Its over now, but it will rerun tonight.  They were great.  If you missed the Tim Russert show, tune it to the reruns tonight.   Not much of a diary, but a great heads up... Check you TV schedules.  It reruns at 1:00 am DST.

Cross posted from SDNYC blog.

First, here's where I'm coming from. I started reading "Crashing the Gate" and in the first couple chapters they rile against the special interest groups that sabotage the larger progressive movement. (It's been blogged by Kos ad nauseum.) Then I read this:

While the Democratic Party should be the party of the people, it has become, with a lot of help from Republican framing, a party of "immoral" abortionists, "extremist" tree-huggers, "corrupt" labor officials, "greedy" trial lawyers, "predatory" homosexuals, and "antiwhite" minority activists. After all these are the loudest and most influential voices in our party--pro-choice groups, environmentalists, labor unions, trial lawyers, and identity groups.

Well, I dont know about you, but I dont feel "loud" and "influential" in the Democratic Party and I don't feel I'm a "special interest". So when Kos and Armstrong were at Drinking Liberally yesterday for part of their book tour I took the opportunity to go down and ask Kos exactly what he meant.

I don't agree with everything here, but this post is worth reading. CTG is an important book, and it is being well-received among influentials. Matt

To me, Crashing the Gate promoted two distinct and really unconnected arguments:  First, that the Democratic Party is controlled by an old guard that seems content to run the same losing campaigns without any accountability to donors or party members.  Second, that "single interest groups" such as the environmental, pro-choice and labor movements are hurting the party by putting their specific agenda ahead of the party as a whole.  The first argument is dead on, the second, not so much.

I've read with increasing frequency and frustration the tendency of Democrats (perhaps at the urging of some well-placed trolls) to explode with frustration and vows of retribution every time the Democrats exhibit their known problems of inside-the-beltwayism and consultantitis.

We all know, I think, that when it comes right down to it, bailing on Party participation and supporting Democratic candidates in November isn't a realistic option.  The former will simply leave the Party in the hands of the consultants who thrive regardless of whether they win, and the latter will simply leave the country in the hands of those who are most determined to screw us all.  Neither is a palatable option, yet change is clearly needed.

I have a suggestion that might just make a little more of a difference.  Feel free to tell me if this is a foolish idea...

One of the most important parts of Crashing the Gate, I thought, was the discussion of the Democratic Party's lack of a concise, coherent message.  Last summer, at the Democracy Fest in Austin, Texas, Jeffrey Feldman of Frameshop demonstrated this issue in a revealing way.  He asked those in the session to come up with an elevator speech to explain what progressives believe.  The responses were not bad, but they were all over the place - they were a representation of issue affiliation more than a statement of core principles.

This fractured message gives the impression that Democrats lack an alternative program; that, put into power, the country would be governed by a loose confederation of special interest groups rather than a guiding political philosophy.

Today's New York Times has an article about this lack of a consistent message, and what it means for Democrats in '06.

"We have a lot to run on," said Ms. Madrid, who is trying to unseat Representative Heather A. Wilson.

These scattershot messages reflect what officials in both parties say are vulnerabilities among Republicans on Capitol Hill, as well as President Bush's weakened political condition in this election year.

But they also reflect splits within the party about what it means to be a Democrat -- and what a winning Democratic formula will be -- after years in which conservative ideas have dominated the national policy debate and helped win elections.

This is an important point.  Democrats have a lot of issues to run on - all of them, it seems:  National Security, Health Care, Republican Corruption, Economy, Environment, etc.  But these are issues, not a message.  For too long Democrats have been content to let the issue be the message, and for too long they have found themselves losing to the Republican message machine.

Why?  Because people know the Republican message, so they think they have an idea how Republicans will approach issues.  Democrats rely too heavily on the failure of the Republican approach to an issue; they hope voters will give them an opportunity to come in and clean up.  This is a losing strategy. Voters may be frustrated with Republicans, but they know who they are.  Democrats, on the other hand, have for decades allowed themselves to be defined by Republicans.  Voters simply don't know what the Democratic Party really stands for.

In order to build a strong message, Democrats need to make the issues fit into a theme.  Democrats need to be better about tying issues together to show a common thread.  One of the most effective tricks the Bush administration has used over the last six years has been to tie issues into the theme of National Security.  This commonality of theme allows Republicans to do two things - effectively play to their message strengths, and give the impression that they are staying focused.

Right now there is too much talk from the Democratic leadership about how bad the Republicans are, without following it up with a strong message about the Democratic alternative.  Democrats have been handed an almost ideal playing field this year.  How many Republicans have been indicted in recent years?  How large is the national debt?  How fares the imperial program of PNAC?

If Democrats are concerned with elections beyond November, and if they're concerned with more than just elections - with governing under the principles of a progressive political ideology - then they're going to have to define that ideology, and they're going to have to do so in a way that resonates with all Americans.  

Here it is at last, now I can get on with my other 4 lives. The photo on the left rotates randomly daily. It just happened to be on Rosa Parks today, which is sorta a good tribute... ah, welcome Dalai. I've got about 15 photos in the loop right now, and will ad more later. The Breaking Blue is self explanatory. So is the E-Wire (we'll hopefully be bringing that down to all the GOV, Senate, House races too). Lots of other new stuff on the user end, and especially on the admin end. Anyway, hope you like it.

Oh, btw, there are 135 books left of the Progressive Partnership for Crashing the Gate. At least there were, just before Markos posted it on his blog.

You can pre-order here.

So its a big day today. MyDD is relaunching, and CTG is going out of my hands and into yours (today is also the last day for any minor edits). Thanks to everyone that's got a copy, I am really looking forward to coming back here next month and blogging about it with you. And let me know in the comments with anything regarding the relaunch.

[Update]: The problem on Mozilla appears fixed. Firefox 1.0 has some problems (really people upgrade to 1.5), but amazingly, IE works great, along with Safari.