The Big Winner at the DNC meeting

There have been several diaries on the mtg of the Democratic National Committee on Friday (and Saturday, too!).  I was proud to be a Democrat and to be a member of the party that had brought forth these extraordinary leaders.  We, all of us, were the winners in DC at this meeting -- and believe me, it felt terrific.

But in my view, the record, which is still unfolding, will show that Howard Dean won what he started 4 years ago at this same meeting.  Do you remember what he said?

I didn't see it in person, but I replayed it many times from the web clips.  (Gee, was this before "youTube"?)  "Hi.  My name is Howard Dean, and I represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party!"

A powerful, unequivocal statement, and given our disarray and disappointment at the time, really motivating.  Do you remember when we were afraid to be Democrats?

But on Friday morning, when the DNC Winter Meeting opened 4 years later -- the "beauty pageant" where the Party trots out its candidates and launches its presidential cycle -- every speaker spoke to the democratic wing of the democratic party.  The "republican-lite" side of the party, the DLC presence was there, but hardly visible.  The triumph of the 50-State Strategy was acknowledged generously by every candidate (even by those whom you suspect did not really mean it).  The energy of the party and our ideas for the future of the country were on full display.  To some extent and in some speeches, there was perhaps too much emphasis on "re-claim", "re-store", and other backward looking phrases.  (Obama, in particular, seemed to dwell on this more than the others.)  But there was a lot more emphasis on where we're going and what we're going to do than on who we were and where we came from.  

This meeting, and these candidates, was a great victory for the leadership of Howard Dean -- leadership we desperately needed in a very dark hour for the party and for the country.  While we are talking about our favorite candidates and congratulating them and ourselves on how well each of them did -- and maybe I'm not critical enough, but I thought every one of them did just fine -- let's not forget the practical, hard nosed, principled leadership that got us here.

Thank you, Governor Dean.

•  I don't like recurring credit card charges ...

  probably Bonddad would tell me it's not a good way to handle my consumer debt! (.. and he'd be right about that!).  But I'm going to sign up for a low rate Democracy Bond, maybe $10 per month.  I'll do more in other ways, but this way, I'll be part of the many hundreds of thousands (according to Andrew Tobias) who are funding the Party's objectives under Gov. Dean.  Join me in this?

  by bob in ny on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 07:56:34 AM PDT

  •  Talk Is Cheapest When It Comes From Politicians

    I was around for the Dean campaign for the presidential nomination. I remember very well how quickly the DLC candidates took up the language of the Dean campaign and dropped it as soon as the Dean threat was past.

    I still am a Deaniac.

    Our family buys Democracy bonds.

    However, I make my campaign donatations through ActBlue and have no intention of ever stopping.

    In my view, the DLC types like Hillary Clinton are merely staying backstage like the GOP wingnuts did while trotting out 'moderates' to be the 2004 face of the GOP. The cute little baby elephant face of the party hid the same old wingnut mastodons.

    Any intelligent observer should not be suprised that the Money Party wants Dean harnessed to their ends.

    So my interest is -- as always, "What are they doing?", and never "What are they saying?".

    by LeftyLimblog on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:16:40 AM PDT

    •  sometimes words are actions ...

      if the idea of "hold them accountable" extends to democrats as well as republicans, the those candidates who got up and spoke so well of what had been accomplished should be held accountable to that position, don't you think?

      by bob in ny on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:45:12 AM PDT

•  Dean

  I need your help.  I need your help.  1.We're going to change this party and then we're going to change this country, and 2.we're going to take back the White House, and 3. we're going to balance the budget, 4. and we're going to have health care for everybody, and 5. we're going to have an America with its best institutions-- right up to the cabinet that looks once again like America.

  http://www.crocuta.net/...

  He accomplished #1,  he has 4 more to go.

  by timber on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:06:41 AM PDT

  •  he had the order right

    the hardest thing so far has been to change the party and overcome the sense of drifting and lack of focus (and fear?).

    on to number two!

    by bob in ny on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:43:23 AM PDT

•  Yeah Dean,

  I'm glad everyone paid at least some lip service to the Democratic wing of the party.  However, I want the one who really means it.  I want the populist in the crowd. I think it might be Richardson.  I'm hoping there is at least one.  Edwards and Obama, I wonder what's really underneath.

  by dkmich on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:16:32 AM PDT

  •  As long as it's not

    one of the old guard DC insiders (HRC, Biden, Dodd, Gore) I'll feel like we're moving in the right direction.

    by Urizen on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:44:53 AM PDT

    •  Gore is hardly a DC insider

      no matter how many times you repeat that meme, you are not going to convince anyone that he is.

      by TeresaInPa on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:21:51 AM PDT

    •  I think use to be a DC insider, but

      I agree with TeresainPA that he isn't at all any more.  A real DC insider would never have endorsed Dean.  In fact, they were busy back stabbing him and doing their best to destroy him.  I think Gore will be our friend.

      by dkmich on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:05:23 PM PDT

•  Correction: the DLCers were up front and center

  in the form of Hillary Clinton.

