Questions for superdels and state party chairs...

As kos points out in his current front-pager, the Clintonites in the Democratic Party are, once again, after Howard Dean's scalp. In reality, this has been a non-stop effort since the day Dean won the DNC chair and began instituting the 50-state strategy.

Following on the heels of ultimate Beltway insider, Terry McAuliffe, Dean's clearly articulated strategy of "building a bench" of qualified Democratic candidates at the local and state levels in every state was an anathema --  a threat, really -- to the cozy incestuousness of the Clinton-DLC-McAuliffe years when DNC money went McAuliffe pals in D.C.

Regardless of what one thinks of Obama, what we are witnessing may be the final struggle to define the party as the Clinton Party or the Democratic Party.

(more)

While Carville, Begala and Rahm Emanuel were beating up on Dean in 2006 for not taking the typically short-sighted view of throwing everything into five to ten key House and Senate races, Dean was doing what he has always done: Marching forward steadily toward his goal of not conceding a single state, a single seat, to Republicans. His is a long-term strategy that had been completely absent during the Clinton-DLC years when the party structure generally did what is best for the Clintons, not what is best for the long-term health of the party.

Combining this attack on Dean by Clinton loyalists, and Bill Clinton's reported private tirade with California superdelegates, leads one to ask this question  of superdelegates:

Is this what you want to return to? A party apparatus that is set up to serve the Clintons at great cost to party regulars at every level?

And the question to state party chairs is both obvious and simple:

Do you want to return to the days of centralized control of national party resources into the hands of a few Beltway insiders? If not, the time to stand up for Howard Dean is now.

I wonder how a number of prominent progressive bloggers square their past calls for "crashing the gate" and their support of Dean's 50-state strategy with their backing of an apparatus designed to take us back to the days of three key swing states and diminishing majorities in Congress.

One doesn't need to like Obama to see where a return of the Clintons would take us.

As if the Democratic Party is here to serve the needs of the Clintons and their hangers-on...

•  Howard Dean has been proven prophetic

  If I've learned anything from this election it's to not doubt Howard Dean's prophetic political vision.  I agree that it's so important for us to support him and the 50 state strategy.

  by rdxtion on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:29:56 AM PDT

  •  It's about building for the now and the later.

    The short-sightedness of the Clinton-McAuliffe-DLC years nearly killed us. It would be a monumental error to return to that shallow, self-defeating "strategy" now.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:32:05 AM PDT

    •  Vision

      The short-sightedness of the Clinton-McAuliffe-DLC years nearly killed us.

      Are you talking about the DLC or the Bush years? Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between then

      by Kitty on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:37:14 AM PDT

      •  2 different animals.

        The DLC reminds me of the Chicago Machine in that there is a small circle of insiders who want to keep it that way.  Even though they are called Democrats, their only reason for policy is to hang on to the power they already hold.

        Bush's administration, on the other hand, is really starting to look like a second rate third world dictatorship.

        by Yoshimi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:07:16 AM PDT

        •  I was referring

          to "the short-sightedness"  Dean has the 50 state strategy and the DLC has the next election strategy.  Bush was shortsighted never worrying about the future.

          by Kitty on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:20:13 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      Incidentally, this is why I think the Clinton campaign has been crappy, they have absolutely no mind for long-term planning.

      by NMLib on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:46:17 AM PDT

      •  The Clintons are not about...

        building the party.  I think this has been AMPLY demonstrated this primary season.  The Clintons are SOLELY about returning their clique back to power.  That's the long and the short of it.  The Carville efforts to destroy Dean subsequent to the 2006 midterms and the Clintons's subtle betrayal of Ned Lamont further evidence the Clintons's desire to only benefit the Clintons.

        by mayan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:08:55 AM PDT

        •  this raises a question for me--

          i'm wondering how much Senator Clinton (and President Clinton, for that matter) have been doing down-ticket campaigning during the current cycle-- I know Obama has done some (Foster), but am not enough of a political geek to know if this is indicative of a larger trend or just that I happened to be paying attention to the one race in which Obama played a roll and Clinton did not (and i use "geek" in the nicest way possible).

          by history geek on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:31:13 AM PDT

          •  Almost all of the down ticket...

            efforts and successes that I've seen have been from Obama and his broad coattails.  Donna Edwards is another example (although Wynn was, by some's definition a "Dem.")

            by mayan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:35:09 AM PDT

            •  i followed that race

              since it is next door to me and didn't know that he was involved on the Edwards side-- good for him! Especially given that Wynn had endorsed him!

              by history geek on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM PDT

  •  Not only prophetic...

    But highly successful.  How many prophets were able to capitalize on their vision?  Howard Dean orchestrated the 50 state strategy with tremendous success...DESPITE, the incredible drag that Emmanuel and the minibosses put on his efforts.  

    It speaks volumes on the Carville/Clinton theme of loyalty that the DLCers immediately called for his head AFTER Dean demonstrated how successful he had been.  It is clear that the "not triangulating business as usual" is perceived as such a threat to those who have made their fortunes off of the politics of cynicism.

    by mayan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:06:02 AM PDT

•  Reid is with Dean...

