

      •  agreed

        I have absolutely no doubt he'll be the leader within a cycle or two. . .but for now we need experience.

        by cardinal on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:17:47 AM PDT

      •  The real thing

        I'm an Illinoisian who's been following Barack Obama since his early days as a state senator.

        He's true to his core values but is also a pragmatist. And importanty, he's a quick study.
        Look at how he rose to the occasion and delivered the best speech at the Democratic convention. He has adapted well to his unique role in the party.
        Like the late Paul Simon, he is an intellectual who does not talk down to people.
        And like Bill Clinton, he is someone who can energize the base.

        He's already been in the lllinois Senate since early 1997 where has been in both the minority and the majority. He is no spring chicken when it comes to behind the scenes maneuvering.
        Perhaps it's asking too much for a newly elected member to be named Democratic leader. But if Harry Reid assumes that position, there just may be a position for Obama elsewhere in the Democratic leadership.

        by diversecity215 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:12:21 AM PDT

    •  Joe Biden is my pick

      by Sherri in TX on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:26:51 AM PDT

      •  Ditto

        Or maybe Christopher Dodd

        by dmsdbo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:56:15 PM PDT

  •  For over a year now

    I've been saying Durbin.  It should be Durbin.

    by DWCG on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:22:03 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    We need to start to develop continuity among our leaders and message so we aren't constantly being defined by the Thugs each new cycle.

    If Kerry were minority leader and de facto head of the party, like in a parliamentary system, he could continue to lay out the message and themes he brought across so well in the campaign -- and wear down the negatives against him and againt us.

    Kerry also sits at the top of a fundraising and media outreach operation right now that will take years to rebuild.

    by desmoulins on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:13:06 AM PDT

    •  WTF? Did you see the same campaign I did?

      If Kerry were minority leader and de facto head of the party, like in a parliamentary system, he could continue to lay out the message and themes he brought across so well in the campaign  

      HELLO. He just LOST the campaign because his ability to articulate any message was absolute zero. Kerry was a complete failure in conveying message or theme. He's a stuffed suit. He's never been a leader or a go-to man on any issue on the Hill, ever. He's lucky to be the junior Senator from Massachusetts. He will never be more. When Kennedy finally retires Kerry's day will also be over.

      Kerry sits on a crap media and $ raising machine right now. MoveOn had much better message ads. For pete's sake, the guy failed to beat The Worst President ever in a nation that's dying for, thirsting for, change. I ran into dozens of people who could have voted against Bush quite easily if they had someone to vote FOR. Kerry was not that man.

      The sooner we distance ourselves from this man, the sooner we start to rebuild.

      by Kimberly Stone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:30:20 PM PDT

  •  He and Gephardt

    used vile tactics agains Dean they didnt dare use against Bush to destroy him. We deaniacs sucked it up, put our feelings aside and supported Kerry despite this.

    Well guess what. It didnt work. We let a career politician with NO outstanding qualities to speak of Destroy the first ray of light in the Democratic party in a quarter century.

    FUCK John Kerry. He failed. It is time for the Deans of the party to take over. The class warriors. The fighters.

    by cdreid on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:33:20 PM PDT

    •  Abso-fucking-lutely

      We Democrats will pay and pay and pay for the choice of John Kerry.

      So will America. Because look who's still in office? Rehnquist will resign in days. Guess what will happen to the Court? That touches all American laws, all American lives.

      And how about Iraq? About our economy? About health care.

      Kerry and his shitty campaign have blood on their hands, as far as I'm concerned.

      by Kimberly Stone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:03:28 PM PDT

•  Dean for DNC

  I gotta agree that Dean would do wonders in the DNC Chair.  Imaging managing to energize people the way he did during the primaries with the DNC structure behind him.

  In other news....fuck, Kerry concedes.  I wanna curl up and not step outside until I'm sure it's not just a bad fucking nightmare.

  by Kryptik on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:12:01 AM PDT

  •  DEAN NEEDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT 08

    There is no way Hillary could win....

    the budget deficit will be worse,,,

    the environment worse....

    we will still be bogged down in Iraq....

    Dean is too valuable to waste as DNC chair...

