We've got Howard Dean's Back

James "Skeletor" Carville needs a serious butt-kicking

2006-11-10T12:03:00.000-08:00

I have a miserable cold hadn't planned to post at all today, but James Carville has made me angry enough that I just have to...

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."

This means war, Skeletor.

Idears?

Next week is Howard Dean's birthday, and I was trying to think of something nice to get him. Like maybe James Carville's head on a stick.

But I don't suppose that's what Howard wants--just a thought that makes *me* smile. (Cut me some slack on this, I'm sick and cranky.)

What there *needs* to be, for starters, is a major outpouring of grassroots support for Howard Dean. Who's with me?

A list of articles about republicans running for congress

2006-10-26T08:29:00.000-07:00

Read it and you will know why Howard Dean is working to hard on the 50 state strategy. When we take back congress he had better get the appreciation he is due.

Jon Kyl Rick Renzi J.D. Hayworth John Doolittle Richard Pombo Brian Bilbray Marilyn Musgrave Doug Lamborn Rick O'Donnell Christopher Shays Vernon Buchanan Joe Negron Clay Shaw Bill Sali Peter Roskam Mark Kirk Dennis Hastert Chris Chocola John Hostettler Mike Whalen Jim Ryun Anne Northup Geoff Davis Michael Steele Gil Gutknecht Michele Bachmann Jim Talent Conrad Burns Jon Porter Charlie Bass Mike Ferguson Heathe r Wilson Peter King John Sweeney Tom Reynolds Randy Kuhl Robin Hayes Charles Taylor Steve Chabot Jean Schmidt Deborah Pryce Joy Padgett Melissa Hart Curt Weldon Mike Fitzpatrick Don Sherwood Linco ln Chafee Bob Corker George Allen Frank Wolf Mike McGavick Dave Reichert

Emanuel to Dean: Hand over the money!

2006-07-03T14:20:00.000-07:00

Rahm Emanuel needs to buy a clue: You will not wear Howard Dean down.

In May, the Washington Post reported that Emanuel stormed out of Howard's office after a meeting, "leaving a trail of expletives." The reason:

The blowup highlights a long-standing tension that has pitted Democratic congressional leaders, who are focused on their best opportunities for electoral gains this fall, against Dean and many state party chairmen, who believe that the party needs to be rebuilt from the ground up -- even in states that have traditionally been Republican strongholds.
Emanuel's fury, Democratic officials said, was over his concern that Dean's DNC is spending its money too freely and too early in the election cycle -- a "burn rate" that some strategists fear will leave the party unable to help candidates compete on equal terms with Republicans this fall.

Raw Story is reporting, based on a story in subscription-only Roll Call, that Emanuel wrote a letter, dated June 22, "demanding $100,000 per targeted district from the DNC to defray the cost of the DCCC’s proposed field operation, several individuals who have read the letter said."

Sounds like extortion to me. Nice party you've got here, Dean. Shame if anything happened to it.

By way of justifying this demand to treat the DNC as his own personal piggy bank, Emanuel attached a sample field plan, presumably to show Howard that the money would be well-spent, "itemizing various projected expenses, down to details such as $1,500 for T-shirts." (I hope they're nice shirts.)

Emanuel based his "request" on the 1994 mid-term elections when the RNC earmarked $20 million for Newt Gingrich’s successful drive for a House takeover. Apparently, Emanuel thought that Howard's offer of $20,000 per district was "woefully inadequate."

Because I'm sitting on the sidelines, I think Howard should offer Emanuel $15,000 per district and each time Emanuel makes another demand, the figure goes down. I'm just saying.

Raw Story doesn't report that Emanuel has demonstrated that candidates are receiving any less money than they have in the past. (And since this is based on Roll Call's reporting, I presume that RC hasn't mentioned it either.)

This is another pitiful power play from the anti-grassroots Emanuel, who wants a top-down, tightly managed campaign this year in stark contrast to Howard's grassroots-focused 50-State Strategy. While the DSCC's and DCCC's roles are focused on incumbent protection, Howard, on the other hand, was elected chair to tend to overall health of the party. And that includes his responsibility to hundreds of non-federal candidates as well.

The "recreational ballet dancer with the vocabulary of a longshoreman" has clearly met his match.

During Dean's campaign....the party showed its hand about civil unions.

2006-05-11T04:22:00.000-07:00

Last night I noticed posts at the Democratic Underground and Americablog about Howard Dean appearing on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. There seems to be a growing kerfuffle about something, and I hope others can help flesh out what's going on. Here's a more supportive post about Howard Dean that appeared at DU last night.

During Dean's campaign....the party showed its hand about civil unions.

Voter ID: Howard was right (again!)

2006-05-02T15:14:00.000-07:00

Indiana voters must produce a government-issued ID in order to vote today under Indiana's new Voter ID law. That law hit a snag early this morning:

Indiana's new voter-ID law had its first test Tuesday and ran into a snag moments after the polls opened when U.S. Rep. Julia Carson's congressional identification created confusion.

Carson's card does not have an expiration date as the new law requires of valid voter IDs, and Indianapolis poll workers tried to reach election officials before allowing the five-term Democratic congresswoman to cast her ballot shortly after her polling place opened at 6 a.m.

"The inspector just went ahead and made the decision that it was OK because he couldn't reach anybody to get authorization," Carson said later. And she reasoned the expiration date should not have been an issue: "It says for the 109th Congress, so that takes care of that."

Carson is a five-term congresswoman. But what if she was Julia Carson, private citizen? Would she still have been allowed to vote?

Just two weeks ago, Howard had this to say about Indiana's new law:

In a telephone interview, he dismissed Republicans’ claim that the requirement is needed to prevent voter fraud.

“These laws have appeared all over the country and they’re always put in by Republicans. And the truth is, there’s no reason for a law like this. In the history of the state of Indiana, there’s not one single case of a voter being prosecuted for impersonating somebody else.

“There’s only one reason for this law, and it’s nothing to do with honesty in voting.”

No, it sure doesn't.

Mullah Dobson Responds to Dean

2006-04-21T19:47:00.000-07:00

In yesterday's edition, the Christian Science Monitor published a very short story--just 5 or 6 paragraphs--about a meeting the paper hosted with Howard featuring excerpts of his remarks, including this:

On religion and politics:
"The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics."

Newshounds, the folks who watch Fox so the rest of us don't have to, report that Focus on the Family founder and former president James Dobson was given 6 minutes to rebut Howard on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" yesterday afternoon.

In typical Fox fashion, the segment was titled "Did Howard Dean Threaten the Entire Religious Community?" (Honestly, I really need to take some Tums when posting entries like this.)

Spinning like a whirling dervish, Dobson used his free air time to distort what Howard said and made sure to mention that he doesn't get involved in politics.

What, never? No, never!

What, never? Hardly ever.

Newshounds:

For visual effects, Fox went to a split screen and aired video and muted audio of the 2004 "Dean scream" and tossed in a graphic during Cavuto's introduction that read: "Unholy Threat?"

Now if I could only find my videotape with the Democrats' "Justice Sunday" program on it.

Religious Group Claims Dean "Issued an ultimatum"

2006-04-21T12:17:00.000-07:00

Fidelis, a Catholic-based advocacy organization, fired off a press release today over a statement they claim Howard made to the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday:

"The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics."

In presenting such a statement totally out of context, Fidelis President Joseph Cella claims:

"Howard Dean's statement makes it clear that he wants to muzzle America's churches and religious groups from professing what they believe on important issues facing our society. When it comes to debates over public policy and issues, Dean should be welcoming the voice of America's churches, not attempting to silence them. Instead Dean has shown utter disregard for people of faith by threatening the historical and treasured role of religious groups and churches in American public life."