  The clintons are toast

  by Billary Redux on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:30:51 AM PDT

  •  I don't agree, to a point.

    Harry Reid is a politician FIRST.  He threw his (unnamed support) behind Clinton in Nevada, but has sat back and watch the movie unfold.  He is going with who will win and for HIS best interest is to side with Dean and put the party first.

    by icebergslim on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:35:12 AM PDT

    •  Well...

      all of these people are "politicans" first.  That's what they do.  Politics is the current in which they swim.  They will almost always choose caution, survival, and strategy over the dictates of the heart.

      by mayan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:10:28 AM PDT

    •  It's much more fun...

      ... to be Majority Leader than Minority Leader.  Although this year, he can likely keep that either way.  There's a pretty strong anti-Bush (and anti-Republican) tide flowing.  And tides are tough to stem.

      Some of the change is generational, too.  Bill Clinton was pretty good at working TV, though perhaps not quite so much with the 24-hour cable stuff.  Clintons are way behind on the internet.  Consider what you get on a first-time visit to Hillary's site (before a cookie's been planted):

      

      Is it deliberate that SUBMIT, large and red, is one of the dominant elements of the screen?  Hard to know, but it's a bit tone deaf.  McCain is another league entirely - he doesn't even have a cookie detector, no intervening screen to gather the e-mail address of every possible supporter.  Hillary's team is trying, at least.

      Obama, rather than "submit" has "get involved", "join the movement" and "sign up" on his first page for n00bs.  He has used the internet so much better than any candidate before him.

      

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:14:38 AM PDT

      •  Submit.

        Now that is funny.  Maybe "Assimilate" would be even funnier.

        by Yoshimi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:15:57 AM PDT

      •  SUBMIT!!!

        

        by kestrel9000 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:07:39 AM PDT

•  Totally Agree.

  That meeting in California with the super delegates should have been a TOTAL TURN OFF.  Who want BC pointing a finger and hollering at you like a 5 yr old?  I truly believe Democrats across the board are tired of this.  We have been down this road with the Clintons.  If HRC was so popular this would have been over with on February 5th.  IT is the will of the people behind Barack Obama that have upset the Clintons applecart.  Time for the Clintons to retire and for GOOD.

  by icebergslim on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:32:54 AM PDT

  •  Bill Clinton seems to have a problem

    with wagging his digits in peoples faces.

    by retriever on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:50:50 AM PDT

    •  I keep thinking of the Springsteen song...

      ... Glory Days (embedding disable by request).  Bill misses all the spotlight he used to get.  One of the few things Mitt Romney said during his campaign was wondering out loud about what Bill will be up to, wandering around the White House.

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:17:17 AM PDT

  •  I cannot wait

    until the Clintons' stranglehold on the Democratic party is over.

    by chicago minx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM PDT

•  It depends...

  "what is best for the long-term health of the party"

  If you mean putting party above a small number of individuals, then I would agree that is a bad idea. If it means moving the party far to the left rather than a centrist-left position on issues to enlarge the base....

  by Hedwig on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:35:12 AM PDT

  •  Define "far left" and "centrist-left".

    These labels have become distorted and currently don't contribute much to meaningful discourse.

    by Yellow Canary on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:50:37 AM PDT

    •  Conceptual

      ...and perception.

      You attempt to bring in a large a base as possible while not compromising the principles of the party.

      Not sure why they are distorted. Would you prefer different terms?

      by Hedwig on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:00:04 AM PDT

      •  They are distorted because the

        left-right spectrum has shifted to the right the last 40 years.

        Nixon would be considered a liberal if he were in politics today.

        by Yoshimi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:12:59 AM PDT

        •  Possibly...

          and Teddy Roosevelt, while hung in effigy for wanting to protect a few of the western forests, would be labeled a wise-use politician today.

          Not sure that its swung that far. Neither Barry Goldwater nor Nixon would be termed liberals on most issues, especially economic and national security, but on some issues, they might be.

          So, I was shortening my explanation by using generic, subjective terms that change over time. That about right? :) It has happened before and will probably happen again. I guess I could've given exmaples of the difference that I think is between the two (Far Left vs Centrist Left) but I assumed most would know the difference between, say, Jim Webb and Bernie Sanders (I) in their political views on some issues. So, I cheated. :)

          by Hedwig on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:47:26 AM PDT

•  Thanks for this...

  As soon as I saw that Drudge leaked the NY Times story last night, it seemed clear that the anti-Dean forces were mobilizing again -- just like after the historic '06 election victory -- no matter how balanced the news piece might make it seem...

  by Vermonter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:44:53 AM PDT

•  Recently,

  last week, I heard an Obama superdelagate who happens to be a congressman, say that the primary will go to the convention. And I think it is because though this is a declared Obama delegate, the major county and state people in the party support Clinton and he did not want to cross them. It will take a lot of courage for the superdelegates to come out.

  by kkjohnson on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:46:09 AM PDT

  •  Courage that many of the superdels are

    already exhibiting...and the more Bill Richardsons and Amy Klobuchars and Lee Hamiltons come out in support of Obama, the easier it will be for the other superdels to come out for Obama as well. We just have to keep the pressure on and do our best in the remaining races.