  She has McAuliffe on her payroll, and if she gets the White House, will kick Dean out as chairman and replace him with McAuliffe (or his equivalent) and 'consultants' like Carvile, who are Rethug-lite and 'Bidness as Usual'.

  This is another element of the Clintons: their ties to Wall Street money (big hedge fund investors are her top contributors); and total indifference to the working/middleclass democracy--expressed in part through internet contributions that Dean has encouraged--that Dean is working to bring back to the roots of the party. The Clintons--plainly stated--are Rethug lite, and this will be expressed in what they do to the party.

  That's why they hate Dean.  I'll never forget Hellery (whoops! misspelled) and Chelsea caught on camera drinking champagne while Dean, then defeated, spoke at the national convention.  

  If she gets in, Wall Street gets in! And the DNC's money, controlled by whomever she appoints as chair, will go right into the pockets of 'consultants' -- and you can wave the 50-State Strategy goodbye as field organizers Dean has hired are -- whoops! -- FIRED.

  You dont think she can 'appoint' the chair?  Run by me the scenario where, after the election, the State Chairs--scrambling to retain some kind of post-Dean budget for their states--can resist the arm-twisting and promises that McAuliffe and his buddies will impose.

  Mark my words.  You don't agree?  I'd like to hear a serious contrary argument. I will take any serious bet on this anybody cares to propose.

  by muddy paws on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:25:48 AM PDT

  •  Dean's term ends after the 08 election regardless

    he won't be kicked out, as you say.

    if the Dem nominee wins the presidency, he or she will choose the new chair, otherwise it'll be voted on by the DNC members.

    by Trix on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:35:21 AM PDT

    •  the winner won't get to choose

      if a dem wins the white house, they can select someone they'd like to see as dnc chair.  but i will bet any amount of money that the dnc voting members will vote howard a second term if he decides to run.  if the winning candidate tries to unseat howard, they will have a fight on their hands.

      by anna on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:42:48 AM PDT

      •  has Dean indicated he'd like a second term?

        assuming Dems hold control of the House & Senate, and win the presidency, don't you think he might see his job as being done?

        I wouldn't mind seeing him in a cabinet post of some sort.... maybe at HHS or as Surgeon General.

        by Trix on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:48:09 AM PDT

        •  With all due respect

          If Hillary gets it, he will be sent right back to Vermont.

          UNLESS he runs again for chair.  

          The Clintons hate him, IMO, and they want him to DISAPPEAR.

          They want untrammeled control of the party.

          by muddy paws on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:53:10 AM PDT

          •  I don't think for one second that...

            Hillary would put Dean in her cabinet...

            but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that one of the other candidates might seek to put him to use in their administration.

            by Trix on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:56:48 AM PDT

            •  Putting him in the Cabinet

              would be the equivelent of fitting him with a muzzle, so she might.

              Which would still leave the problem of Feingold in the Senate.

              by ben masel on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:51:57 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for comment, but still deeply concerned

      I dont want a Dean's work destroyed by a Clinton resurgence.  Here's another reason why.

      Did you see the diary yesterday quoting Rupert Murdoch at Davos in which he admitted Fox had 'tried' to support the Bush invasion plan?
      http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/...

      Murdoch is one of her fundraisers. This is so dangerous.

      (CBS) To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.

      Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

      The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/...

      Trix, do you know if Dean can be re-elected? Or is the chairmanship a one-time thing?

      by muddy paws on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:50:51 AM PDT

      •  The Candidate and The Party -- do they mix

        I appreciate the suspicion of the Clinton's.  In retrospect, there were so many things in WJC's administration that were less than progressive (shall we say).  My concern is that whoever the candidate is, we don't have a history of a strong party.  The candidate, once elected, is the party.  JFK absolutely characterized this.  If the candidate in any way depends or relies on the party, then we think that the candidate is weak.

        I think we have to strengthen the party.  But I'm not good at this.  How is the party different from the candidate/elected official that represents the party?

        by bob in ny on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:56:44 AM PDT

        •  I agree with you.