"Under Howard Dean's rules, pastors, priests, and rabbis wouldn't have been able to mobilize people of faith to join the civil rights marches in Selma and Montgomery," said Cella.

I'll take a shot at providing the context of Howard's statement: The IRS prohibits churches from campaigning, unless they want to pay taxes as other political groups do. Fidelis sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to participate in politics but hang on to their tax-exempt status. Fidelis describes its mission as to "defend and promote the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and the right to religious liberty by electing pro-life, pro-family and pro-religious liberty candidates, supporting the confirmation of judges, and promoting and defending laws consistent with the Founding principles of the United States."

Mmmmkay. I wonder how Fidelis manages to accomplish that goal consistent with the IRS Guidelines?

I have no problem with religious people like Jim Wallis and Sister Joan Chittister being politically active. In fact, I think it's wonderful because they come to the table without the fire and brimstone that the Religious Right likes to rely on.

Where I have a problem is when churches endorse candidates either directly or through those helpful "voter guides" that don't mention a specific candidate but leave no doubt as to which one they endorse.

Here is where bringing the analogy of the civil rights marches is disingenuously used: The IRS prohibition against churches (and other 501(c)3 organizations) being involved in partisan politics concerns only races for public office, not issues. Churches and religious leaders can speak out on moral and political issues but they are not allowed to:

Endorse specific candidates for office
Tell their congregations to vote for or against specific candidates

Neither of these prohibitions would have prevented any cleric from legally participating in the civil rights movement and the marches in Selma and Montgomery.

For more information about activities that are and are not permitted under the IRS code, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a guide.

Surfing the National Wave to Success in November

2006-04-21T10:52:00.000-07:00

Howard Dean wants to nationalize the midterm elections this year by capitalizing on President Bush's low approval numbers and discontent with Republicans among the general public.

From the CQPolitics.com blog:

Dean, who met with reporters at a Wednesday breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor, conceded that "a national wave is necessary" for his party to win congressional majorities in this November’s elections. Dean said that there are two conditions for such a wave to occur: that people "want change" — which Dean said is borne out by polling data — and that the Democratic Party "has to be seen as the vehicle for change."

...

"[Republicans] can’t do it," Dean contended, noting that the GOP has had complete control of the federal government for most of the presidency of George W. Bush. "They can’t get out of the responsibility that they have for all the things that aren’t going the way they should be in America."

Howard stressed that he wants every Democrat candidate across the country to emphasize six major points that make up the party's unified agenda:

honesty and openness in government operations;
a strong national defense;
promoting American jobs through energy independence;
building a health care system that “works for everybody";
strengthening public education; and
promoting retirement security.

Howard also said that "this national agenda will include a "values piece" that probably will be unveiled in September."

Other topics Howard discussed:

• Declined to speculate about the 2008 presidential race, in which Dean described himself as the “referee” in a large field of likely and possible contenders. Dean said that he was focused on this November’s elections, in which Democrats must make net gains of 15 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate to win majorities. “I’m really focused on 2006. I want to win in 2006. I think we can take the House back, I think we may — we’re certainly going to pick up seats in the Senate, and we could possibly take the Senate back,” he said.

• Touted his party’s chances in Ohio, where Republicans are on the defensive amid questions about the ethical behavior of Gov. Bob Taft, Rep. Bob Ney and other members of the state GOP. Dean noted that Rep. Ted Strickland, the party’s pick for the open governor’s seat, and Rep. Sherrod Brown, who is challenging Republican Sen. Mike DeWine, face no serious opposition in the May 2 Democratic primary. Dean touted Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy, who is challenging Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce in the Columbus-area 15th District.*

• Accused Republicans of trying to use immigration as a “wedge issue” in this election and also announced a DNC Spanish-language radio ad campaign that calls for a “tough and smart” overhaul of immigration laws.

*CQPolitics is also reporting that EMILY's List has endorsed Mary Jo Kilroy and Kirsten Gillibrand, a lawyer who is challenging John Sweeney in New York's 20th Congressional District. Read the entire story.

Bill Frist: The GOP's Howard Dean?

2006-04-18T21:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Chris Cillizza asked the following in his blog "The Fix" on Washingtonpost.com:

Bill Frist: The Howard Dean of the GOP?

My answer: Not just "no" but "hell, no!" (Thanks, Sue Myrick)

Cillizza's column looked at how Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is turning to the Internet to reinforce his 2008 presidential bid. I would be surprised at a candidate who did not use the Internet as an integral part of his or her campaign nowadays because Howard made it fashionable to do so:

In the early run-up to 2008, however, it's Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), not McCain, who appears to be the candidate most closely copying the Internet blueprint of Dean circa 2004.

...

On Frist's Volunteer PAC site, he offers visitors several ways to interact semi-directly with him. First, Frist has a blog that is updated regularly through which he seeks to take the temperature of visitors on controversial issues like immigration and judges. To date, the blog has received more than 20,000 posts from readers, and Frist aides insist the senator regularly participates in the online debate.

The foundation of Cillizza's column is shaky though. Here is why he makes the comparison at all:

Frist has a blog.

Frist has a podcast--called iFrist-- to show he's on the "cutting edge." “It’s consoling to know that if my podcasts put you to sleep, at least I won't have to see you snoozing!” (That is a direct quote.) I wonder if Apple can go after him for infringement? Also, check out the cool photo of Frist with his iPod on the site. Does that look Photoshopped to you?

He’s adding grassroots functions: taking a survey on national security, signing a petition in support of President Bush or endorsing the reelection campaigns of Jim Talent (Mo.) and Rick Santorum (Pa.) with more to come, apparently.

As usual, georgia10 is dead-on in her assessment:

Yet when politicians like Frist venture online, their actions lack a personal approach, making their netroot endeavors appear motivated more by politics than a genuine desire to interact with engaged citizens. Consequently, sites like Frist's VOLPAC remind me of coarse impersonations of their successful Democratic counterparts. Feingold's iPod silouette on his Progressive Patriots Fund site is sleek; the picture of Frist chillin' with an iPod? Kind of awkward.

[]

It seem to me that the entire liberal blogosphere phenomenon loses something in its Republican translation. Where Dean, Edwards, Feingold and others use the internet as a means of citizen empowerment, Frist and others use it as a means of retaining power themselves.

Even Cillizza seems to realize the comparison doesn't hold up:

How effective any one of these online approaches will be in recruiting supporters (and donors) to Frist's 2008 cause is an open question. There is a at least one crucial difference between Dean and Frist. Like him or hate him, the former Vermont governor inspired passion and loyalty among those who believed in him. At best, Frist can be described as low-key, at worst boring. Can a man with the Tennessee senator's mien inspire people to activism via the Web?

At least Cillizza recognizes the key to Howard's success--a genuine ability to connect with ordinary Americans and engage them on what they care about the most. People before party. What a concept.

WTF?

2006-04-13T13:08:00.000-07:00

Pardon my French but this is the only charitable thing I can say about Noam Scheiber's story in The New Republic Online (subscription required):

Last year, a major Democratic donor from the 2004 presidential campaign received a call from some operatives at Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee (DNC). Dean was coming to town in a few days, they told him, and they wanted to schedule a meeting. Political fund-raisers normally make such calls a month in advance, and so the seat-of-the-pants approach didn't go over well. "You can't call me the week before and say, 'Hey ... we'll be there Monday, want to hang out?'" says the donor. "They had all these fucking hippies.... These are people that are great to raise a few $500 checks, plan a party at a nightclub. But they're not the folks you need to give you [the resources] to do the things you want to do."

