"What do you want?"

Markos reports on the kind of crap we have to deal with with the dinosaurs in the party leadership. He was talking with the heads of the DCCC and apparently they would like it if we stopped supporting netroots candidates:

The DCCC has to make tough choices when deciding where to put its money. There are far more worthy races, and worthy candidates, than there is cash to go around. That's a brutal reality that no amount of wishing could erase.

As a filtering mechanism, the DCCC uses fundraising as a way top determine which candidates are working hardest. the typical "serious" candidate will spend 8-10 hours on the phone every day dialing for dollars. It's brutal work, and not something that every candidate will do.

Some of you who have donated to Richard Morrison in his efforts to oust DeLay may get a call from the candidate soon (reports have been streaming in). If you donated $10 in the past, he'll ask for $10. That's the kind of commitment the D-trip is looking for.

However, they are concerned that if the marginal candidates raise money online, then they don't need to do the hard work. In other words, raising an "easy" $40K for Ginny Schrader could act as disincentive to do the hard fundraising work that will get her to the $500K to $1 million she'll need to win the district.

Hence, it's best to let candidates flail, and the ones that can somehow manage to raise the early money -- those are the ones that we should be supporting.

Has the DCCC been taken over by The Shadows? What is this? Survival of the fittest? You must struggle first before we will give you attention. We won't help you out unless you don't really need our help. We won't loan you money until you show that you don't need it.

The logic is completely circular and is based on the idea that the only "serious" candidate is one who spends all their time raising money and that raising money is the only way that proves you are serious because it is what shows you are serious.

Around and around and around and around (and down the drain we go).

It's this kind of thinking that has gotten the Democrats in such a mess in the first place. What the DCCC needs to understand is that fringe candidates should be treated like micro-loan opportunities (need $100 to start your sewing business? No problem!) Low risk, but potentially high pay off if lighting strikes and a good long term investment that could produce even better candidates down the line.

You know something is fucked when the argument against helping candidates raise money is that doing so might make it harder for them to raise money. And then they wonder why people hate politics and don't want to get involved. What person in their right mind would want to spend 8-10 hours a day begging for money? Is that the kind of person we want leading us?

Embracing The Extremists

I was checking out Andrew Sullivan's page and caught up with his comments about Barak Obama. When Obama made the following comment:

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never– ever– go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued – and they must be defeated.

John Kerry knows this.

Sullivan responds:

So the anti-Bush argument is framed in terms of defending our troops. I also think that the term "shade the truth" is far more defensible rhetoric against the White House than the cant about lying and misleading the country. I still don't believe there was any deliberate shading of any truth. But it's a deft way of laying into the administration while not sounding like Michael Moore.

I agree. But it brings up a point I've been trying to make for several years. The kind of "liar" rhetoric that comes from people like Michael Moore provides a useful service. It makes comments like "shade the truth" appear more "defensible" to people like Andrew Sullivan.

In other words, if Michael Moore weren't out there calling Bush a liar, Barak Obama would be more vulnerable to criticism for claiming that Bush "shades the truth". Moore draws the worst of the fire away from the more moderate voices in the party, and thus allows those voices to make the point that really needs to be made in a way that will really stick.

It was when the Democratic party shunned its more extreme elements that it started to lose power because it no longer had them out their absorbing the fire of the opposition. The Republican party has rarely felt the need to exclude its own extreme elements. Indeed, some of them now how positions of great power in the administration. This has allowed them to steamroll the Democrats and the rest of the country.

Of course, the Republicans have gone beyond simply allowing their extreme members to enter the tent. They have allowed them to take over the political and policy levers of the party.

I wouldn't want Moore to be in charge of fashioning policy for the party. I wouldn't want him to be in a position comparable to Karl Rove. That would be just as bad as what we have now, just to the opposite extreme.

Democrats are learning the lesson that many extended families understand: don't be ashamed of that colorful uncle who makes a fool of himself in front of others. Just understand that loving him does not require agreeing with him.