          I would like to see us choose a candidate who makes the party grow.  HRC isn't going to do this nearly as well as Obama, Edwards, Clark, or Richardson, all of whom bring newer ideas and newer perspectives to the party.  If the "box" is DC it's time to look outside of it.

          by Urizen on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:19:37 AM PDT

  •  I think we have to get as much done in 2 years

    as we can.  As pointed out below, Dean's position expires in 2 years.  The Clinton's have an apparatus unrivalled in the party since Kennedy.  If we are going to make a difference post 2008, we have to accelerate the pace of field organizing.  (Just my point of view.)

    by bob in ny on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:48:10 AM PDT

    •  In a lot of ways

      that apparatus is a dinosaur.  That kind of machine was essential before the internet (it did the same things, fundraising, getting information out, etc.), but with every passing month it becomes less and less important.  It's impossible to predict a time scale, but sometime soon that kind of monolithic, top-down organization is going to collapse under its own weight.  The politicians who are going to succeed in the future will be the ones who can listen and respond, not the ones who can tell us what we we think.

      by Urizen on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:15:31 AM PDT

•  Dean "saved our bacon"

  Sometimes I try to imagine where we'd be now if he hadn't stepped up and made us proud again.  Looking back at 04 and recalling how bleak the situation was and how few of our "leaders" had the courage to express our values without Dean we might have been buried by now.

  by Urizen on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:48:29 AM PDT

  •  isn't that the truth?

    I really think that when the history of this period of the experiment with democracy in north america is written, Dean's actions will be seen as having been pivotal.

    by bob in ny on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:51:14 AM PDT

    •  If his work survives a 'Clinton' resurgence. n/t

      by muddy paws on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:54:25 AM PDT

      •  I'm not too worried about that

        I think she's the past and we're the future.  Her high numbers now reflect name recognition and endless MSM projections of her inevitability IMO.  Even if she ends up winning she'll need us and she's intelligent enough to realize that.  It's amazing how many of the beltway types are now trying to take some credit for the 50 state strategy.  I think Dean has changed us for a generation and that genie can't be put back in the bottle.

        by Urizen on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:01:22 AM PDT

        •  We can help make this stick

          Thanks for that.  My point of view as well, and by what we do over the next 24 months, we can make sure this change sticks.

          by bob in ny on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:04:35 AM PDT

          •  Let's do!

            We're the most empowered electorate in history thanks to these tubes.  We can spread information and ideas instantly and almost anywhere, we don't need to have more money/access to get our voice into the mix.  I don't think we're gonna give that up to a crowd of clowns (DC consultants) any time soon.  This is what politics/democracy was always meant to be.

            by Urizen on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:09:50 AM PDT

    •  It's hard to believe

      how clueless the others were (possibly excepting Clark).  Terrifying in a way, at least I was terrified.  As Dean emerged, I knew there was hope for us.  Before that I wasn't sure we'd ever turn the tide.  It seemed like america was going to plunge permanantly into fascism (or as permantly as fascism can be until it's inevitable disaster).

      by Urizen on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:57:09 AM PDT

•  a comment before going to Staples!

  Here's what I think after being part of this discussion:

  1.  With 115,000 registered members (per the jotter's column this morning) we have the reach and the voice

  2.  We are Democrats, so we'll support the party's candidate (while holding our nose if we have to)

  3.  But we won't give up the continuing outreach effort to revolutionize this party and revitalize the control.

  I think that "control" is a corporate word, and there are a lot of leaders who value "control" more than listening and responding.  That kind of corporate politics is prevalent, and we have to have a party that can stand up to that.  

  Last fall, someone wrote a diary and said: "we are the point of the spear!"  I really like that.  Or, because I can remember it, I'd be proud to say that we are the "vanguard"!  

  There's an interesting issue about party versus candidate, and I'll try to think some more about that over the next few days.

  by bob in ny on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:23:30 AM PDT

  •  Party v candidate

    I think that issue deserves more attention than it gets.  One of the reasons I'm fairly negative about HRC and (potentially) Gore as candidates is that I don't see either of them helping much downticket in red states.  Changing the perception of the party in those areas is the future of the party.  Trying to rule from the coasts and urban areas hasn't worked for us.  Who's to say if Webb, Tester, or McCaskill (and several of our new congress people) would have won in this last cycle if they'd been burdened with an "eastern elitist" on the same ticket.

    by Urizen on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:00:09 AM PDT

    •  Howard Dean is an Eastern Elitist

      You have possibly the worst political understanding of anyone on this board.  I love Dean, but by your definition he is an eastern elitist and Gore is a Southern/midwest outsider.
      It is pretty obvious that you are just writing whatever story will push forward your idea of a "fresh face".... I forget, is it the inexperienced Obama or the inexperienced Edwards or the inexperienced Clark that you are jonesing for?

      by TeresaInPa on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:31:51 AM PDT

      •  tsk tsk ...

        Not in the tone of discussion here.  Howard has a Park Avenue/East Hampton history, but that does not make him an "eastern elitist" -- which is attitudinal, not geneological.  

        I thought the poster's comments throughout this discussion were very thoughtful.  

        by bob in ny on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:36:44 AM PDT