Give. Me. A. Break. As Matt Stoller says over at MyDD.com, "There are two claims: Dean can't deal with high dollar people, and he won't spend money on 2006."

More from Stoller:

The piece, though, is just ill-informed. Scheiber clearly talked to a bunch of insiders mad that Dean isn't a 'traditional' party chair. Well why should he be? The DNC Chairman is actually an elected position, and Dean made campaign promises to the people who elected him. These include (a) building up the state parties (b) not focusing on DC (c) not focusing on swing districts and states (d) and giving money and resources to state parties. I didn't like the proposals at the time, but Dean won fair and square. I respect that, and so should the rest of the party. But they don't.

While Reid and Pelosi and Rahm and Chuck might bitch about Dean 'not playing the traditional party chairman's role', where were they in February of 2005 when the elections were held? Why did they let uber-local pol Donnie Fowler become a near kingmaker? Why didn't they endorse or get involved in a serious way? There was an election for this position, a position that was clearly going to control hundreds of millions of dollars and party resources in the next few years. Was this election below them? Apparently. Well Dean was elected and he is doing what he promised.

It's time to let go of the canard that Dean is an outside-the-Beltway hick who doesn't know his ass from his elbow. It's long past the expiration date.

I'm amazed there are people who still don't have a clue about Howard Dean. It's their loss.

(HT to Atrios where I first read about this hatchet job.)

RNC Grasps At Straws to Answer Dean

2006-04-13T09:55:00.000-07:00

In a breakfast meeting yesterday with journalists hosted by the American Prospect, DNC Chairman Howard Dean called on President Bush to release or declassify the final Defense Intelligence Agency report on the existence of mobile biological weapons laboratories so Americans could determine if they were misled:

The onus is clearly on the President to clarify the situation surrounding this report. Was this incompetence, meaning that he did not know something that he clearly should have known, or is this an instance of dishonesty where information was misused or withheld to support a political agenda?

In typical Republican fashion, RNC Press Secretary Tracey Schmitt issued a press release last evening in response to Dean's statement. In typical Republican fashion, the release doesn't answer the question.

RNC Response to Howard Dean's Misguided Attacks
Howard Dean's eagerness to pounce on the headline of the day with total disregard for the facts, illustrates once again that the Democrats are more concerned with sensationalism than the truth. The President, like many democrats at the time, was operating with and communicating the best intelligence available. While the President is committed to winning the War on Terror, Democrats remain committed to exploiting the news cycle for short-term political gain."

I suppose the RNC feels that their only defense is to be offensive because the Republicans still lack a real-world link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Aside from the fact that the release does nothing to substantively respond to Dean's request, Schmitt reflexively falls back on standard Republican tactics to falsely accuse him of hypocrisy but the so-called evidence is weak:

DEMOCRAT WMD HYPOCRISY
(NB: Note the use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic," implying that Democrats are not truly democratic. This succeeds only in making the RNC sound ignorant.)
Before The War In Iraq, DNC Chair Howard Dean Called Saddam Hussein A "Threat" And Believed He Had WMD:
Howard Dean: "Everything the President says about Saddam Hussein is true. He's evil. He's a liar. He gases his own people." (ABC's "This Week," 12/22/02)
-- Dean: "'I would be surprised if (Saddam Hussein) didn't have' chemical and biological weapons." (Mort Kondracke, "Is Howard Dean For Real? Well, Not Entirely," Roll Call, 1/27/03)
-- Dean: "I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States." (PBS' "Newshour," 2/25/03) (emphasis mine)
-- Dean: "There are such a thing (sic) as international outlaws. I'm not sure China is one, but I am quite sure Iran and Iraq are." (CBC/PBS' "The Editors," 1/31/98) (Wow, that's a reach)
-- Dean: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat?" (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/29/02) (Again, emphasis mine)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Has Even Attacked Howard Dean On His WMD Flip Flop. KERRY: "The fact is ... Howard Dean said he thought there were weapons of mass destruction there. ... It's very easy to be outside of Washington and not have to vote." (CNBC's "Capital Report," 10/17/03)

The press release continues to pile on by adding quotes from other Democrats who agreed that Iraq had WMDs and considered Saddam Hussein a threat. If you can't convince `em, confuse `em, I guess.

I'm just going to bottom line this one: At the time Dean made many of these statements, he was relying on information from other people, including former Clinton administration officials, who he considered knowledgeable. (Source: Democracy Now) Nor was he in a position to review any intelligence--unlike John Kerry, who had served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and other members of the Senate, like Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Jay Rockefeller, all of whom participated in the debate and who heard the same lies the Bush Administration foisted on the entire nation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Inconvenient for the RNC's "case" against Dean is that as far back as August 2002, Dean said he would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq if Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein had either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver.

Dean believed that Bush should have worked through the United Nations, should have given more consideration to the concerns of U.S. allies, and never should have claimed that Iraq presented an imminent biological or nuclear threat to the United States. (PBS' "Newshour," 2/25/03)

Dean has supported fighting wars which are truly necessary to defend the United States from imminent threats, but he never believed there was persuasive evidence that Saddam constituted a threat which justified the war. There is no disputing that Dean was right about virtually every prediction and claim he made, every warning that he issued about why invading Iraq was ill-advised and counter-productive.

They Write Letters

2006-04-11T11:45:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press is reporting that the phone-jamming scheme to prevent Democratic GOTV efforts in 2002 may have direct ties to the White House:

Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 -- as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

[]

Virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number, which currently rings inside the political affairs office. In 2002, White House political affairs was led by now-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. The White House declined to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002.

The DNC blog has posted the text of a letter to RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman from the inquiring mind of DNC Chairman Howard Dean:

Dear Ken,
Yesterday, the AP ran a story entitled "Phone Jamming Records Point to White House." This story provides new details about the role of the New Hampshire Republican Party in the phone-jamming scandal and raises serious questions as to whether the RNC and the White House were actively involved.

As you know, on Election Day, a telemarketer hired by the New Hampshire GOP jammed telephone lines at five state Democratic and one firefighters union get-out-the-vote phone banks. The AP noted yesterday that the "records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 - as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down."

The AP story also stated that virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number (202-456-6173) which currently rings inside the political affairs office. Although the White House declined today to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002, you may be able to shed some light on the subject, as you were the White House Political Director during that time.

You have often spoken of the importance of making sure that every vote counts. In that spirit, we hope that you will take the necessary steps to clear up the lingering confusion surrounding the RNC and the White House's role in this scandal by answering these questions:

* James Tobin called the White House two dozen times in three days. Whom was he calling? With whom did he speak? Whom did he work with in the office of political affairs?

* Tobin worked directly with Terry Nelson, who was then political director at the RNC. When will Mr. Nelson answer questions about his role in the scandal? Whom else at the RNC did Tobin work with?

* Did the White House authorize this phone jamming scheme and, if so, who specifically did so? Or was the phone jamming authorized by the RNC?

* Was anyone on the White House staff or at the RNC involved in concocting, authorizing, implementing or concealing this scheme?

The overt effort by the New Hampshire Republican Party to suppress the vote on Election Day in 2002 is unconscionable. The people of New Hampshire deserve an apology. And America deserves to know exactly how deeply the White House and the RNC were involved in the planning and execution of this scheme. We hope you will provide the answers we need so we can move forward together.

Sincerely,

Governor Howard Dean, MD
Chairman

The letter was hand-delivered to the RNC offices down the street. I'm sure Ken is working on his reply right now.

Howard: John, Paul, George or Ringo?

