I've been blogging the DNC Eastern Regional Caucus and related events on
It Affects You (I also posted this on Kos), so I was a bit surprised to read this article in the the Washington Post. My version differs from
theirs in more than just the details.
Like much of the press in attendance, they were at the Eastern Regional Caucus primarily to cover Howard Dean. More than that, they were there to write a particular story on Howard Dean and Democrats in general which could very well have been prepared in advance (just find and add appropriate quotes), and they would find their story whether the facts matched or not.
Once again, he is the prohibitive favorite to win with just two weeks to go before the voting. Once again, the other candidates in the field, trailing badly, are hoping to position themselves as the most viable alternative to Dean. Once again, Dean is making a red-meat appeal to the liberal base of party.
I was there, so I can say first hand this is bs.
While Dean certainly does talk about embracing our convictions, his primary message is not ideological but one about standing up and fighting, one about reform. If it was red meat the Post was looking for, more of it came from other sources.
In the course of Dean's opening comments and participation in the Q&A, any reporter could find a few quotes to back up the red meat comments. And of course the reporter could have found similar quotes from several other candidates, but that would not fit the story they are trying to sell.
"We cannot be Republican-light if you want to win elections," he says to cheers here at the DNC's Eastern Regional meeting Saturday, the last gathering before party members vote on Feb. 12 for a successor to Terence R. McAuliffe. While other candidates counsel a move to the right and a drastic change for an enfeebled party, a sanguine Dean says Democrats "cannot change our convictions."
I have pages of notes from the meeting today (13 pages, to be exact), and at least two are dedicated to Dean's words. He certainly did say that we cannot be Republican Lite, and has been saying that for some time. As has just about every other serious candidate (in their own words.) But nowhere today did he speak of either moving left or right. He spoke, as he has since he entered this race (and before) about standing up and fighting for what makes us Democrats. I spoke with many voting members of the DNC today, and they are debating with each other over which candidate can help provide the best tools to win, strengthen the local parties, empower the people, and help ensure the Democratic message is shared with the American public.
Now, let's have a look at all of the candidates the Post is implying want to move us to the right. I know there is talk about Roemer and Frost, but today, at this meeting, not one candidate other than Roemer discussed shifting the party to the right. Not one. (And even Roemer did not specifically urge a move to the right, but most seemed aware of his record and the few suggestive comments he made were greeted coldly.) Frost, for his part, tried to establish his true blue Democratic credentials. So who are these candidates the Post is referring to whose counsel is a move to the right? Other than Roemer and possibly Frost, I don't think you can make a case for any, and Frost tried to shed that image today.
This year's contest particularly suits Dean. In the past, party leaders were tapped by sitting presidents, or ran discreet campaigns among party elders. This time, the seven candidates are vying for votes on a nationwide dog-and-pony show, a series of public debates climaxing in Saturday's session in New York. It has showcased the ideological rifts in the party and opened the way for the type of retail politics in which Dean specializes.
Um, what ideological rifts? We are a diverse party with diverse views, but we've arguably never been more united. That's not to say we are a homogeneous party - we're not - but whatever particular causes are paramount to each of us, we are united by our belief in opportunity, fairness, equality, liberty and more. That, and an opposition who, in the words of Simon Rosenberg today, has made us less safe, less prosperous, and less free. There may be some in-fighting, and there
are certain elements within the party talking about abandoning a few of our core beliefs, but the in-fighting is just that and those urging a course change have little traction. I spoke to many, many voting members today, and not a single one mentioned a move to the right. Just about all of them were interested in which candidate will help empower their state organizations, the grassroots and/or develop the infrastructure to effectively communicate the Democratic message.
In their speeches and answers to questions at the meeting here, the other candidates try to position themselves as Dean alternatives.
"We need a chair who doesn't only represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," former representative Tim Roemer (Ind.) told a quiet crowd, referring to one of Dean's lines from last year. Another candidate, party tactician Donnie Fowler, tries to debunk the Dean inevitability, saying, "This is your decision, DNC voters, it's not the pundits'." Ex-Denver mayor Wellington Webb challenges Dean on geography, calling for a candidate who has an appeal "not only in the northeastern part of the United States."
Dean is the frontrunner, and like last time other candidates are both taking up his message and trying to distinguish themselves from him and each other. But again with the exception of Roemer, not one of these are distinguishing themselves by urging a shift to the right.
Fowler's quote is used as a contrast, but today Fowler arguably gave the audience more red meat than Dean. And Webb's comments were less a dig at Dean than a chance to tout his own credentials as a candidate from a region we need to capture. Webb happened to be a supporter of Dean in his bid for the presidency, and the two appear genuinely warm.
Judging by hospitality-suite attendance, the leading Dean alternative is Fowler, son of a former Democratic national chairman.
Okay, so hospitality sweet attendance is not a fair way to judge each campaign's standing, but the Post is right (even if their observation was tongue in cheek) that Fowler did generate a buzz among voting members today. But Fowler, one of the "anti-Dean" candidates they cite, arguably distinguished himself today in a large part by trying to
out-Dean Dean. I've seen Fowler a couple of times now, participated on a BlogPac call with him and talked with him personally and as a result have too much respect for him to simplify his campaign in such terms, but the point is the Post ought to keep fishing because this example is a throwback.
Perhaps the main distinction between Dean and his rivals for the chairmanship is Dean's relatively cheerful view about the party's prospects despite its current powerlessness. Dean's prescription for the party -- that its problem is mechanical, not ideological -- may or may not be true, but it is certainly the message the party faithful in New York want to hear.
Dean's view was shared by most of the candidates. And, in fact, every candidate who generated buzz did so based on talk of reforming the party, reforming the infrastructure, empowering the grassroots and state parties, etc. Just about every candidate - Dean included - talked about our current out of power position. And just about every one of them turned around and discussed the opportunities and how they were best suited to maximize those opportunities. That is, after all, why they think they deserve the job. It wouldn't do to have a candidate who thought we were out of power and could not envision a way to win, would it?
Other candidates sound alarms about the party's dire condition.
Fowler: "We're running out of voters!"
Rosenberg: "We've lost our nerve!"
Roemer: "We've evacuated the South!"
Then there is Dean, his snarly insurgent of 2004 replaced by the benign party man of 2005. He says Democrats can "change the way we talk" about issues, but they should not be changing their views. "We need to dance with the people who brought us," he tells the crowd. "We've got to feed our core constituencies."
Out of context. Those "dire alarms" were within the same message Dean shared, the message that we need to stand up and fight. Largely, they were cries against current and former party leadership and were part of the overall message of reform. They were part of the message that we need to stand up and fight for our Democratic values. Dean was not the slightest bit alone in that, and he was not even the first candidate there to use the phase "we need to dance with the people who brought us."
The article is correct that Dean is the frontrunner and, as candidates often do, others are trying to distinguish themselves. But little else is accurate. It is, again, a preconceived piece and a hatchet job.
