The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived Versus Power Achieved

The attempts to oust Dean have been crushed. The anti-Deaniacs in the party are fresh out of friends:James Carville's attempt to topple Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee failed after state party officials and even a vocal critic of Dean crushed the coup, officials said.

Insiders from the Clinton camp winced at Carville's untimely remarks last week calling for Dean's ouster in favor of unsuccessful Senate candidate Harold Ford of Tennessee.

"It was not coming from [Sen. Hillary Clinton] and they made a real effort to distance themselves from James' comments," said a source close to the Clintons.

The Clintonistas don't want an undeserved backlash from the activist wing of the party that overwhelmingly supports Dean, especially because some anti-Clinton Democrats have blamed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the attack by Carville, a longtime Clinton insider. Those forces claimed Carville's motive was to topple Dean in favor of a chairman more favorable to Sen. Clinton's bid for President. The remarks form Clinton's camp come after Charles Schumer and Donnie Fowler backed Howard Dean and the fifty-state strategy, the Association of State Democratic Chairs did the same, and after Dean scored a 96% approval rating on the latest Dailykos leadership poll. The latter two are particularly key, because over the past two years, Howard Dean's base of support in the party has come primarily from two sources: state parties and the progressive movement. Although lacking in nuance, it would not be inaccurate to characterize the current modus operandi of the DNC as follows: small donations from progressive movement activists flow to the DNC in record amounts, and most of those donations end up being spent on direct grants to state parties and in the form of state-level field organizers. This is a novel path for Democratic money to take, especially since it generally bypasses both Washington, D.C. based consultants and wealthy donors. It is also exactly why Carville's base of supporters hate Dean so much.

Although this is obviously lost on most pundits and journalists, it is interesting how this seemingly odd alliance between state parties and the progressive movement is based not upon ideology. Rather, it is based upon both a shared strategic principle, the fifty-state strategy, and a shared chip on the shoulder: the sense that both have been long ignored by the party leadership. It is a sort of Alliance of the Ignored. When this alliance runs afoul of the Carville's and Begala's of the world, once again it does so primarily because of strategic differences, not because of ideology. Carville and Begala generally represent an older tactical vision for the Democratic Party. This was a vision that was dominant from 1988-2004, when Democrats heavily employed triangulation, focused almost entirely on the narrow targeting of a few "swing" districts and demographics, and when television advertisements and repetitious talking points aimed mushy-middle, low information voters where the primary tools utilized in all national Democratic campaigns. Wealthy donors and high-level consultants liked that strategy because it kept money flowing to the latter in the form of hefty commissions, and because it kept Democratic policy where the former would like it to be. Most state parties and progressive activists hated that strategy because it basically dictacted that their electoral concerns were either not important, or something from which the Democratic Party needed to actively distance itself. Whatever ideological differences there may or may not be between the two feuding camps, ultimately their dispute is grounded in a difference in tactical vision: narrow targeting versus the fifty-state strategy.

Right now, the fifty-state strategy is ascendant, and so are state parties and the progressive movement. Fifty-state strategy candidates appear to have the votes to win the DNC Chair for the foreseeable future. Long-ignored state parties will probably keep voting for it, and the long-ignored activists in the progressive movement will probably keep funding it. It is in this way that state parties and the Democratic activist working class have bandied together to form an Alliance of the Ignored to which even the Clinton camp must now pay respect. Best of all, even when Dean's tenure is up in two years, the progressive movement can maintain our power and the Alliance of the Ignored with the state parties through another DNC chair who would be willing to continue the fifty-state strategy. In all likelihood, every once and a while some wealthy donors and high-level consultants will back another pundit like Carville in an attempt to replace a fifty-state strategy chair with a narrow targeting, triangulation, low-information voters chair. However, as long as we make certain the fifty-state strategy is healthy and functioning, these donors and consultants will continue to fail. The old Washington, D.C. based CW clearly does not have the votes to overcome the new fifty-state strategy coalition in the Democratic Party.