2006-04-10T10:02:00.000-07:00

I'm a big Beatles fan and even collect a little bit but this is just the oddest Beatles analogy I've ever read. It's a quote by Joe Trippi from today's Washington Post:

He said he no longer speaks with Dean, now chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The two had a falling out in the final months of Dean's campaign over tactics and style and have crossed paths only once since Dean dropped out of the race. "I have a healthy understanding for why the Beatles did not get back together," Trippi said. "We may have been the political Beatles."

Sounds to me like Joe's having a Pete Best moment.

Bill & Al: Together Again

2006-04-10T08:57:00.000-07:00

Hotline on Call has the story.

Howard Dean Brings Together Gore And Clinton

Tonight, former vice president Al Gore will join ex-Pres. Bill Clinton at a gala fundraiser in New York (has any fundraising dinner in New York ever not been a gala?) for the Democratic National Committee.

The event honors Maureen White, who labored for five years as the DNC's finance chair -- under both Terry McAuliffe and current chair Howard Dean.

White is stepping down from her DNC perch. After a short break, she'll join the Senate re-election campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Gore, whose relationship with his former boss chilled, then warmed, then sort of evened out, is a last-minute addition to the line-by-line.

DNC Regional Field Organizer Anathea Chino has the hardest job. Chino will deliver a presentation on the DNC's 50-state organizing project to the audience of deep-pocketed donors and New York's political media elite.

The dinner will net the DNC about $1.3 million. [MARC AMBINDER]

Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

2006-04-04T13:13:00.000-07:00

With the news of Tom DeLay's resignation, lots of people are mining for choice Tom DeLay quotes. Here's one courtesy of U.S. Newswire:

DeLay: Dean's Ashcroft Slander an Embarrassment; Vt. Demagogue 'as Ignorant on Ashcroft as National Security'

9/2/2003 10:10:00 AM

To: National Desk

Contact: Stuart Roy or Jonathan Grella, 202-225-4000; both of the Office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

SUGAR LAND, Texas., Sept. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Sugarland) today condemned the comments of presidential candidate and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who said, "John Ashcroft is not a patriot," in New Hampshire yesterday.

"Howard Dean is a cruel and extremist demagogue," DeLay said.

"John Ashcroft loves America more than Howard Dean could ever know. John Ashcroft has sacrificed for his country, and devoted his life to serving it. He is as kind, generous, and patriotic a man as I've ever met. And Howard Dean is as ignorant on John Ashcroft as he is on national security."

"Howard Dean's comments are an embarrassment to the democratic process and the Democrat Party. If this cruel, loudmouth extremist is the cream of the Democrat crop, next Novembers going to make the 1984 election look like a squeaker."

At least Howard earns an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. Can't say the same for Tom DeLay...

Good news

2006-03-31T15:00:00.000-08:00

I'm getting my money's worth out of Hotline today:

We hear..

The Democratic National Committee will announce it's raised more than $17 million this quarter, capping off three $5M+ months.

And they have a bit more than $9.2M on hand.

The party should significantly enhance its coffers in mid-April when ex-Pres. Clinton holds a fundraiser for the party (his first) on April 10 in New York City.

Boo-yeah!

Dean Wins A Convert

2006-03-31T10:10:00.000-08:00

Addendum: Hotline updates this story--

A follow up meeting last week between Dean, Reid, Pelosi, and Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Rahm Emanuel was more smooth. A source familiar with the meeting said that the five agreed that the DNC would devote substantial resources to the ground game in battleground states.

Hotline on Call, the National Journal's blog, reports that Howard has won a major convert to his 50-state strategy (revealed below--hey, gotta get you to read the whole thing, don't I?).

Back in February, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid urged Howard to give to the DSCC the same amount as the Republican National Committee was expected to transfer to the GOP's Senate committee. Reid's concern was that one big check from the RNC could erase the DSCC's fundraising advantage, thereby jeopardizing several critical Senate races.

According to three sources familiar with the meeting, Dean said no. Of course, he said, the DNC will spend millions on the midterms. His argument was this: While the DSCC and DCCC's role is rightfully incumbent protection, Dean, on the other hand, was elected chair to tend to overall health of the party. And that includes his responsibility to hundreds of non-federal candidates as well. His investment in state parties, Dean promised Reid and House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi, would pay off and the benefits would accrue to Democrats at all levels.

Historically, the DNC has trailed the RNC but Howard has been able to cut into some of their lead since taking the helm of the DNC. Even though the RNC will have more money to spend, Hotline correctly notes that the DNC money is not going into a vaccuum. DNC organizers are using the money to find new voters and update voter files and prepare coordinated campaigns for 2006.

Part of the fundraising problem, both critics and supporters of Howard say, is that Howard has never been entirely comfortable soliciting donations, especially from big money donors.

And Dean, in the words of one of his friends, "never sucks up to donors" and is "clinical" when he discusses politics with them.

So to help with the effort, the DNC has hired Carl Chidlow, deputy finance director for John Kerry's campaign, and reportedly one of the best professional fundraisers in the party. Chidlow signed on after seeing how truly committed Howard is to competing everywhere. One of Chidlow's main jobs is to "evangelize" Howard's 50-state strategy to major donors.

Getting back to my lede:

And Dean has one supremely important new ally who, when he goes public, will almost certainly help with donors. In late February, Dean traveled to Harlem and sat down with former President Bill Clinton, often said to be privately disparaging of Dean.

But as Dean walked Clinton through his 50-state capacity-building project, Clinton became a convert. He vowed to help Dean win the attention of donors.

Congratulations, Howard!

Dean went after Bush for saying he would leave Iraq for next president.

2006-03-23T12:11:00.000-08:00

by Floridagal

It was a thing of beauty to watch this video. I never get up early, so we missed the interview. Much appreciation to Bradblog for catching it. Howard Dean had to fight to get his points out. Soledad kept trying to interrupt, and he kept talking over her.

He also got good points in about the Medicare D bill. He pointed out that the president had the airwaves to say what he wanted, but the Democrats had to fight to get their message out. Good interview.

Video:

Howard Dean with Soledad O'Brien this morning

From the statement at Bradblog:

Howard Dean filibustered CNN's Soledad O'Brien to push the message that the Democratic Party has an effective strategy for changing the course in Iraq.

While the President Bush and the Republican noise machine are blaming the press, Dean said that the Democrats are having difficulty getting media coverage.

On the plan for Iraq, Dean said "We do believe that we can't withdraw immediately... Over the next couple of years we need to bring the troops home." On the apparent divided opinions of Democrats Dean said "There's a middle ground between Jack Murtha and Joe Biden and we think it makes a lot of sense."

Will the strategy as described by Howard Dean convince American's that the Democrats can get Iraq on track towards a resolution? Should the Democrats come together and support a single specific plan for Iraq?

Howard Dean corrects Counterpunch. Good for him.

2006-03-20T16:29:00.000-08:00

by floridagal

On March 7, 2006, David Lindorff wrote this in an article at Counterpunch. He was totally wrong on this, and Howard Dean emailed him to please correct it. Dean's answer below. He implies it makes him get noticed as a journalist.

Groundswell for Impeachment

"While researching our book on impeachment (The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush from Office, St. Martin's Press, due out in late April), my co-author Barbara Olshanshky and I have found that members of Congress-even firebrands like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)-have been strong-armed behind the scenes by the Democratic National Committee not to introduce an impeachment bill in the House. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, where such a bill would be considered, has submitted three bills that relate to impeachment-a proposal for a special committee to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the administration and bills to censure both the president and the vice president for refusing to answer questions from Congress on impeachment-related issues--but that's as far as the Democratic congressional leadership is willing to go."