    I do believe this will go to the convention...I hope otherwise, but I don't put anything past Hillary and Bill at this point.

    by Elise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:54:54 AM PDT

•  I saw...

  that hit piece last night, and it made me like Dean better, because it was pretty clear he was getting to the Clintons.

  Keep it up Doctor Dean!

  by doctorgirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM PDT

•  I'm not interested in making this about...

  personalities. To me, the key relationships to keep in mind are: Strategy leads to Control leads to Policy.

  We have to have the right strategy to win through the election season. I think it's been pretty clear who the better strategists have been so far. That strength of strategy will be needed to deliver us from evil in November.

  Once in control, then the questions of policy become paramount. Both candidates have some good policy ideas (I favor Obama's agenda, but I could live with what Clinton proposes). But we'll never get there without the right strategy. Relying on the outcome of three swing states is bad strategy, and plays into the Republicans' hands. Trying to play that game with the flaws and high negatives that come built in with a Clinton candidacy is and always has been the greatest risk the party could entertain for this most important of years.

  by QuestionableSanity on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:54:50 AM PDT

  •  hmmmm...the swing state approach

    is based on the recognition that you can't come-up with a policy platform that has broad nationwide appeal.

    i see the bad politics and the cowardly, ineffective policy delivery as intimately related.

    i also want to agree about wanting this to be distanced from personalities but then i keep getting sucked back into it.  if reason ruled our emotions more...well, we'd all have a helluva christmas, i guess.

    by 2nd balcony on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:24:47 AM PDT

•  My support...

  

  by blueyedace2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:03:19 AM PDT

  •  the doctor is in!

    by 2nd balcony on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:26:15 AM PDT

  •  Hey that looks like my coat four years ago.

    Obama's button looked a little different.

    by Yoshimi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:10:24 AM PDT

•  there was no democratic party before clinton.

  well...between the (pick an arbitrary moment on a continuum) collapse of the new deal coalition and the rise of the desperate-enough-to-unify-behind- clinton-for-appearances-sake-for-a-few-months coalition in '92.

  just a bunch of local machines.

  but the truth of what you say comes fronm the fact the new deal coalition brought significant lasting reforms out of a national crisis.  gov. dean has been instrumental, heroic, even, in laying the groundwork so that, lord help us, maybe some lemonade can be squeezed out of the bushco nightmare too.

  clintonco will eventualy have to get on the bus or get run over.

  (p.s.  i think lord helpus was a big player in reinstating the olympic movement before the 1896 games.  remind me to look that up.)

  by 2nd balcony on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:11:33 AM PDT

•  Bill Clinton's temper tantrum isn't

  going to convince ANY superdelegate to back Hillary.

  H. Dean is a smart man- I do think he'll find a solution that everyone (except the Clinton's) will find acceptable. Nothing short of a coronation will please Hillary.

  by Esjaydee on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:14:22 AM PDT

•  The can question can answered by...

  ...first reviewing how Democrats lost power at the state and local levels during Clinton's eight years.  And then compared that with the Democratic resurgance shown during the 2006 election.

  It also would be valuable to look at how many new voters and activists Obama has brought into the party--especially young voters/activists who are the future leaders of the party--and compare with Hillary's base of voters and activists.

  I'm not a student of the history of the Democratic Party but my sense is that, about every 20 years, the party goes through a transformation. In my lifetime, the last transformation occurred in the 1980s when Mondale lost and the DLCers began to take center stage.  Prior to that, 1968 was a watershed year for the old guard and then McGovern put forth his commission enabling more diversity within Democratic Party officials.

  We're at at another turning point.  And I guess such transformations are wrenching and painful events.

  by sawgrass727 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM PDT

  •  Scorched earth that drives the new activists off?

    That would be a really bad move.  It would sacrifice a whole generation of Democratic/progressive waxing, turning it into an eclipse instead.

    The entrenched machines do feel threatened.  The times, they are a changin'.  It's like MLK about the mountain top, seeing something you can't have yourself.  But yet, they are loath to embrace the new tide.  Understandable.  Yet a way must be found to move forward, and not get mired down in the old battles.

    Obama represents a paradigm shift, to my thinking.  Not just another "The more things change..." kinda thing.

    by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:53:03 AM PDT

•  Dean's strong leadership in Florida

  and Michigan show us that his idea of a 50 state strategy is a two way street.  Sure he will help out state Democratic leaders but he also expects them to be productive and accountable.

  The fact that state leaders in Michigan and Florida felt they could play games with the DNC rules was a clear indication that they felt it was every state for one's self.  That is not a 50 state strategy and that is detrimental to Dean's cause.

  by Yoshimi on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:39 AM PDT

•  Bob, were you banned at MyDD

  when they bumped your diary off the rec list, after it had been sitting at the top for awhile?

  by Bipolar Disorder Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:19:43 AM PDT