In this environment, Clinton's camp understandably wants to distance itself from Carville's remarks. The consensus in the Democratic Party is clearly against him on this one. Carville may have perceived power as a long-time insider, strategist and pundit for the party, but the Alliance of the Ignored between state parties and progressive movement activists have achieved power through the fifty-state strategy. Most higher-ups in the Democratic Party like Clinton and Schumer know this, and that is one of the main reasons why they pay respect to the fifty-state strategy and The Alliance of the Ignored (that, and the fifty-state strategy seems to be working). Because of this alliance, it is no longer possible for people who want to lead the party to dismiss either state parties or the working class of the Democratic activist universe. As power as flowed away from the disgruntled, narrow-targeting clique that has been backing Carville these past ten days, it has flowed to the members of the new alliance. Given this, I wouldn't want to anger us now, either. Power achieved. Narrow targeting strategy crushed for another two years. Now, in order to maintain this power, we must make certain that the fifty-state strategy continues to work.

Tags: Democrats, fifty state strategy, progressive movement (all tags)

Comments

41 Comments

Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

I did not realize Dean's tenure was up in two years.  I don't know the intracacies of the DNC Chair position.

Can Dean run again?  If not, how can we ensure we get the best candidate and not the establishment's choice?  

by dayspring 2006-11-20 12:24PM | 0 recs
If the rules restrict DNC Chairs to one-term...

...then that rule should be changed.

The Fifty State Strategy will take a long time (with regard to making more states competitive in presidential races).

by Eric Jaffa 2006-11-20 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: If the rules restrict DNC Chairs to one-term..

the 50 state strategy will be here long after dean has gone.

by snappy 2006-11-20 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

gosh. gee. this is so.. surprising...
that dean beat down the challenge with such support.

Is this why we should continue to ignore the state in which those who just encircled dean, now reside?

by heyAnita 2006-11-20 07:13PM | 0 recs
Have we considered...

...whether Carville's outburst was a put-up job designed to give the Clintons an opportunity to loudly pledge undying devotion to the good doctor.

In rebuttal of any feelings abroad that they might be just a tad lukewarm about Burlington Howie as DNC chair for Hill's 08 run.

by skeptic06 2006-11-20 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Have we considered...

Really.  All along I figured this was a good cop/bad cop routine.

by Disputo 2006-11-20 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Have we considered...

no, it was a real challenge but it was beat down -

mark these words please: this next three months should be the hardest you've ever worked.

if we let up now, we will all be lost. Dean isn't savvy, and the circle around him that tried to get him elected wasn't either.

you have just witnessed the power of an 'organizer'.

by heyAnita 2006-11-20 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

A little triumphalist, pseudo-marxist and college political pamplet esque for my taste, but otherwise I agree.

by DRR7799 2006-11-20 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored:

It doesn't hurt that the good Doctor has a very strong base of support in New York... both in the grassroots and within the state party apparatus.

However...

I would strongly suggest that supporters of the progressive movement and the 50-state strategy get involved with their local democratic parties.

I would strongly suggest you take seats on your ward, city, town, and county party committees.

If you are already on those committees then I would strongly suggest you either get yourself on your state committee, the national committee, or make sure that your locality send supporters to those higher level committees.

In 2008 there will be another vote for DNC Chair. I believe Dr. Dean has stated that he will not run again... this may change but I suspect not.

Should a Democrat win the Presidency in 2008 then they will have a great deal of influence over who becomes the new DNC Chair. We were able to install Gov. Dean because there was no single Democrat at the top of the totem pole. Should we win the Presidency there will be indisputably one single Democrat at the top of the totem pole. That person traditionally gets their pick as Chair. We can influence that by either insuring that person is a friend of the Good Doctor and/or the 50-state strategy and/or the progressive movement or by making sure we control the Democratic National Committee and can resist going backwards should the new Democratic President be an idiot.
 

by Andrew C White 2006-11-20 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored:

I would strongly suggest that supporters of the progressive movement and the 50-state strategy get involved with their local democratic parties.

Especially in NJ. VA and KY where we are having elections this year.

by Alice Marshall 2006-11-20 01:23PM | 0 recs
Carville Must Stay Still

Carville's untimely attacks on Dean were more than ill advised.  Carville has been inefectual  for a long time.  Carville's real needs stem from his greed, hubris, and need for  consulting bucks that will stop with Dean in power.