Then he gets a letter from Howard Dean, and he gives a snip of it in this article, also at Counterpunch. He lost me at "it's nice to be noticed as a columnist."

Howard Dean Tells CounterPunch: DNC No Foe of Impeachment Drive

I got an personal email from Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean today. On a Sunday morning, the DNC chief wrote me to take issue with what I wrote on March 7 in this space. I said that pressure from Democratic party leaders was the reason not one member of the House has filed a bill of impeachment against our president for trashing the U.S. Constitution.

The article clearly hit a nerve.

"The DNC is not in the business of telling Congress to go easy on this President," Dean wrote. "I'd be grateful if you could correct the report."

It's nice to be noticed as a columnist, and I will clarify my point. I agree with Dean that the DNC as an organization is not telling Congress anything.

Good for Howard for standing up for himself. Too bad he must fight the left and the right to do his job. We have a long way to go in this battle for the party's soul. Not everyone will get everything they want. Life is just not that way. Honesty is always the best policy. You got noticed, Mr. Lindorff, because you told an untruth, not because you did a good job on that particular article.

Howard Dean had it right all along

2006-03-18T10:34:00.000-08:00

This guest editorial appeared in The Mountain Mail on Thursday.

Howard Dean had it right all along
by Donald Kaul

Dr. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, is something of a joke in sophisticated political circles – a wild-eyed radical, well out of the American “mainstream.”

His signature moment, you’ll remember, came when he ran poorly in the Iowa presidential caucuses of 2004 after having been the early favorite. “Eeeyah!” he said, or something like it, as he tried to rally his disheartened troops, looking a little demented as he did it.

Do something like that once in a presidential campaign and the press never lets it go. From then on, he was the crazy one. I am indebted to the online virtual magazine “Crooks and Liars” for reminding me who he really was and what he stood for in that campaign.

In a speech Dean made at Drake University in Des Moines the year before, as the campaign began to heat up and we were getting ready to invade Iraq, he had this to say:

“I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America’s security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein … .

“Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the president to use unilateral force against Iraq … .

“That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election.

“The stakes are so high, this is not a time for holding back or sheepishly going along with the herd.”

...

Dean was not speaking from some peacenik sensibility that would have put him against the war no matter the circumstances. He thought this particular war was a bad idea at this time.

“If we go to war, I certainly hope the administration’s assumptions are realized and the conflict is swift, successful and clean. I certainly hope our armed forced will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad.

“It is possible, however, that events could go differently… . Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

“Anti-American feeling will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.”

That, ladies and gentleman, is an absolutely spot-on assessment of the way things were and how they would go, which was a lot more than the combined forces of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DOD and JCS were able to give us.

Howard Dean was one of two candidates, the other being Dennis Kucinich, who figured out what was going on. Both were treated as clowns.

The American press – “media” they call it these days – has become an embarrassment to the First Amendment. It habitually inflates the trivial and trivializes the significant.

...

Dean was also the guy, you’ll remember, who said the capture of Saddam Hussein – much heralded as a turning point in the war – wouldn’t matter much. The press’s response was to ridicule him.

How’s the Saddam thing working out, by the way?

Don Kaul is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-losing Washington correspondent who, by his account, is right more than he’s wrong. E-mail: donald.kaul2@verizon.net.

Boston Globe: Dean seen boosting state parties

2006-03-13T17:30:00.000-08:00

Today's Boston Globe had a mostly positive story about Howard's 50-state strategy. I say mostly positive because the reporter, Rick Klein, buys into the handwringing over the state of the DNC fundraising and some fingerwagging about the proof of how effective this strategy will be is in the 2006 results. Some excerpts:

When Howard Dean took over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee last February, the selection of the man known for ''the scream" sent chills down the spines of many Democrats in Southern and Western states, where a Dean-injected dose of East Coast liberalism carried the risk of dooming the party for years.

But a year after the crusading former Vermont governor took over the DNC, the party has reacted in some surprising ways. It's the East Coast liberals who are grumbling about Dean's talk-show gaffes and staring at the DNC's near-empty coffers with dismay.

Meanwhile, many Dean skeptics in state Democratic parties -- especially in places like New Mexico, a swing state that voted Republican in the last presidential race -- have been won over. The reason is the millions of dollars Dean has spent rebuilding Democratic organizations in places that haven't seen a coordinated Democratic effort in a long time.

...

But as Dean's mini-army of more than 150 DNC-paid operatives have fanned out across the country, many rural and conservative-leaning Democrats are nodding with approval.
''I've never really been a Dean guy," said John Wertheim, chairman of the New Mexico Democratic Party. ''But I've really bought into his program. Is it risky? Sure. But I think it's a darn good investment."

In Albuquerque, four energetic young staff members -- trained by and drawing paychecks from the DNC -- have divvied up the map of New Mexico, a state that was more closely divided than Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

From a cluttered warren of offices tucked into a strip mall, the DNC's new employees are building voter lists, organizing county-level Democratic caucuses, and installing precinct chairmen in rural portions of the state that have voted overwhelmingly Republican in national campaigns.

...

Casey's state party has doubled its number of precinct chairmen and is halfway to its goal of having one in each of West Virginia's more than 1,900 voting precincts. The three new staff members sent by the DNC have given the state party more than twice its previous manpower.

Party chairmen across the nation tell similar stories. In Ohio, the five people being paid by the DNC have helped set up ''Victory Squads" -- teams of about 10 Democrats who are eager to knock on doors or set up lawn signs -- in 65 rural counties where Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry fared poorly in 2004.

Mississippi's Democratic Party has established an infrastructure in 10 counties where the organization had atrophied. The DNC has sent resources to hire five full-time workers -- up from just a single part-timer previously -- helping Democrats secure victories in five special legislative elections over the past year, party chairman Wayne Dowdy said.State parties are generally used to this kind of attention from the DNC only in the six months or so before a presidential election, and then only if they're among the small group of states that are considered in play.

You can read the entire story for yourself. I may drop Mr. Klein a note with some boring corrections, LOL.

Marcia Moody's Letter To Harry Reid

2006-03-13T15:34:00.000-08:00

via Blog For America

Dear Senator Reid,

I am writing to you to express my extreme displeasure at your interference with Governor Howard Dean's administration of his duties as Chairman of the DNC and his distribution of DNC funds. Governor Dean was elected by the people of the states, the voting members of the DNC. He was neither elected by nor appointed by you. You and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi can dictate and do as you wish with the DLC and the DCCC. However, you have no jurisdiction over the DNC, its administration or its administrator.

Governor Howard Dean is the most forward thinking man of our time. The reason you and Congresswoman Pelosi are Minority Leaders and not Majority Leaders is exactly the reason why the Democrats have been losing election after election. You have consistently ignored all but 18 states in the election process. You have allowed the Republican party to take over state after state that used to have a majority of voters that traditionally were members of the Democratic Party.

Only Governor Dean has had the foresight to realize that Democrats will continue to lose elections unless the Democratic Party is rebuilt from the ground up and is present in every state. Governor Dean ran for the office as Chairman based on the promise that he would invest time and money in all 50 states and the 8 U.S. territories. Unlike any other politician, either past or present, he has fulfilled every single campaign promise he has ever made either as a State Legislator, Governor or as Chairman of the DNC.

In the one short year he has been in office, Governor Dean's remarkable accomplishments as Chairman have been well noted by public and the voting members of the DNC. It is not your duty nor you [sic] business to even suggest much less attempt to coerce the Chairman of the DNC to deviate from his elected purpose and break his promise to the people of those 50 states who elected him. I find your and Congresswoman Pelosi's interference reprehensible, unprofessional and indicative of just what is wrong with politics on Capitol Hill.