    Unless he won't run for pres... again

    by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:28:27 AM PDT

    •  we need someone from the south

      Its clear we have a problem in the south west and border states. The last two democratic presidents were Clinton and Carter both from the south. John Edwards in 2008 maybe?

      by loyaldemocrat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:33:55 AM PDT

      •  You could go further...

        ...to LBJ, another southerner.

        But, I think the message counts more than the region the candidate hails from.

        We need a telegenic candidate who can convey a message. And we have to figure out what to do about those "god, guns and gays" issues that Dean ID'd as the GOP's wedges.

        How do we get the red state voters (like Tom Frank's Kansans) to pay attention to the Democratic party?

        I think Frank is right - we need a return to populism.

        by Toadvine on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:42:39 AM PDT

        •  "God, guns and gays"

          as long as you do not throw out ensuring equality for all Americans, this is fine.

          I hope you are not planning on blaming gays and lesbians for the 2004 loss.

          by Khun David on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:51:58 AM PDT

          •  "God, guns and gays"

            I think the writer is refering to the "wedge issues" that Republicans use to get citizens to vote against what would be economically advantageous to them.  People who vote Republican would fare better economically under Democratic leadership, but don't because of these wedge issues - social issues that trend conservative.  

            by muffilator on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:25:28 AM PDT

          •  no blaming the victim

            No, the blame should be placed on homophobia.  It's possible that gay marriage will blow over, since they can't keep putting it on the ballot over and over, and I am sure Cheney won't really let the FMA go anywhere - he doesn't want a legacy like that.  But if gay rights are going to continue to be a wedge, the Dems have two choices - abandon gays or take it head on.  I don't think the former will happen.  And the latter?  The millions of votes yesterday for the marriage amendments need to be called out for what they are: immoral.  I hope the Dems are brave enough to do it.

            by mikey1ca on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:57:45 AM PDT

          •  God, guns, etc.

            Actually, the infection consists of these elements:

            a. Evangelican Christian primacy

            b. Compulsory live births

            c. An unregulated and unrestricted gun market

            d. Heterosexual serial monogamy, and

            e. Unrestricted corporate commerce.

            We must understand the origins and sustaining effects of these elements far better in the future than we have in the past.  Contempt and arrogance is killing us.

            by Herlihune on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 07:13:59 AM PDT

      •  Dean

        needs to be a big playa

        either DNC chair or Pres

        by grapenut1998 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:52:11 AM PDT

        •  Well

          since there will not be a new administration at this point. I will concede :-) for Dean to be Chair of DNC only unil 2007 then he runs for Pres.

          I am not sure what is really behind all of this sudden appreciation by some for Dean.

          Frankly, I think most are afraid that his DFA will takeover from the DNC therefore it is better to keep him on board so to speak.

          Bill and Hill are still operating behind the scenes and today falls in perfectly with their orginal plans for Hill to be #44.

          Bush I - Clinton I - Bush II - Clinton II  
          ----I don't fucking think so!!!

          by Genf on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:01:46 AM PDT

      •  Don't pander too much to Southerners...

        or lose part of the traditional base: blacks.

        Then the Dems would be nothing more than Repub lite in truth and in fact.

        Don't sell us cheap.

        by blksista on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:53:34 AM PDT

        •  Clinton and Carter didn't pander.

          However, they all had a southern accent which seems to be a prerequisite before southerners will consider voting for them.
          

          by Sanity on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:58:56 AM PDT

        •  What about southern blacks?

          All you Yankees talk about the South like we're all white Klan members and we have no blacks. SC is about 30% black. How white is your state?

          And here, the African-American folks seem to be wildly enthusiastic about southern white Democrats. They adore Clinton, and I noticed a surge of support for Kerry immediately when he named Edwards as his runningmate. I think that's because there's more comeraderie between the colors here than y'all give us credit for; and a black good-ol-boy recognizes a white good-ol-boy as a compatriot.

          If by you mean "pander to Southerners," you mean pander to racism, then of course you're right. But there's much more to the South than that.

          by jonathanjo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:07:16 AM PDT

          •  Bullshit

            practically the entire CBC endorsed Dean over their colleague of 27 years KErry.

            Clinton is NOT BLACK and his little Black shuffle has worn thin and grates on the nreves of most Blacks.