With wife Mary Matalin who as the farthest right paid political operative possible for Cheney and the White House, is it any wonder the pressure is on Carville to act desperately?

A K Street operative trying to take down the successful and respected Chair of the DNC?
Aside from the worst timing possible,   does it occur to this overpaid operative  that he does not run or represent the Democratic Party?

A concerted effort should be made to take him off the air where he  spills his venom and creates problems at exactly a moment when Democrats require a show of unity.

by morris1030 2006-11-20 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Carville Must Stay Still

Yeah well, Carville did what he was asked to do. Now he'll get some nookie this week.

by billybob 2006-11-20 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Carville Must Stay Still

Screw Carville and the witch he rode the night before.

Both he and Begala showed their true colors after Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN when he smacked down Tucker-poo. Carville completely dissed Stewart not realizing that the tide in the Democrats was turning away from people like him to people more like Stewart.

You had a nice run James now go try overthrowing Hugo Chavez again, another indicator that you are just another one of Bush's ass boys.

by clichy 2006-11-20 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored

Who are Carville's "base of supporters," if not the Clintonistas? I can't think of anyone but the other talking heads.

by joyful alternative 2006-11-20 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored

Don't forget his wife....

http://thepremise.com/archives/11/18/200 6/699

by MarkB 2006-11-20 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored

Carville was "acting alone" or so the article said.  I guess there's a first time for everything. </snark>

by misscee 2006-11-21 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored

I don't disagree with most of what you say, but you're confusing two issues.  Dean's fifty-state strategy is the right stratgy over the long term.  You don't need to be a stat geek, however, to know that most of the fifty states are already set in terms of which party they'll back in the electoral college in 2008.  That's the next test.

Is it wrong to focus a message at mushy-middle swing voters?  Absolutely not.  The 2006 election just showed us -- and you -- that everybody essetially stayed put except a narrow band of Independents who came over to the Democratic side, plus a segment of the Hispanic vote.  Ignoring that truth, and it seems odd that you would, is a recipe for failure.  You can embrace that truth within a fifty-state strategy, and I think you should, but ignoring it or confusing it with some left-wing or progressive mandate would be the real mistake.

by MarkB 2006-11-20 01:02PM | 0 recs
look again
This was a vision that was dominant from 1988-2004, when Democrats heavily employed triangulation, focused almost entirely on the narrow targeting of a few "swing" districts and demographics, and when television advertisements and repetitious talking points aimed mushy-middle, low information voters where the primary tools utilized in all national Democratic campaigns.
The operative phrase is "few swing districts". Also, with few exceptions, indendents came over not because democrats were talking like republicans, but because they DISAGREED with republicans and want the democrats to go in a different direction. So yes, it is a victory for the progressive movement.
by TeresaInPa 2006-11-20 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: look again

"So yes, it is a victory for the progressive movement."

No, it isn't.  Or perhaps I should say that it isn't necessarily a victory for the progressive movement.  The Democratic Party and brand are not synonymous with progressive politics.  Progressives (or liberals) are the ideological and activist base of the party, but on a percentage basis they also represent less of the Democratic Party overall than conservatives do of the Republican Party.

Progressives/liberals = 20% of voters
Moderates = 40%
Conservatives = 35%

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_ poll/index.asp?PID=548

Less than half of Democratic voters in any presidential election think of themselves as progressives.  Unless you follow the logic that moderates are the dumb blondes of politics -- and many ideologues on the right and left do feel that way -- then there's more to the Democratic Party and brand than progressivisim.

I'm not anti-progressive.  I'm just not willing to buy into the idea that a move in the middle by swing voters signals a broad embrace of progressive politics.

I also fail to understand why progressive advocates (not necessarily you) insist a priori that voters buy into the progressive cause before progressives target a specific platform or policy agenda that has appeal to the middle.  As I've noted here and elsewhere, renewable fuels is teed up and ready to be hit to the moon, but most progressives I read are still complaining about the labels being attached to the voters who cast the deciding ballots in the elections just past.