Sincerely,
State Representative Marica Moody

The Gridiron's not just about football

2006-03-10T21:00:00.000-08:00

Update--3/13: Howard did attend the Gridiron Dinner, according to mediabistro.com's FishBowlDC. 600+ guests, including most everyone from Washington's A-list, attended.

The Gridiron dinner is tomorrow night. Here's a souvenir from 2 years ago:

"coz every girl crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man."
--ZZ Top, "Sharp Dressed Man," Eliminator

"Howard, stick to your guns"

2006-03-10T15:35:00.000-08:00

Excerpts from The Cook Report, a subscription-only column, which Kos has reprinted in full with permission.

The Cook Report - This Time, Dean's Right
Charlie Cook

No one would mistake me for the president of the Howard Dean fan club. I can't even count the number of times that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee has said things that I considered a bit over the top and that I thought contributed to the caricature that the Democratic Party has become in the minds of many Americans. In his most recent dustup, though, Dean is absolutely right. As if we were ever in doubt. --Ed.

Last Sunday, Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post reported that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada met with their party chairman and "complained about Dean's priorities -- funding organizers for state parties in strongly Republican states, such as Mississippi, rather than targeting states with crucial races this fall."

...

The primary responsibility of the DNC is not to win House, Senate, gubernatorial, or state legislative races, but to build and sustain a national party and to oversee the presidential conventions and nomination process. The same is true of the Republican National Committee. No other entities within the two major parties are charged with those missions.

In January, while giving a speech at Mississippi State University, I happened to meet a DNC staffer, a former executive director of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, who was assigned full-time to party-building in Mississippi. In the 33 years that I have been involved in politics, I have never heard of the national Democratic Party assigning a full-time staff member to organizational efforts in Mississippi.

...

The Democratic congressional leaders' shortsighted, penny-wise/pound-foolish complaints show why their party has become bicoastal. Congressional Democrats have trouble winning in many interior states, in part because leaders like Reid and Pelosi have failed to appreciate the importance of maintaining a strong national party apparatus. The Democrats' inability to consistently win elections in places where gun shops outnumber Starbucks is a big reason the party controls neither the House nor the Senate.

...

Dean's view -- that Pelosi, Reid, and their party committees have their jobs and he has his -- is the one that he ought to stick to. He should also resist pressure from interest groups, such as the Congressional Black Caucus, whose members raise very little money for the DCCC even though a Democratic takeover of the House would elevate many black lawmakers to chairmanships.

Howard, stick to your guns.

A-men!

Just who exactly is the Stooge here?

2006-03-10T10:06:00.000-08:00

Washington Post "media analyst" Howard Kurtz crows triumphantly this morning about "major league exasperation" with the Democratic leadership. What Kurtz is referring to is Jake Weisberg's piece in Wednesday's Slate, which Kurtz describes as "a one-finger salute" to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean.

It's funny, you know. Howard is included as a part of the Democratic leadership only when it's convenient. There are those recent reports that Nancy & Harry tried to tell Howard what to do, which implies that he's not a part of the Democratic leadership. But now he is, probably because Weisberg found the concept of "The Three Stooges" so clever that he didn't want to let it go. Would it have been too much to refer to Nancy & Harry as the Laurel & Hardy of the Democratic party?

I could live with that. I'm underwhelmed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's been a bit of a letdown.

But we're all about Howard here so back to the matter at hand. Here are the slings and arrows flung by the outrageous Weisberg:

Howard Dean is smarter than either Pelosi or Reid and clearly stands for something. Unfortunately, what he stands for in the minds of most people is incandescent rage and upscale socialism. Dean has an unfortunate knack for making himself the issue, even when, as lately, he's trying to maintain a low profile. His injudicious comment about the GOP being the party of white Christians was followed by his statement that "the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." Such gaffes lead to endless debate about how Howard Dean is screwing up, rather than about how Bush is screwing up. Building on the work of a DNC pollster, Dean a few months ago took to referring to his party's base as "merlot Democrats." With him and Pelosi in charge, this threatens to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Well he gets a couple of points for calling Howard "smart." I have no truck with that--he's smarter than most of the empty suits in this town. However, Weisberg gets mega-demerits for relying on tired DLC/GOP memes. For your convenience, they are in boldface type in the above paragraph. I could recite them in my sleep.

Howard was more accurate in his assessment of Iraq than anyone else on the national scene and he had the guts to say it when no one else would.

As for the GOP being the party of white Christians, you don't think he was referring to these guys, do you?

Maybe.

As for the charge about "merlot Democrats," Weisberg says it like it's a bad thing. I like a nice glass of merlot once in a while. But to his credit, I haven't heard Howard use it lately so I think he's smart enough to have figured out it was a label that didn't quite work.

But it isn't Howard who has an unfortunate knack for making himself the issue. It's the Democratic establishment who feel threatened by him and the media stenographers who are all too happy to quote them anonymously. Oh, and the Republicans. Can't forget them. It's all about who controls the party so it's easier to aim fire at Howard than it would be to seriously take on Bush, Cheney, and the right-wing punditry who are willing to aid and abet.

Eric Alterman had this to say about Weisberg's DLC-tainted rant:

I keep reading this statement by Jake Weisberg in Slate where he is picking on Howard Dean and I can't believe it: "His injudicious comment about the GOP being the party of white Christians was followed by his statement that "the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." Such gaffes lead to endless debate about how Howard Dean is screwing up, rather than about how Bush is screwing up."

How in the world is possible for Michael Kinsley's appointed successor to write the word "gaffe" in this context in the magazine Kinsley founded without pointing out Kinsley's most famous observation: that "gaffe" is what Washington calls a statement by a politician that happens to be true? Would Weisberg argue that White Christians do not dominate the Republican Party? Would he argue that we are "winning" the Iraq war, or are likely to in the foreseeable future?

Clearly both Dean statements constitute Kinsley "gaffes" in the respect that both are true. And it's the job of intellectuals to congratulate politicians for speaking uncomfortable truths... at least I thought it was. I know my memory is going, but I don't recall any cases in which when Kinsley wrote about such things, he was attacking the truth-tellers. But Weisberg seems to think Dean is deserving of contempt for exactly this reason. Am I missing something or is this as depressing as it looks? (HT to Susan S over at DailyKos)

To answer Eric's question, it's depressing but no surprise. People who tell the truth are unwelcome in this town.

More on Dean v. Ickes

2006-03-09T08:20:00.000-08:00

I contacted Matt Stoller after he indicated in his MyDD post yesterday that this is a real political fight that he has known about for months, all off the record. I asked him is the fight between Ickes and Howard proper or Ickes as HRC's proxy and Howard? I also asked if there was anything else he could add about what was going on.

I received a brief reply from Matt: "It's hard to say. Lots of confusing eddies in this story. " Matt referred me to the Hotline entry I blogged about last night. Since I last read Marc Ambinder's post, it has been expanded.

This may just be a case of two lists being better than one:

It's a reality of Democratic politics that powerful groups exist outside the party structure and a legal reality that prohibits them from obtaining the latest DNC voter data. Completely apart from Howard Dean, a second global list is exactly what many in the party's alphanumeric penumbra (the 501(c)3s, the 501(c)4s, the 527s) crave.