            There was no fucking surge towards Kerry only the only statistically calculated by the Democratic strategist.

            He failed miserable out of the gate with his first ads targetting African Americans which the CBC could only muster to call them LACKLUSTER and wonder why he had not consulted with them.

            by Genf on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:16:41 AM PDT

          •  I think black people

            are accepting if the candidate is genuine.  No matter where he/she comes from.

            What's happening already in this thread is that some of us are planning manipulation instead of strategy.

            Let's face it, we lost because we didn't select the most genuine candidate as our nominee.

            Being for real is what counts.  Learn the lesson of this lost election folks.

            He has to be from the south.  She has to look presidential.  Phooey on all that phoney crap.
            

            by nolalily on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:08:30 PM PDT

          •  Yankees?

            Just because I live in New York doesn't mean I wasn't born in the South.

            Louisiana, too.

            by blksista on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:08:25 PM PDT

      •  Southwest

        We need to target the Southwest Latino vote.

        Colorado was in striking distance, Nevada and New Mexico are still up in the air.  Arizona could be in play with the right candidate.

        I don't see how we can compete in the South with the huge evangelical base there - they're blind to anything but their stupid "values" issues.

        Where is the Latino Bill Clinton?

        by jpecot on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:11:22 AM PDT

        •  His name is

          Bill Richardson.  NM Gov and all around good guy.

          by smithbm on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:17:45 AM PDT

          •  But

            My only problem with Bill Richardson: Wen Ho Lee.

            Ugly chapter in American history, written by BR.

            by Hudson on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:55:40 AM PDT

        •  Salazar???

          not quite Obama but he won.

          by Genf on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:20:27 AM PDT

      •  Rural

        We need someone with rural roots...I think Ken Salazar might be the one...I'll be watching...

        by TexasDemocrat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:14:35 AM PDT

      •  WES CLARK

        Even my Republican friends are admitting Wes Clark would've whipped W's ass this time around -- damn him for not campaigning in the Iowa caucuses.

        by iCaroline on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:03:37 PM PDT

        •  You have an excellent point

          I'm a Dean girl 'til death but I could have supported Wes Clark quite easily had he been a viable choice after Dean was gone.

          by Kimberly Stone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:09:25 PM PDT

    •  dnc chair - don't make me laugh

      the dnc is a loser organization.  why keep a loser system like that - so we can nominate more status quo slobs like kerry?

      dean for president in '08!  nothing less.

      stop letting others frame us with meaningless phrases like electability - kerry and edwards were 1 & 2 and they lost!  two model-dnc types came through with nothing!

      losers!  dnc and dlc need major overhauls.  but not headed by dean.  he should and will be president.

      get some progressive guy or gal to head a new democratic party organization.  if we don't build from the ground up we are just fodder for the uber-powerful rethugs.

      will we finally get it, now?, f

      by democat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:24:09 AM PDT

      •  uh, DNC stands for...

        "Democratic National Committee." As in, the national committee for Democrats. You want to do away with the national committee for Democrats to - what? Start a new national committee for Democrats?

        It's not the organization, it's the people running it and the direction they've taken it in. We need to overhaul it, not end it. And I think Dean is the man to do it. He has organizational skills, is a motivator, is charismatic, and can raise money. And he will call it like he sees it, rather than play it safe. He can get the Democratic Party back on the track of pragmatic, progressive liberalism.

        I think, for now anyway, Edwards-Obama is the ticket for `08. Or, dare I say... Obama for President?

        by snookybeh on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:16:54 AM PDT

      •  good idea from Kos

        Howard Dean will never be president. Deal with it.

        On the other hand he has virtues which would make him an excellent DNC chair at this time. He is energetic, articulate, and a good organizer.
        Ron Brown would be a good role model for Howard Dean.

        by diversecity215 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:40:42 AM PDT

        •  I find your "reality"

          too limiting.

          Last night I had a hard-core group of dems over and the meme of the night was that we were really fortuntate Edwards wasn't our candidate.  He and Obama are still too green.  The pubs would have made mincemeat out of Edwards.  

          by nolalily on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:10:50 PM PDT

    •  Being DNC Chair

      does not disqualify you for Pres.  Both Bob Dole and Bush Sr. were once RNC Chairs.

      by Anaxamander on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:55:19 AM PDT

•  No more Shrum!!