Troubling Thoughts

Steve Soto passes on a conversation he had with Joe Trippi in which Trippi said that if Kerry doesn't opt out of public financing for the general election that it could make the difference for victory. Trippi went on to suggest that Bush might opt out after Kerry has already opted in and thus tie Kerry's hands to only $75 million for the general while Bush could rake in the dough and bury him in the process.

I talked to two Kerry staffers about Trippi's observations, and both told me that 1) Kerry would not opt out because it would be too hard to raise the $75 million themselves in the remaining time and pass up what in essence is free money; 2) in order to pass up the $75 million and make it worth it, Kerry would really have to raise much more than that; and 3) they weren't worried about Bush opting out because the Bush people had told these Kerry guys that they would not do this.

I think the first and second points are questionable. Kerry has already raised over $185 million this season. $75+ million is not outside the realm of possibility over the next three months.

However, the third point is far more disturbing. Why in the world is there anyone in the Kerry team that places any value in an assurance from the Bush people? I thought they would have learned their lesson on this point already. Never take them at their word. They will screw you over every time.

I don't know if Bush will opt out after Kerry has already locked himself down. It's an option that carries some political risk. Americans, if nothing else, appreciate a fair fight. If the race is close, the perception that Bush is "cheating" when it comes to fundraising might make the difference to a significant number of swing voters. If played right, such a choice might be used against Bush in the Fall.

I don't know if this is something to seriously worry about. But I am concerned that there are people in the Kerry campaign who still trust the word of the Bushies. That is what seriously worries me.

The Art Of The Implicit Slam

There's a good article in today's NY Times about the Democrats emerging iron fist in a velvet glove strategy.

The Democrats have been attacking Bush repeatedly, but they have rarely attacked him directly (note that Bush's name is rarely heard form the podium of the Fleet Center). The clearest example of this was when Jimmy Carter, while referring to John Kerry's military service, made the parenthetical comment that "he showed up". Everyone knew what he was talking about, but it was delivered in such a subtle way that the only way for the Republicans to attack it would have been to introduce the AWOL topic themselves.

It made me smile.

It's making the Republicans angry. Not just because of the slams but also because it is giving them so little material to attack directly. Instead they have been reduced to statistical analysis!

"The average time of the Clinton, Carter, Gore, Kennedy and Dean speeches is 1,002.36 seconds," said Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Republican campaign, referring to the remarks of two former presidents and three who might have been. He added that "464.99 seconds on average was spent attacking the president or the president's policies."

By contrast, Mr. Schmidt added, the speakers devoted an average of 232.446 seconds to praising Mr. Kerry, with about 304.924 seconds of what the Republicans considered filler. "So I would argue case closed, in terms of their negativity," he said.

Who would have thought the Republican War Room would be staffed by Vulcans?

The message discipline of the Democrats has been extraordinary. Even in response to these criticisms:

But the Democrats resist any suggestion that they have broken their pledge.

"You can draw contrasts without drawing blood," said Mr. Kerry's spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter. "Elections are about choices, and there are two very different choices on the ballot."

When Mr. Kennedy's veteran spokesman, Jim Manley, was asked in a telephone interview whether the senator had been trying to call Mr. Bush a dumb liar, he broke up and insisted, "That laughter is off the record." Then he called back to add: "Senator Kennedy thinks that Senator Kerry has the wisdom and integrity to be a great president in this dangerous world, period, paragraph."

And the Republicans have become desperate for something to lash out against:

On Tuesday afternoon, Dr. Dean told a labor gathering that his most passionate supporters had made mistakes. "You can't call the president a fascist," Dr. Dean chuckled. After hearing of those comments, Mr. McConnell suggested Wednesday that Dr. Dean had referred to Mr. Bush as a fascist flat-out, but that was clearly a stretch.

Of course, not all Democrats appreciate the genius of this approach:

Some Democratic strategists questioned the very idea of hewing only to the high road, noting that the first task of any challenger is to persuade the public to fire the president. The closeness of all the polling suggests that Mr. Kerry has yet to do that, much less assure that he is a fully acceptable alternative.