That said, it's hard to see why attacking the DNC's list is necessary except to be able to raise money. The CEO of the Data Warhouse, Laura Quinn, presided over the DNC's voter file databases in '04. (Dems credit DNC chair Terry McAullife with spending to collect the data.) The DNC effort was not a stunning success. Dean inherited that file, and by many accounts, he has worked to improve it. It's discomforting to some DNCers that Quinn is being touted as the savior, when it was her file that the DNC is now forced to defend. (emphasis mine)

Ambinder wrote yesterday that Data Warehouse does need more money and is fishing aggressively. I noted yesterday that it was odd for Ickes to be working with Quinn, who worked on the original database that is now being maligned as ineffective. Nice to have that little reality checked by Hotline.

More:

Of course, it's ludicrous to blame one person for failing to properly target and persuade an electorate. (Imagine A Colbert Report Caption: "Except for John Kerry".) The RNC had two years and more money to refine their targeting procedures before the '04 election and a presidential candidate who helped them construct a persuasive argument about why folks just shouldn't trust the other guy with their security.

Democrats had a muddled primary and a candidate with a muddled message and only four months (and fewer dollars) to do what their opponents did. Quinn and DNC national field director Karen Hicks (who is also part of the Ickes effort) worked under severe time constraints, to say the least.

That last graf is an excellent case against a compressed primary season.

Consider the case of the National Committee for an Effective Congress. Run by guru Mark Gersh, it's been the to-go firm for Dems to figure out where and how to target voters. The DNC works with it. The DCCC works with it. So do unions and interest groups. And many congressional campaigns. The NCEC doesn't have a voter file. It shows groups how to create them. The NCEC is a resource for Dems. The Ickes project will be, if it succeeds, another resource.

NCEC is not some creation of the DLC. It was established in 1948 by Eleanor Roosevelt with some friends to "pool the resources of small contributors from across the country and spend those funds to help elect the most progressive candidates to the U.S. Senate and House." Gersh is considered a leading Democratic analyst and while he has written for the DLC's Blueprint Magazine, he doesn't seem to be a DLC creature.

Hotline's analysis also provides a boost for Howard's 50-state strategy:

It's also unfair to blame the DNC for the dilapidated condition of statewide voter files. Turnover in state parties is high. For journalists, try and remember the last time a state party press secretary lasted longer than two years. Voter file manipulators -- good ones -- are few and far between. The DNC is helping states hire the chosen data crunchers.

What worries some Dems is this: Republicans are much more centralized. The downside of creating shadow party groups is that eventually they step on each other -- see ACT and Kerry/DNC in Ohio 2004.

I think Howard comes out looking better in this analysis than in the ham-handed write up in yesterday's Washington Post. If I have time, I may fire off an LTE to the Washington Post about Edsall's story--although they don't seem to run LTEs that defend Howard. But the bottom line here is that it doesn't appear to be a power play by Hillary Clinton but a void that the DNC can't fill because of federal election laws.

Stay tuned.

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

2006-03-08T19:30:00.000-08:00

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.

Spinning the Democratic Party

2006-03-08T13:30:00.000-08:00

For the third day this week, there is a Washington Post story about Democratic Party politics. And, like everything else the Post writes about Democrats, it leaves the impression that the party couldn't organize a walk around the block.

Sunday, March 5: Democratic Leaders Question Whether Dean's Right on the Money (Pg. A4)
Tuesday, March 7: Democrats Struggle to Seize Opportunity (Pg. 1)
Wednesday, March 8: Democrats' Data Mining Stirs an Intraparty Battle (Pg. 1)

Today’s front-page story is about a new data mining operation that is being launched:

A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.

The new venture is called Data Warehouse and working with Ickes is Laura Quinn, who worked on the voter file program under Terry McAuliffe until Howard became chairman and brought his own people on board, including Blue State Digital. Blue State Digital is now under contract to the DNC and includes DFA alumni Joe Rospars and Laura Gross.

According to the Post, the DNC and Data Warehouse "will separately try to build vast and detailed voter lists -- each effort requiring sophisticated expertise and costing well over $10 million." Ickes says Data Warehouse will at first seek to sell its targeting information to politically active unions and liberal interest groups, rather than campaigns.

More:

The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.

Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front. "The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march," said Ickes, whose political technology venture is being backed by financier George Soros.

"It's unclear what the DNC is doing. Is it going to be kept up to date?" Ickes asked, adding that out-of-date voter information is "worse than having no database at all."

Right away I smell a rat. Unnamed advisors to Hillary Clinton claim she is concerned "that Democrats and liberals lack the political infrastructure of Republicans and their conservative allies."

In the print edition, I noticed that just before the reader has to jump to the rest of the story inside the paper, you see the sentence where Ickes and others acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence in Howard. Even if the reader never finishes the story inside the paper, the narrative has been defined.

And the narrative of today's story is that the Clintons are aiming for Howard Dean. If you read the story, here is what you get out of it: Republicans lead in technology, Democrats can't compete, Democrats are out of date, the Republicans can tailor their GOTV messages, Democrats can't work together.

In his evaluation of Larry Summers' forced resignation as president of Harvard, Eric Alterman says, "The power of the consensus narrative in journalism is all but impermeable to reason or evidence. The right understands this and the left does not. That’s why the right worries little about nuance or getting the details straight; it’s the story that matters. Once you’ve defined the story, journalists struggle to make the facts fit the narrative rather than vice-versa."

The consensus narrative today is that Howard has risen to his level of incompetence that forward-thinking Democrats need to act independently of the DNC. This is strange because Laura Quinn worked on the database now described as having so many technical problems that it wasn't useful for state and local GOTV operations--and the purported reason why Ickes is launching Data Warehouse.

There are several storylines I see being defined that will acquire the veneer of conventional wisdom:

1) Hillary is making a run for the 2008 nomination and because Ickes is developing this new database independent of the DNC, Democrats are hopelessly unable to coalesce.

1a) The Clintons have it in for Howard Dean (hey, I remember HRC’s sour puss when Howard took the stage at the convention. I thoroughly enjoyed that moment.)

2) If voters need more evidence that Howard Dean is doing a poor job as DNC Chairman, not only is the DNC lagging in fundraising, gerbils power their computer system and voter files are on punch cards (ok, I exaggerate a bit but you get the point).

3) The Democrats can’t capitalize on GOP corruption because they have no alternatives to offer voters. And Howard Dean is doing a poor job as DNC chairman.

4) Here's one I didn't consider as I read the story this morning: Base vs Elite, small donors vs large business donors.

This is what the media will use in between now and 2008. And the midterm election coverage is just for practice. Wait until the presidential cycle cranks up. Then you’ll see some consensus journalism that will likely exceed the "Howard Dean is an angry unelectable liberal" theme of 2004.

Postscript--Matt Stoller has a post up at MyDD.com, Dean versus Ickes. Stoller says this is a real political fight that he has known about for months, all off the record.

Update--Scott Shields has his own take on the matter at MyDD.com. Shields thinks it's another case of the Post massively overstating bad news about Democrats and that while the conflict is real, he doesn't necessarily think it's a bad thing:

The fact that these are parallel efforts could serve two important functions. One is to force both entities to bring their A game and try to top the other. And data from both can theoretically be utilized and cross-referenced to produce a more refined product. While the existence of two competing efforts may cause some maniacal giggling among those at the Post, I fail to see how it's a net negative in and of itself. Once again, we're a party full of grown-ups -- unlike the weak Republicans, we can handle some internal competition.

...

Recognizing that many will disagree, the takeaway message for me is that Democrats are working fast and furious to fix something that's widely viewed as being in need of repair.

Handwringing Democrats

2006-03-06T14:00:00.000-08:00

By my reckoning, as each quarter comes to a close, it's time for Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza to write a story about handwringing among Democrats who are unhappy with Howard's performance as DNC chairman and about DNC fundraising in general. (Adam Nagourney also has a handwringing Democrats story in today's New York Times. They seem to be his stock in trade.)