  Bob Shrum needs to be run out of town on a rail, never allowed to show his visage to ANY prospective democratic presidential candidate again.

  by DeSade on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:12:04 AM PDT

  •  Shrum must go

    You're right. Bob Shrum castrated Gore and then he castrated Kerry, who only grew a new set of balls after the Clinton advisers came on board. Why Shrum has so much respect among Democratic leaders I don't know.
    And Kos is right: Go Dean!

    by elkay on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:24:18 AM PDT

  •  Amen ! run him out of town

    by desperate04 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:29:18 AM PDT

•  Terry out, PLEASE!

  He's just politically useless -- something I'd never seen in action until last night, when some network (I think CNN) had him and Ed Gillespie on satellite, and they asked Terry if vote suppression and so on had been happening as anticipated and he said no, everything was peachy keen.  Opening up, of course, an ENORMOUS opportunity for Ed Gillespie to furrow his brow with concern and talk about the terrible things being done to Republicans.  For fuck's sake, I'm not the head of the DNC and I saw that one coming from about 10 miles away.  The guy does not have the political acumen to be in the state legislature.

  by MissLaura on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:12:20 AM PDT

  •  Is that Terry?

    I saw someone getting slaughtered and didn't see a name, and I naively presumed that it was some stand-in strawman the networks brought on to be slaughtered.

    Dean for DNC chair, Obama for Minority Leader.  If we can get both of those things to happen, I'd almost call this election a narrow win ^_^

    Oh, and I understand that people are dissapointed that we didn't win, but be fair.  Kerry ran a solid campaign in what should have been a no-chance scenario.  The right has had a four decade head start on us for creating their media machines.  Winning would have been great, but coming close is at least bareable.  If narrow losses are something you're going to cry about and blame on candidates, I think you might lack the heart for politics.

    by PotatoNinja on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:22:48 AM PDT

•  Dean reached across

  the partisan divide. He wanted the guys with confederate flags and pickup trucks to join the big tent. And he was roatsed for it. The Dem party won't ever allow it.

  by azizhp on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:12:30 AM PDT

  •  confederate flags aren't cool

    People were upset not with the sentiment, but with the choice of words. For blacks, the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery and racism.

    by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:28:02 AM PDT

    •  Blacks didn't have a problem

      it was the so-called liberals that got their nose out of joint.

      by Genf on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:36:17 AM PDT

    •  I agree that Confederacy equals racism

      however, I know for a fact that blacks were not so much as upset with Dean.  Dean didn't say he was going to sell out black folks for the guys in the pickup trucks, and that's the big difference.

      by blksista on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:39:38 AM PDT

    •  if you are black...

      ...and you feel that dean's words promoted slavery and racism, then you and al sharpton are the only black people i know that feel that way.
      
      the black people i know have more stomach for using bitter imagery to build understanding. the black folks i know understand the imagery far better than i do, and they liked the idea... reaching out to starkly different people to work for something together.
      
      exactly who were all the enraged people. i mentioned sharpton... gephardt? kerry? edwards? his *opponents*? truth is, virtually no one but dean's opponents gave a shit. surprise.

      by shux on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:55:49 AM PDT

      •  During the flag flap

        I made a point of reading a few of the black blogs and the African Americans for Dean blog.  It's true, it was us white folks who didn't get it.  

        by nolalily on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:12:53 PM PDT

        •  Could you expand on this?

          Lily, this is the first I've heard of such blogs even existing (I didn't get turned on until the "miserable failure" googlebomb story got mainstream attention).

          I always feel silly talking to other white people about "well, what do the blacks think about..." some issue or other. While the colorblindness of the Net is still its great virtue, we know that in real life different ethnicities have different issues and we need to be talking about them together.

          by Xan on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:05:39 PM PDT

          •  Thought I had the really good one bookmarked

            but I didn't.  

            What I did find was this:  http://www.politopics.com/

            She has a pretty comprehensive list in the right column of her homepage.  Back during the Dean campaign there was a terrific website that I used to find great stuff on - really good journalism.  But, alas, my memory fails me and it's been awhile.

