Spinning, Part 2: Are 2 Lists Better Than One?

In a comment on the previous thread, Catreona said

...this looks to me like it could be the beginnings of a parallel party structure. Forget bashing Howard, simply make him irrelavent by building your own machine.

Although previous stories seem to follow the storyline that Howard isn't raising enough money to make us competitive in the midterms, I'm not sure that "making Howard irrelevant" is today's main theme.

The more I read, the question that people appear to be focusing on is "Are two lists better than one?" Today's story in the Washington Post positioned the story as a philosophical struggle between Howard and the Democratic establishment who don't trust him.

Hotline weighs in (but doesn't really answer the question):

What's the purpose of the DNC? What should a party leader do? Whose interests should Howard Dean serve?

One foundational theory holds that the DNC should be a general election vehicle. It should spend its money to build a monster database of center-left-leaning voters and spend years refining and testing the most advanced targeting and persuasion techniques. When the party chooses its nominee, the DNC will become the engine of the campaign.

Dean's assumption is different. He believes -- and those who elected him to the chairmanship largely concur -- that party ought to be a self-perepaturing instituion designed to build upon and then project the capacities of Democrats, generally.

There's overlap; Dean wants a Democratic presidential nominee to win and he wants the party to be strong and well-funded in 2008.

But the Ickes consortium doesn't trust Dean, and like many Democrats, it's convenient for him to rhetorically set up his organization as the "anti-Dean" alternative for donors. (We hear that the Data Warehouse does need more money and is fishing aggressively.)

Don't forget too, that Harold Ickes was a contender for DNC chairman before dropping out and endorsing Howard. (An endorsement, by the way, that must have had the tacit approval of the Clintons.) Somewhere along the line there seems to have been a parting of the ways. We've always known the Beltway Democrats had no real love for Howard and they've been more than willing to supply anonymous quotes to stenographers like Chris Cillizza and Adam Nagourney.

Taking a quick look around the blogosphere, I see that Tweety is chasing this story over at "Hardball" tonight, saying that Hillary is up to some sort of power play that will take away control from Howard Dean. Opinions at Daily Kos seem to think that Karl Rove is playing Tweety like a violin:

Dallasdoc: I think Karl is genuinely convinced that Hillary is the presumptive nominee, and is already busily poisoning public opinion against her. Chris Matthews, "Democrat," is the obvious shill of choice to deliver this message. Rove probably sees Tweety as having crossover cred, deluded genius that he is.

Viktor: Here's a summary of Christ Matthews shows: Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary Hillary
He's obsessed with her like Karl Rove. Karl Rove probably works with Chris Matthews on his show.

Sounds like storyline 1a) I mentioned this afternoon: The Clintons have it in for Howard Dean. Doesn't matter if it's true but the media has been handed a narrative and they will do their best to make the facts fit.