In November Cillizza wrote “Democrats Losing Race for Funds Under Dean,” which bemoaned the sorry state of DNC fundraising under Howard's leadership. It was only toward the end of the story where you discovered the truth: “In the previous election cycle, the DNC had raised $31 million, compared with the RNC’s $80 million, at this point in 2003.” So Howard actually cut the RNC's traditional 3-1 advantage (or more) in fundraising to a 2-1 advantage and raised $11 million more than Terry McAuliffe raised in 2003. Not to mention that his numbers came the year after a presidential election, while McAuliffe's came during the presidential cycle. And that Howard cut the gap in just nine months on the job at the time of this story.

Well Cillizza is at it again, and this time he brought a friend, fellow Postie Dan Balz. Why it took two stenographers--erm, reporters--is beyond me. Balz and Cillizza repeat the same tired complaints, quoting anonymous Democrats who are unhappy with Howard's focus on building up the state parties rather than raising funds for the 2006 midterms:

Democratic congressional leaders are particularly worried because the Republican National Committee holds a huge financial advantage over the DNC. One congressional Democrat complained that Dean has -- at an alarming rate -- burned through the money the DNC raised, and that Republicans may be able to swamp Democrats in close races with an infusion of RNC money.

Who are these anonymous congressional Democrats and why are they granted blanket anonymity, which further detracts from the story’s credibility? Why are Balz and Cillizza allowing them to disparage Howard publicly without having to take responsibility for their comments? The only reasonable answer is that Balz and Cillizza are trying to prop up a weak story with an overused theme.

The meeting that is the subject of this story took place a month ago. Yet Balz and Cillizza omit any explanation of why a month-old meeting is still newsworthy. There is nothing new at all about this story because the Post has published stories about congressional Democrats who are unhappy with Howard since he took office as DNC chairman. If they had their way, he wouldn't have gotten within 500 miles of D.C.

Dean campaigned for the DNC chairmanship by pledging to make Democrats competitive in all 50 states, not just in the 16 to 18 presidential battlegrounds. One congressional Democrat responded: "Nobody's suggesting they do 16 states, but not all states are equal."

And which states are more equal? What kind of test would you apply to determine that?

Frankly, I’m getting tired of reading the exact same story about the alleged Democratic unhappiness with Howard. It's time for reporters like Balz and Cillizza to begin reporting real news and get back to covering issues that actually deserve publication.

All of the scandals surrounding the Bush administration and the Republican Party are a good place to begin.

Volunteers, ideas needed

2006-02-13T16:26:00.000-08:00

You have probably heard the expression, "The first casualty of war is truth" or some variation of it. Apparently it is not entirely clear who said this first, but the concept is certainly one that rings true for many of us. And even though George Lakoff warned us against using the expression "war on terror", those words seem to have gone unheeded. George Bush has cast himself as a "war president" (with many in the "mainstream media" acting as his willing accomplices) and the war is an ambigious one without a clear target or end. So with the so called "war on terror", the American people also seem to be on the losing end of the "war on truth".

And "telling the truth" is what gets Howard Dean in trouble, at least in the perception of the people who get their news from the usual channels. That and being "too angry", but recently I saw this headline: GOP's 'anger' strategy has Dems defensive. WTF? When they do it, it's a *strategy*? But when Howard Dean was righteously angry about being misled into an illegal war, he was "craaaaaazy Howard Dean".

Ugh. I'm sick of this. I really am--I'm sick of fighting. And sick of having to fight on so many different fronts, while at the same time trying to keep up with work, family, paying bills, etc. But we can't stop fighting, because that means the bad guys win, and they keep making things worse for the rest of us.

The other day, I wrote a post entitled, Supporting Howard Dean: Why it's personal, and crossposted it several places, including Daily Kos and Booman Tribune. I've linked to those posts specifically because they are the ones that generated a number of positive responses--about Howard Dean giving people hope for the future and for the Democratic party.

Howard Dean could have taken things easy after dropping out of the race for the presidency. Instead, he has chosen to take on what can often be a thankless job, often keeping him in a position where he is attacked by both Republicans and those Democrats who think they can score points for "distancing" themselves from him. Yet he continues to speak the truth. It's the same truth that many of us speak in our own living rooms, but we aren't in a position to get our message out to as many people. So, when people attack Howard Dean for telling the truth, they are also attacking us and our values.

I figure if he is going to put himself out on the front lines for us, the least we can do is make sure he's got backup.

So, how do we do this? And how do we streamline our efforts as much as possible? My first thought was that we needed to have some sort of resource center that is easily accessible, which is why I set up this blog. I also have added links to Media Matters and the Rapid Response Network.

What next? Well, the thing that keeps coming to mind for me is Snopes.com--the site where people can check out various urban legends and find out if there is any truth to them. It would really be useful to have something comparable where we can check in and get the real scoop when people start spouting lies or half-truths about Howard Dean. And, if a number of people participate, the workload shouldn't have to be daunting for any one person.

Thoughts? One thing I know for sure that I need are people to be contributors. At least for starters, all I think we are going to be doing is keeping an eye on the new right wing talking points and media spin that we see being bandied about, and posting the information that fellow supporters would need to respond to that. No writing skills are required, unless you would like to post a letter to the editor that *you* have written to rebut some current alleged "gaffe" of Howard's. But if all you do is link and excerpt an article to say, "Here's what Howard Dean really said--in context!" or "Here's an article that shows what he said to be absolutely right", that's still a big help.

If you're willing to be a contributor, please email me at howardempowered at gmail.com and I'll send you a Blogger invite.

Debunking, a full time job

2006-02-10T06:48:00.000-08:00

This is from Howard Dean's interview with Randi Rhodes on January 23:

Randi started the interview by saying "We've been playing your clip over and over again for like the last week, where you succinctly said 'There is no Abramoff Democratic money. He gave no money to Democrats.' She goes on to say that people in the media have continued to try to portray the Abramoff scandal as bipartisan in nature, and that Tim Russert had put up a pie chart saying that 34% of the money had gone to Democrats.

Howard: Well, you know, I like Tim Russert, but that's just not true.

Randi: I know that's not true.

Howard: The truth of the matter is, this is a Republican finance scandal. Exclusively. There is nobody implicated in this except for Republicans. Not one.

Randi: Do you know how he had to couch it to get away with this kind of lying--

Howard: You know, I'm surprised that Tim would do this because I know Tim and he's an ethical person, but that's just not true. You know, these guys have got to get off their butts and look at those numbers. Here's the deal, Randi, *not one nickel* from Abramoff ever went to a Democrat. Not one nickel, every dime of it went to Republicans. Secondly, there's no evidence whatsoever that any money was *directed* by Abramoff to any Democrat. So this is just crap, and it's the RNC, and it's disappointing at this late date after all this corruption exposed on the Republican side, that the mainstream press would fall for this. They've got to do better than this.

Debunking right wing talking points is a full time job, but it can be easier if we work together.

As I was posting on various blogs and discussion boards, trying to get people to join in the brainstorming about how to celebrate Howard's first anniversary as DNC chair, I was occasionally met with this sort of nonsense:

"...but Howard Dean has misused the money and got to raise huge amounts of dollars between now and election day. It's a question of if he doesn't do it he might lose his job."

Bull--er, that's just crap! And we usually know this stuff is crap when we see it (or smell it) but I know I don't always have the facts needed for rebuttal right at my fingertips. So how about pooling our resources and creating one place on the web where we know we can find the resources we need when rapid response is needed?