You are probably right, but I wonder how positive it is. The use of the netroots by the Creepublicans during the campaign in support of President Bush was much better than John Kerry's campaign. It may be a symptom that the Repugs don't need an effective blogosphere because they have an efficient and effective party. That seems like bad news to me.
But maybe it is only bad news in the short term because there is no need for these two strangths to be in a aero sum relationship. Once a reform Democrat modernizes the party, the liberal blogosphere can still be activist in addition to the activities of the party, whereas the winger blogosphere may not understand the power of the medium beyond spreading sleaze and wisper campaigns.
That is why I was trying to clarify. Terms are tricky sometimes. Maybe I got this label wrong. The ABD wing is what I mean. I group Simon Rosenberg with the reform wing of the party. But, as I understand it, didn't he have a falling out with the DLC?
The party Chair's don't get that much press. It is just a fact. They are probably the least famous national party figures. A lot of people remember Dean, but they don't care. So, I think these pitfalls only seem to make sense to the hyper-informed, which is a bad way to approach the issue.
Take a cue from the Repugs here and it will ease your mind. Look at all of the shady characters that have employed and ressurected from John O'Neil of the Swifties to Pryor to Gonzales. Hell, Newt and Bill Bennet have never suffered for their shadiness. This is nothing to sweat. Hyper timidity is one of the signs of consultocracy.
The problem I have with the anti-Dean arguments is that they slide easily between reasons why Dean is a bad presidential prospect and reasons why he is a bad DNC Chair prospect. I have yet to see a good argument for the latter that doesn't rely on evidence of the former.
I am not saying that your post is wrong or accusing you of being anti-Dean or anything. I just don't think this is much of an issue unless you are hyper-informed.
Yeah, Hillary overcoming adversity is a rich area of analysis. I also think we can load up the frame "Irrational Hillary Hatred" which was part of what really turned people off to the Republicans during the Clinton years. The VRWC was actually a very effective framing that caused the Repugs to lose seats in 1998 and the Senate in 2000. It is of course good to remember things we have done well in the past. Anything on their notecard is irrational Hillary hatred.
You can get a 3x5 notecard's worth of attacks on ANY significant public servant in the country. To worry about what THEY will say is about our candidate is a tempting but unfortunate non sequitor-- we can predict very easily what they will say. We need to focus our resources on our 3x5 strategy and be ready to execute it well in advance.
Let me clarify. As it stands now, Corked Bats is my blog. I am actually a Dean supporter for various reasons, which I have outlined here. However, otherposters on my blog and I have had a lively debate on the wisdom of Howard Dean. Pragmaddict is not a Dean supporter. I have not asked him directly, but I am pretty sure he is undecided about who else to support. You can find out by posting a comment at Corked Bats. Matt found the information that we forwarded here useful, so he linked to it. If that is "being on Simon's payroll" then I would appreciate a payment, preferably in an under-the-table fashion.