I don't think that the Democrats need to have a "Contract with America", per se, and what's more I believe the role the Contract played in the 1994 elections has been greatly overstated.

True, but isn't an accident.  One big reason that the Contract has gotten so much credit is because the GOP made an effort, post-election, to attribute the success in 1994 to the Contract.

I see this over and over and over on every issue. In every campaign.  Year after year.  The GOP takes the time and the effort to explain WHY things happen.  And it just so happens that the WHY happens to reinforce the GOP world-view.

Take the 2004 election, which Bush won in a squeaker.  Unlike the Dems, the GOP didn't stop spinning on election day.  They made a point to spin their interpretation of the election:  Bush has a mandate (and political capital).  And the election was about "values," which the Dems don't have.   Meanwhile, the Dems turned their brains off 5 minutes after Kerry conceded and  actually started parroting GOP talking points bad m,ounthing their own party.

So, here is the question.  Regardless of how the Dems do (assuming they at least win the House), are they prepared to start spinning their version of what the election means?

The Democrats don't have a well oiled propaganda machine like the Republican dominated cable news outlets and talk radio. However, individual candidates have been using many of the first 100 hours points in their campaigns so much of the message is getting out in bits and pieces. The candidates have focused on the points that are the most popular in their districts rather than discuss a Democratic Party package.

The Foley story has made it hard for either party to  get a message out over the last two weeks.  As the Foley story has faded the deteriorating situation in Iraq has been replacing it in the news. Now Bush is trying to say he will be flexible in Iraq. He is sounding weak and confused. because he has neither a strategy for winning (which is not possible) nor a strategy for getting out. All of this is good news for the Democrats.  They haven't been able to get the party's message out because the news has been swamped by bad news for Republicans.

Unlike the 'Contract With America,' the 'First 100 Hours' should actually be used to drive the election - some of that cash that Dems are getting ready to throw into the election should go to advancing this plan - turning this election INTO a generic ballot.

Ideally people would wind up voting for their Dem to advance this agenda.  And universal single-payer healthcare.

I think `06 candidates should begin using the First 100 Hours" agenda to some extent in their ads, as a positive component to an "Iraq/accountability" message.  But, to me, the real import of Jonathan's post relates to the post-election environment.  I continue to believe that developing a potent Internet-video-centric media strategy should be a TOP priority for the Democratic party and the progressive movement as we come out of the 2006 elections.

We don't want to fight media battles in the 2008 election and beyond on the terrain that Rove has largely mastered, and that I'd argue is inherently unfriendly to the raising of political consciousness (though it is pretty well suited for consciousness-lowering).

As the dominant media companies are realizing, the video industry--whether they like it or not--has begun an accelerating migration to the Internet.  I'd argue that the progressive netroots, and its favored candidates and issues, are uniquely well positioned to become LEADERS in this web-based, "hard-to-control in top-down ways" video environment.  There are already signs of this (e.g., all the political stuff on YouTube), but I'd like to see a more focused and coordinated effort--and I'd like to see it start right after the election.

Toward that end I've been talking with a company that will soon launch their second generation of web-based video technology, which I think is very impressive and well suited for use by the progressive movement.  And, importantly, the company's CEO and some of its investors are eager to help the progressive movement use the technology to achieve its political goals.  

I hope to set up an online "webinar" shortly after next month's election, in which the company's CEO will demonstrate its new technology and answer questions about it.  My hope is that the webinar will be attended by key actors and "influencers" within the progressive netroots (including bloggers, as well as staffers and strategists for progressive candidates and organizations, the DNC, etc.).   Following the webinar, I'd like to help create some sort of "steering committee" (presumably including at least some webinar attendees) that would work together to facilitate an expanding integration and proliferation of video production and distribution systems within the progressive netroots and its allies among candidates and political organizations.

If anyone has suggestions about who I should invite to this webinar, please send me a note at mitchipd@yahoo.com.  And, if you're someone who shares my vision and would like to get more actively involved in building a next-generation netroots video capability, please also volunteer to attend the webinar yourself.  One of the things I love about the netroots is that anyone with time, talent, motivation and good ideas can pretty quickly make a difference.  

The Internet video space is ripe for our picking and ideally suited to our strengths.  Let's begin taking it to the next level right after the elections, and "rebalance the media playing field" as much as we can by November 2008, so we can turn the next presidential election into another big step in a progressive "realignment" of our political, media and economic systems.

Given the events of the past few weeks and the general mood of the country --

Why isn't Darcy Burner ahead by 10 points?

Why is Lamont behind?

Why are there countless Democratic candidates within the margin or error when at this point their opponents should be curled up in the fetal position in a dark corner of their basements?

Why is the DNC ignoring Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1) when a few thousand for a media buy could make all the difference?

I'm just having a bad day.  I'm sure I'll feel better tomorrow.

I signed on to the Moveon.org tel. GOTV. Very sophisticated operation. Just go to a link that is pre-arranged and the instructions are there with the numbers, script etc. Pretty straightforward. I've been calling people in Conn. 4.

If you Ctrl + F the tags page for new direction and six for 06, you'll find that I've several times tried to get a discussion going about the Dems' agenda for this campaign, without much success.

Not that I'm bleating no fair - just pointing out that the impact (feeble to imperceptible) of the Dem alphasoup presentation of the multiple editions of these docs and the lefty sphere reaction to them (underwhelmed to uninterested) is not exactly an October surprise.

Since the presentation and content of these multiple editions was unformly dismal, I could understand why Dem honchos would want to hide them in plain sight...