The door at this moment is wide open.  If progressives proved themselves of value to moderates then stock in their sub-brand or niche market or whatever you want to call it would go up at exactly the moment the conservative brand is taking a crippling hit.  Seize the cycle.

by MarkB 2006-11-20 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: look again

My view is that the time has come to translate the votes that were cast in the mid-term elections into legislation that serves the public interest broadly speaking. Legislative proposals do not have to be tailored to fit self-identifying progressives, independents and conservatives, though it is an excellent idea to keep in mind as MarkB points out, the break-down of voters he presents:  

"Progressives/liberals = 20% of voters
Moderates = 40%
Conservatives = 35%

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_ poll/index.asp?PID=548"

Newly elected representatives need to get into a huddle not only with those who elected them but with all of their constituents and craft policies that meet their essential needs. If they perform well, they will get re-elected, regardless of what the professional politicians who run party organizations do or don't do.

Too much time is being wasted on post-election post-mortems, debating organizational strategies and tactics for the 2008 elections and discussing who is going to run for president.

The task at hand is to formulate, enact and implement policies that the voters want, particularly on the human security front, namely ending the counter-productive U.S. occupation of Iraq, and the economic security front, namely protecting the livelihoods of working Americans and making sure that their soaring costs of living do not outstrip their stagnating incomes.

Presumably these enactments will elicit enouch electoral support across the political spectrum to keep the Republican machine from retaking control  in 2008 AND reflect progressive concerns with restoring popular democracy and economic and political fairness, as well as protecting livelihoods and lives from predatory economic and political forces.

The sure fire way to win elections in the future is to focus on enacting and implementing legislation that protects VOTERS' VITAL INTERESTS and negates the ravages of 12 years of Republican rule.

The sure fire way to lose is to waste energy discussing self-destructive political machinations like Carville's recent blunder.

by Nancy Bordier 2006-11-21 09:51AM | 0 recs
CO Dem Party chair chimes in....

THE 50-STATE PLAN

As you know, Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee instituted a 50-State plan this year so that Democrats would compete in every state. Although the effectiveness of this plan is being debated nationally, it clearly benefited Colorado. Because of resources from the DNC, we had professional regional coordinators in every area of Colorado, working with the local parties and communities and helping turn out a historic vote for Democrats.

We all owe a huge thanks to our regional coordinators: Robin Van Ausdall, Annajo Sanchez, Kim Phillips, Donna Young and Roger Ratcliff. Their tireless work was crucial to our victory.

THANK YOU!

by zappatero 2006-11-20 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: CO Dem Party chair chimes in....

WTG, Dem organizers in Colorado!!

I see that not only did we pick up a House seat and a governorship there, but we picked up seats in both houses of the state legislature, and now have a solid majority in each house.

I think our state legislature gains - which were pretty substantial from coast to coast - are the true proof of the pudding for the 50-State Project.  Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel were not doing anything about those races.  But I'll bet Dean's organizers in each state were coordinating with state legislature candidates, and making a difference there.

by RT 2006-11-21 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

Hilary is our enemy. Carville is her lap dog.

by antiHyde 2006-11-20 02:03PM | 0 recs
Power Perceived Versus Power Achieved

One of the virtues of the 50-state strategy is that it makes clear to potential candidates that if they are willing to make the personal sacrifice necessary to run for office, there will be resources available to them from the Democratic Party.   We can't convince good people to get into a race if they aren't confident that there will be structural and insitutional help for them.

by global yokel 2006-11-20 02:16PM | 0 recs
Yes, It IS About Ideology

This is almost right:

it is interesting how this seemingly odd alliance between state parties and the progressive movement is based not upon ideology. Rather, it is based upon both a shared strategic principle, the fifty-state strategy, and a shared chip on the shoulder: the sense that both have been long ignored by the party leadership. It is a sort of Alliance of the Ignored.
Except, if you look at SDS's 1962 Port Huron Statement, what is generally regarded as the historically most distinctive and important aspect is that of participatory democracy:
In a participatory democracy, the political life would be based in several root principles:

   * that decision-making of basic social consequence be carried on by public groupings;
    * that politics be seen positively, as the art of collectively creating an acceptable pattern of social relations;
    * that politics has the function of bringing people out of isolation and into community, thus being a necessary, though not sufficient, means of finding meaning in personal life;
    * that the political order should serve to clarify problems in a way instrumental to their solution; it should provide outlets for the expression of personal grievance and aspiration; opposing views should be organized so as to illuminate choices and facilities the attainment of goals; channels should be commonly available to related men to knowledge and to power so that private problems -- from bad recreation facilities to personal alienation -- are formulated as general issues.