            Hope this leads you on.

            by nolalily on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:38:35 PM PDT

          •  Negrophile

            
            is a great blog.

            by blksista on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:13:46 PM PDT

  •  The way the Dem party is performing...

    it won't even allow for its own existence.  Dems got their ASSES KICKED yesterday, we lost seats in the senate, in the house, and the presidency.  What the dems need to do is start looking for their new leader NOW!  I feel that the leader we need is Dean, he is the guy who started the train moving that Kerry and Edwards hijacked in Iowa only to derail it in the closing moments of November.   The Republicans are more unified and united behind George Bush than any other figure in their history, what we need to work on is building the party unifying machinery so that any candidate that we field can reach that level of 90%.  I think with Dean as the head of the DNC we can turn away from the ivory tower democratic elite leadership style that thought that people like John Kerry and Tom Daschle can actually complete with the republican machine.    

    We need to start now unifying our own party, we need to pick our flag bearer immediately.  We need to fix our party machinery so that we can be even more disciplined and on message than the republicans, and we need to figure out how to neutralize the "moral issues" that lost us this campaign.  Everyone credits Dean as the guy who gave the Democrats balls again, lets put him in charge of our party and forever ban the likes of Bob Shrum, Terry McAwful, and Tom Daschle who only know how to comprimise with power, and not grab it.

    by Cathan on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:35:47 AM PDT

  •  disagree

    Dean is anathema to social conservatives. He would be a disaster for the Democratic party. Let him concentrate on winning downballot races, but, Dear Lord, keep him away from the national leadership.

    by praktike on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:51:59 AM PDT

    •  screw social conservatism

      we need social liberals/fiscal conservatives

      by grapenut1998 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:55:21 AM PDT

      •  unfortunately

        such people do not exist in sufficient numbers in the midwest.

        by praktike on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:43:53 PM PDT

    •  Social convservatives....

      the vocal minority who drown out all rational discourse.  

      Most Americans do not want to tar and feather homosexuals. Most Americans belive that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, especially when it comes to issues of visitation and property.  Most Americans believe in a woman's right to choose.   Most Americans believe in equality of opportunity amongst minorities, etc.   These are all positions advocated by Dean.  

      Here in Texas I run across Republicans who tell me they would have voted for Dean all the time.   It kills me to hear so many of them and then to hear folks like you paint Dean as some radical flaming liberal who would never find acceptance in Middle America or the South. Guess what? You're WRONG.

         

      by Michi on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:18:31 AM PDT

      •  calm down

        And look at the actual exit poll data. We lost Ohio because of social issues.

        by praktike on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:38:00 AM PDT

        •  Yes, We Did

          You know why? Because Kerry did absolutely nothing to woo to the people the Rethugs were trying to reduce to a slave labour class for fear of alienating CINOs.. Who would vote against him if he was proclaimed by choirs of angels as the Second Coming for a year straight. Kerry's total and complete refusal to take a stand alienated the overwhelmingly liberal young voters and large numbers of moderates. Meanwhile, Bush's hate-filled rhetoric and collusion with local Churchs turned out CINOs in record numbers.

          Dean was right - Democrats needs to stop trying to be Republicans and start trying to be Democrats. Kerry didn't, and he lost because of it, despite the best efforts of Edwards and Dean.

          by RHunter on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:24:13 PM PDT

    •  Screw Social Conservatives II

      Well, we've run a lot of social conservatives this season and in the recent past, and it has yielded us .... nothing.  

      *Carson was a social conservative.  Oklahoma sent Colburn.
      *Kentuky sent a man who literally has no mind rather than send one of our social conservatives.

      This has become a race to the bottom.  Next thing you know, someone will actually elect fucking Keyes over one of our 'social conservatives'.  What will they say about that candidate? 'He was just to much of a Massachusettes liberal for Montanastan: he ran to the center on the public flogging issue, but that thing with letting women out of the house unescorted showed how out of touch he was with family values.'    

      The run-to-the-so-called-center (RTTSCC...I like it) has gotten us something close to nothig and perhaps a little less than that.  