A year ago I would have agreed with that sentiment, but that was when Bush was still flying high in the polls. These naysayers are right that the first task of the challenger is to persuade the public to fire Bush. But that case has already been made. In just two years Bush's approval ratings have gone from 90+% to 40+% and that during a time of war when people naturally rally to the President. The people are ready to kick Bush out. Now they just have to be sold on the idea of Kerry being an acceptable replacement. If the Democrats were to continue the direct, firebrand approach of Howard Dean they would just be accused of piling on. By using the "implicit slam", the Democrats are both watering the garden of Bush discontent, keeping it growing, while presenting a more positive impression of their own ability to do better.

That's a win-win.

Winning

Josh is right.

I was there at the beginning of the Dean phenomena and I can personally attest that the anger towards Bush amongst Democrats was dwarfed by their anger towards their leadership. Dean has said that when he first started campaigning he was surprised at the level of frustration he found within the Democratic rank-n-file. He went out to talk about issues like health care but discovered that many of those he talked to were more interested in venting their anger at the party leadership.

The first time I ever saw Dean speak was at the DNC Winter Meeting in early 2003 (transcript).  The opening line of that speech was, "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq." It was a full-on salvo aimed directly at the heart of the party in the very confines of a party leadership conference.

It brought down the house!

Dean sensed what most other Democratic leaders were not sensing and he seized on that frustration and nearly rode it to the nomination. It may be that he ultimately failed in the final days because he won the bigger victory: he set out to wake up the party to its failed policy of appeasement and the party woke up!

When I initially threw my support behind Dean it was based on three desires, each in descending order of desirability:

1. To see Dean elected.
2. To see someone like Dean elected.
3. To see Bush removed from office.

Ultimately, though, the were all driven by a desire to get the party to take off the tutus and start acting like they cared about winning.

I was hard on John Kerry for much of 2003 specifically because he seemed to epitomize this appeasement policy. He was the poster-child for a leadership that just didn't understand what was going on out in the Heartland. He even went so far as to suggest that Democrats needed to "get over" the 2000 election. Only a Democratic politician divorced from reality would say something like that and not understand how alienating it would be.

Fortunately, Kerry seems to have absorbed the message of the Dean movement, at least to the extent that he now has a better appreciation of the anger and frustration Democrats have had with their leadership. Dean put the scare into him and I think he responded by digging deep into himself for the fighting spirit that held him up while leading Vietnam veterans to protest that war.

Now, I could hold it against Kerry that he took so long to "wake up". But recall that I wrote above about how even Dean was surprised by the anger in the Democratic rank-n-file. He didn't originally set out to be a firebrand, leading the pitchfork crowd against the Democratic tower. He was just separated enough from the inner-sanctum of Democratic politics to recognize what was going on before others did.

If I can "forgive" Dean for not recognizing the problem sooner than why can't I "forgive" John Kerry?

I set out 16 months ago to give Howard Dean the megaphone he needed to wake up the party. We did just that.

Howard Dean has won.

Now it's time for John Kerry to win.

It's getting better

One encouraging sign from the last two days is that the Democrats as a whole are learning to embrace some of the more "out there" elements of the party without the typical fear of being labeled as "out there" as well.

Yes, Michael Moore hasn't been given a spot on the podium. But two years ago I doubt he would have been allowed in the hall.

And Al Franken has been embraced as a major voice in Democratic politics.

The Whoopi and Margaret Cho incidents are evidence that the "quacking-in-their-boots" Democrats have a ways to go. But I'm going to adopt the "be positive" attitude of this convention and put greater emphasis on where the Democrats are doing things right.

Weakness and Strength

"Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness" -- Dick Cheney

With all due respect to the Veep, this is not an either-or proposition.

The perception of weakness can invite attack from those who already want to attack us, but by itself it does not create that desire.

The use of strength can give would-be attackers pause, but when used to excess it can lead to an increase in the number of people who want to attack us.

Statements like this from Mr. Cheney divide our nation by creating a false dichotomy between those who want to project strength and those who don't want to sow the seeds of the next crop of terrorists.

A divided nation is a weakened nation and black and white thinking like Mr. Cheney's just increases that divisiveness.