And that's the common ideology in a nutshell.

Yes, folks, the state chairs of places like Texas, Utah and Nevada are all disciples of Tom Hayden, whether they know it or not.

And why not?  The exponentially escalating cynicism, cronyism, and corruption Versailles has made them so.  As Maggie Thatcher used to say: "There is no alternative."

Only, this time it's actually true.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-11-20 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

I blogged something about this the other day.  Good to know I had it pretty well right.  Didn't think of the Alliance of the Ignored angle.  Mostly justed pissed at losing at the hands of the beltway boys more interested in taking campaign contributions out of our pockets and putting them in theirs, with no reckoning on the losing strategies.

by Oilfieldguy 2006-11-20 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

I still do not get who besides Carville was part of this attempted coup.  Who was it and how did they propose to get rid of Dean?  Did they think they could get the party chairs to do a recall?

by TeresaInPa 2006-11-20 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

"It was not coming from [Sen. Hillary Clinton] and they made a real effort to distance themselves from James' comments," said a source close to the Clintons.

Bullshit.  It was coming from the Clintonistas.  Just like all the "Murtha is corrupt" attacks came from them.

by Dumbo 2006-11-20 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

Rangel and Carville are the kind of "rough spots" that need to be smoothed into the new Democratic Party

by pwax 2006-11-20 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

Beg to differ. Rangel is a loyal and crafty Dem. His roughness is used in the service of the party to wake Dem's up, instill some backbone, and focus the debate. Carville is a self-serving traitor who needs to be eliminated from the party.

by AnOhioVoice 2006-11-20 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

I find the whole notion of a 'fifty state strategy' to be just odd. What it seems to imply is that there is someone out there with a 'forty state strategy.' Well probably there is, but it still sounds slightly odd. On the other hand, I did buy into it, for some reason. I'm having a little more trouble, however, with Chris' 'million word strategy,' but I accept that life is hard. I intuitively despised Carville when he first jumped on the wagon, and my intuition was backed up by my trusty Ouija® Board. And I was right. I am convinced that John Dean is a flawed man, but then, politics seems to be mainly about compromise. And, we won.

But winning isn't the only thing, and it isn't everything either, and it isn't even enough. Now we have to make these Democrats save our asses. Which they usually can see their way clear to save only half of.

by blues 2006-11-20 05:05PM | 0 recs
It's not a 'fourty state strategy'

it's a 'five state strategy'  The Clinton wing believes that only swing states are relevant

by Valatan 2006-11-21 02:43AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not a 'fourty state strategy'

Maybe 15 states* rather than 5, but that's certainly the idea.

And it's a really lousy one, because the more the contest is narrowed down to a handful of races, the more the GOP can use its money to win by smearing the other side, or doing things like the robocalls.

We have better odds if we can spread the contest out over a large number of GOP-held districts, so that their money can only be in so many places, and some of their candidates just have to fend for themselves.  We do far better with people power than they do, because we are in fact the party of the people.  They're the party of money.

Most years won't be like 2006, of course.  (For one thing, if the next three elections were like 2006, we'd have the GOP whittled down to its strongholds in the Deep South and northern Rockies, and there just wouldn't be that many GOP seats left to win.)  And there will usually come a time in a Presidential election when it's clear which way 70% of the states are falling, and the battle's over the other 30%.  But we shouldn't look on the Presidential election dynamic as an example to be emulated in other situations.  In fact, we should seek to widen the field in legislative races in order to ultimately widen the playing field for our Presidential nominees.

