Geez, talk about taking in information and not knowing what to do with it. If you've proclaimed "the 50-state strategy is dead," then, you've overreacted. If you are saying, "Obama folks want a 50-state strategy that is improved upon Dean's", then you're closer to the truth.
In some ways, the Dean and Obama folks are more sympatico philosophically than is being portrayed by many.
- Dean had taken a lot of crap from the media, the villagers, and some of the DC establishment, and I get people want to back him up and get him his due. But anything like "did more than anyone to get Dems elected in Nov" is hyperbole. He should get the proper amount of credit. Nothing less, and certainly nothing more.
- Stop being trigger-happy with the "blame Rahm" stuff. Rahm Emanuel may want to have his hand in every bleeping thing, but he can't. There are other people with power in Obama-land other than Rahm. There are/were Obama strategists (NOT NAMED RAHM and who had LOTS more to do with Obama's field strategy and campaign than Rahm) who may have liked Dean's 50-state strategy in theory, but strongly felt there were problems with how it was implemented (AND THERE WERE) and that there were many aspects to Dean's 50-state strategy that needed improvement.
- The sense that I get is that, yes, Obama folks want to have organizers in all 50 states (with more in battlegrounds and emerging battlegrounds -- which is basically what happened during the general election), but they want their people in place. This is for several reasons. Obama staffers were asked to fill out surveys after the election, and one of biggest problems cited by Obama staffers were relationships with state party staffers. There are some really well-run state parties where the relationships between the Obama folks and the state party folks were fine. But in some states, you have moribund state parties with lousy staffs whose petty BS made life difficult for Obama staffers (and many other campaigns), and some state party staffers whose competence needed to be questioned. (See this comment for more.) Some of the money that Dean's DNC sent to state parties were used to hire absolute HACKS who did not do much of anything for many of the wins in 06 & 08.*** (RadioGirl's experience is NOT unique.) Another reason for the Obama people wanting their folks in place is that it would be more streamlined and efficient. It worked for them in the general election. Plus, you have tons of OFA alumni who need jobs. Many of these folks don't have the skills/degrees for a government job in DC, but can be taken care of as FOs in key states. They are arguably better organizers than many of the folks that the DNC hired/trained.
- The 50-state strategy under Dean is over-credited. I supported it and like Dean. And just about everyone I've talked to noted the improvement in voter files. BUT the DNC (and the state parties that it funded under Dean's 50-state strategy) was not some 'untouchable' thing. Many bloggers and netroots activists are over-crediting Dean and the 50-state strategy for the party's successes over the last 4 years. Folks in the netroots are understandably loyal to Dean, but his DNC was a step in the right direction -- not the holy grail. There were certainly many, many wins since Dean took over as head of DNC, that had little to do with the DNC or the state parties that got staffers funded by the DNC. You can read about it here and here.
- Hey, guys, the Obama folks got crap from some DC consultants and insiders for spending a ton of money in states that many people outside Obamaland thought that Obama would surely lose (this list of states includes IN, FL, NC, and for some, OH). So, "going back to the McAuliffe days" is NOT an option for the Obama folks. It's simply not in the cards, as they were "nay-sayed" in a somewhat similar fashion that Dean was.
I don't have all the details, but from what I do know, I think folks should stop worrying about the concept of the 50-state strategy going away. It's not. It may even be a better version of what we got from Dean.
I rarely share anything that I hear from people who I talk to, but I made an exception here for several reasons. Nothing written here is secret (indeed, I ended up linking to other commenters who backed what I'd heard elsewhere), and most of what I've written is something common enough to enough people where I'm completely comfortable with sharing the basics. Two more things:
- There are lots of DC Dems who have the progressive activist-type creds that the netroots would love, but who actually SUCK at what they do. So, just because you think someone is your 'soulmate' philosophically with how things should be, that doesn't mean that person should be in charge of anything.
- I generally believe that for the most part with regards to politics and policy, Obama is pretty in sync with a lot of what many folks here want, but implementation and how one gets there is where the differences are. Too many bloggers get worked up about optics and don't take note of the wiring inside, which is why some Dem staffers don't particularly take bloggers all that seriously about things like this.
***One irony for all the "wah, we're going back to the DLC days" is that some of the state parties are in effect controlled by folks who are not progressive, but centrist, and they use the money to help those in control keep power.