      You know who we need?  The civil libertarians.  You want to crush the 3Gs?  (guns-god-gays)
      

      • Let go of the gun issue (give it to the states: that's our compromise)
        
      • Get more talk like the third debate on religion (Kerry was really good in the debates, and this was the best) action, not words
        
      • Frame gays as a civil liberties issue, not an equal protection issue.  I know, same thing, but the frame is different (that's why they call them frames).  Get the government out of the bedroom is then step 1, not marriage.

      As far as Social Conservatives, we could do worse than alienate our enemies.  

      by nullspace on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:48:42 AM PDT

      •  exactly.

        compromising our progressive and liberal values is not the way to rebuild our party.

        by jeff06dem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:03:03 PM PDT

  •  Dean's Point

    was that they've got poor white and black people arguing about the Confederate flag while their jobs go to Asian sweatshops and Dick Cheney and Ken Lay make off with all of their tax dollars.  No one was upset about the remark.  It's just something his opponents thought they could smack him with.  It really didn't stick.

    by Anaxamander on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:57:58 AM PDT

•  I told my husband the same thing...

  we need Howard Dean as the DNC Chair.

  Also - people need to call their democratic reps and tell them that if they're on tv or radio they need to be angry. They need to show that we aren't just rolling over (despite this apparent early Kerry concession) and that we're going to fight back against their radicalism.

  by MCinTX on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:13:41 AM PDT

•  I agree, it is good Daschle is gone

  After we get McCauliffe out, we need to prepare for the expansion of the war into Iran and Syria, the draft that will definately happen as a result.  I think we need to draft the children of the neocons in order to stop it.  This means no college deferments, and no out in the National Guards or Americorps.

  by NoAlternative on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:14:23 AM PDT

  •  Good point!

    Daschle was a failure as the Senate leader - we need someone who will fight the Publicans.

    Think of it - Daschle & Gephardt are both gone - if we can get rid of McAuliffe and the DLC things will be looking up!
    

    by mwfolsom on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:20:22 AM PDT

    •  Uh...

      How many Democrats do we have to lose before you will be ecstatic?

      Kerry had an uphill climb...sitting incumbent during wartime with a huge chest full o money...McAuliffe raised money, that was his job...he energized the base, which was his job...he invested in GOTV, which was his job...

      We just lost.  And the reasons will not be found easily in Daschle or Gephardt or McAuliffe or Kerry.  The reasons are found in local politics and what makes us what we are.  We're losing that local ground game badly (redistricting in Texas, etc.).  We're losing all statewide battles badly.  We're losing rural America badly.  We're losing the religious people badly.  We're losing the gun owners badly.  And face it, in large swaths of the country, America is a gun toting, religious, rural values country that tends to be xenophobic and nationalistic to a fault.  That is precisely what Democrats fear about this nation, but that is our new America and we have to deal with it.

      So either we find a way to change their minds on all of these things, or we find ways to be more like them.  Those are our only choices.

      It is sad, but I think this country exposed the divisions of the Civil War never healed.

      by TexasDemocrat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:30:01 AM PDT

      •  The only Dems who thought we could win

        this race after '02 were the Dean Dems.  Everybody else was whining about how Bush was unbeatable.  And after Dean showed us Bush was beatable, the Dems freaked out and thought that somehow medals from Vietnam would help Kerry beat Bush.  Did they help Bush Sr. beat Clinton?  Did they help Bob Dole beat Clinton?

        People vote their gut and their heart for President.  We need someone that inspires passion and makes an emotional appeal.  Kerry was simply not that guy.

        by Anaxamander on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:01:23 AM PDT

      •  That was your rational behind nominating Kerry in

        first place. Now you want to disown him and claim he belongs to us liberals.  Won't work this time.  The dlcers are goners, and deserve it.

        by NoAlternative on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:17:15 PM PDT

        •  Well...

          Kerry was my third choice behind Wes Clark and John Edwards, precisely on this value question...and Kerry was not a DLC-er...

          Massachusetts Senator was not exactly what DLC is all about...I don't see how selection of Kerry was in any way based on DLC.  I think the NH and Iowa primary voters wanted a war hero at time of war.  It was not a bad strategy if he was solely a war hero.  But he was also a very loud opponent to the war that he was touting, which made any image of him difficult to capture.

          But I don't want to blame the selection.  The problem was not Kerry, it is in the way we framed the debate.  It was lost before Kerry even announced, to a certain degree, due to a framing that was allowed to exist in the aftermath of 9/11 and strongly in the midterms.  And if we don't develop some strategies now, it will be the same in the next midterms.

          by TexasDemocrat on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 03:11:54 PM PDT

  •  Good riddance to bad rubbish

    Daschle was appalling. May he rot in political Hell.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:52:14 AM PDT

  •  No f*cking draft...

    
    PERIOD.  That puts MY CHILD at risk and
    I didn't vote for these a**holes EITHER
    TIME.

    by lrhoke on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:29:28 PM PDT

    •  We can't prevent a draft but we can make sure

      neocon kids are as likely die as everyone elses, when we invade Syria and Iran.  That will put an end to those wars quicker and probably save your kid's life.

      by NoAlternative on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:13:16 PM PDT

      •  We just say no.....

        
        refuse to participate....

        by lrhoke on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:40:12 PM PDT

        •  That's your choice

          I chose to get put an end to war.  

          by NoAlternative on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 06:03:22 PM PDT

•  I don't wnat Howard at DNC

  I want Howard Dean to TAKE MY COUNTRY BACK!

  Lead the revolution. We have the power.

  The entrenched Dem leadership will spin this that the party has veered to far to the left. Kerry lost because he is a MA liberal. They will try to find a conservative southern Dem to lead the party. Progressives are screwed.

  by KingOneEye on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:15:18 AM PDT

  •  third party

    one of the main reasons we need a viable third party...screw the republican-lite dems!

    by LarkhillforDean on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:51:21 AM PDT

    •  Third party is political suicide

      Karl Rove is cackling over the very idea, I'm sure.  We almost took our Party back on our first time out with Howard Dean.  We CAN get it next time.

      by Anaxamander on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:03:01 AM PDT

    •  Maybe we should split into 10

      or twenty parties. That would be a strategy for victory.

      by Feanor on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:58:49 PM PDT

  •  Correct

    The party is run by rich white men from the two coasts.  It almost doesn't matter to them, because they get their licks in no matter what happens.  They have a lock on the House and Senate from those areas.  

    mp

    by pdxlooie on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:23:57 AM PDT

    •  aoeu

      Well, consider minority majority districts which concentrate baclk power so strongly that you end up with a minority democratic caucus from a state.

      by TealVeal on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:13:08 PM PDT

      •  Fine

        for the constituents within a district but even those legislators are expected to bunnyhop for the big boys or lose their national funding.  Within the legislature itself, it's all about bringing home the pork.

        As far as I am concerned, the only answer is to start at the bottom and rework the entire party.  That means, no more money or time to DNC projects -- that can all go to local candidates and committees. If the DNC wants my help in national races, they have to give me something in return -- like a real say over who runs.  Like a real say in the construction of the party platform.  

        No more nacho-man marionettes that hew the DLC line in order to get the funding.  I'm through with the top-down, "do as we say" Democratic Party.  Finis.

        mp

        by pdxlooie on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:27:05 PM PDT

•  McAuliffe

  is a bag man.  That's useful and necessary work for the party, but those people can be hired.  At the top you need a leader -- parts strategist, point man, disciplinarian.  Dean would be a good choice.  Off the wall, though, Daschle might be a good pick.  Unencumbered by the SD electorate, we could benefit from the skill and experience that held onto the leadership for so many years and his familiarity with the challenges in all 50 states.

  by McQ on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:15:23 AM PDT

  •  Fuck Daschle and McCauliffe

    We need fighters, and people who aren't corrupted by repuke money.  Daschle still is encumbered by his defense contractor, credit card company lobbiest wife.

    by NoAlternative on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:40:46 AM PDT

•  top - down rework, start with the innovative blogs

  clearly the blogs have mobilized a huge sector of the electorate, without it we would not have been able to block Sinclair's broadcast as well as others slime attacks by the GOP.  

  2006 starts today!!!!!!!

  At my precint in MI, the GOP "challengers" used palm pilots to track who voted and then transmit updates to her assistant who would go out and contact voters that had not voted yet.  We need these innovations now!!!

  by gaspare on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:15:29 AM PDT

  •  Indeed

    Hmmm.  I might make this a class project or something as it sounds extre