*NH,PA,VA,WV,FL,OH,MI,WI,MN,IA,MO,CO,NM, NV,OR

by RT 2006-11-21 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

Um, that's Howard Dean, not John. John Dean was Nixon's White House counsel, a principal player in the Watergate coverup, and, after he concluded that Nixon was going to throw him under the bus, the Watergate prosecution's star witness.  More recently, he's authored the books Worse than Watergate, arguing for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for lying to Congress, and Conservatives Without Conscience, analyzing the authoritarianism and ethical bankruptcy at the heart of modern American conservatism.

by Alex 2006-11-21 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V
Two thoughts came to mind while reading this excellent article.
1.  With the internet playing a larger roll along with the local party  this takes control away as well as showing they have to power to move the polls.  They can disrupt a person who may want to run for president, is connected to the well heeled and lives in a bubble but, is very out of touch with the people who are not so crazy about that candidate.  Blogs can disrupt what the "I know what's best for you" crowd's plans.
The people having a say in our politics and governing has the potential to undermine the whole thing with the big money and thier appointed candidate.
2.  This then destroys a large part of trianglization.  If the little people are in control they have to go out and actually talk to and listen to them.  The agenda's are no longer controled by the powers that be.   You cannot get away with the lazy ways like going for some swing voters and big doners.  You now have to come out of your bubble and humble yourself to the people.  And the base is not the only ones moving the agenda and the candidate.  
You cannot go to the rich but, old style democrats of the 70s and 80s.  You have to meet the working class and the progressive who may not be happy with you.
Howard Dean changed the way things are done and brought the power back to the people.
That is why he has such support.  Because he is of the people and likes the people and isn't spending his time only thinking in rarified air.
by vwcat 2006-11-20 05:13PM | 0 recs
Look at Carville Now

He recklessly used his power and now he's exposed as having none. Perception is 4/5s of the total and Carville is on the losing end of the stick.

by MNPundit 2006-11-20 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance o the Ignored

One reason - not yet discussed - that I've thought: these become a manufactured opportunity to 'cripple' the Democratic victory, in the eyes of the American public.

Its aftermath will provide necessary doubt for the opening of the 2007 Congressional year, slated with investigations on:

   * September 11;
    * the lead-up to, and the initiation of the war in Iraq; and,
    * the financing of its subcontractors, and reconstruction efforts.

Taking out the man that united the party, and the woman that is destined to lead the Democratic Congress, are simple ASSASSINATION attempts, clean, useful 'preventative medicine' for the 2008 Republican political efforts to retain the presidency...

Entire Post available here:
http://crystelzenmud.blogspot.com/2006/1 1/thoughts-on-james-carville-ex-genius.h tml

by ZENmud 2006-11-21 01:20AM | 0 recs
The Alliance of the Ignored:

I can't tell you how much I agree with your analysis.  We are a microcasm of the bigger American picture.  After reading your article, I now know why I am so pissed at the Clintons, DLC and the Dems. I am no Reagan Democrat, but I am truly sick of their elitist attitudes, legislation, behaviors, etc.  These group of know it all living the life of the rich and powerful give the working smucks: NAFTA; more media consolidation welfare reform for babies but not corporations; votes for torture, the Patriot Act, and a war that was obviously a lie; deficits, debt and bull shit about never having the peoples' money for what they people want but always havings plenty of the peoples' money available to what the corporations want.  I ramble, I'm sorry - but this so hits home.  It is why I fell in love with Gov. Dean's candidacy, why I supported him when he wanted to be DNC Chair, and why I will always support this unabashed representative of the people.  It is what Americans are clamoring for - someone who represent them - not the poor, not females, not rich - the majority of working class Americans who are getting screwed royally by both parties.

by dkmich 2006-11-21 01:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

It is true that most people consider themselves moderate. However, when asked about progressive issues, the overwhelming majority favor things like universal health care, environmental protection and other progressive issues.

The labels have become almost meaningless due to thug demonizing. This is another reason why the 50 state strategy makes sense. People like Jerry McNerney were able to win with a message that resonated with self-identified moderates and conservatives even though Jerry is pretty progressive himself. He went beyond labels to issues that his constituents care about regardless of labels.

by LauraK 2006-11-21 04:28AM | 0 recs
About the Port Huron Statement

I think this is a very important statement. Now is someone could just translate it into English instead of jargon more of us could appreciate it and espouse it. We should all pay more attention to George Lakoff to get our message out there.

by baldocchi 2006-11-21 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: The Alliance of the Ignored: Power Perceived V

Carville must have never read his own book "Stickin': The Case for Loyalty ".

Otherwise he'd know when to keep his lip zipped.

by One Citizen 2006-11-21 06:09AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads