JOSHUA FRANK: How the Dems Kill Their Own: Remembering Howard Dean

[Tace]

By Joshua Frank -- World News Trust

(As Harry Reid and the Democrats killed off Paul Hackett because he tried to reform the way business is done in Washington, it is instructive to also remember what Beltway Dems did to Howard Dean's campaign during the 2004 elections. They aren't open to reform or competition. This is an excerpt from Left Out!. --Joshua Frank)

How Beltway Democrats Sank Howard Dean

As you now know now, Howard Dean was a candidate from the Democratic mainstream. But despite his ideological alignment with the New Democrats, he did take them on, hoping to disrupt their stranglehold on Democratic politics. Dean was empowered. Not because he had a passion for progressive ideals, but because his followers led him down an alternative path. They saw Dean as a chance to challenge the Democrats for their centrist propensities. For that, Dean must be thankful, for the Deaniacs made him a substantial threat.

Immortalized as the reason for the capsize of Dean’s campaign is his famous scream after losing the primary in Iowa. The role the incident played reveals a great deal about how our media works, a topic to which we will return. Putting that aside for a moment, it is instructive to see how the Democratic Party dealt with him apart from the issue. The moves of the DLC reveal a great deal about how tight the control over the party is and how narrow the range of acceptable debate can be. The minimization of this so-called debate also reveals how the Democrats and their liberal cohorts enabled George W. Bush to win his reelection effort.

Howard Dean’s campaign first took on water after Al Gore endorsed Dean for president on December 9, 2003. Hailed by many in the mainstream press as a huge boost to Dean’s bid, the endorsement came at the same exact moment Democratic insiders were meeting to discuss how to sink his advances. For they knew he was a potential threat to the Clinton Democrats.

Theories of why Gore endorsed Dean spread like fire through the media. As political commentator Adam Nagourney told Gwen Ifill on PBS’s Newshour on the day of the endorsement: “One is that what is going on here is a proxy war between the Clintons and the Gores over the future of the Democratic Party. I think there is an element of truth to that. I don't think we want to exaggerate that.”

more

http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=2393

[blm]

1. Odd, since Frank always attacks Dean's centrism the last 2yrs, himself.

Now he wants to pretend that he's mad that Dean was attacked? Doesn't hold water - he only wants to keep up a further divide.

[zeemike]

2. Well I read the whole thing

And I think it was right on the mark
Except he does not talk much about Wesley Clark's role in this. And at the time when Clark entered the race I know then Dean was through.
Clark was stick with a sharp point to heard the democrats toward a "military man" and to plant the idea that only a military man could defeat the great Commander in chief Bush. And who was that man other than Clark himself that had no credentials as a Demo? Well Kerry of course Viet Nam veteran and fellow Skull and Bones man to Bush.
And Rove was ready for Kerry on that with swift boats warming up in the background just waiting to go. And there is probably some honer among bones man that would preclude Kerry ever challenging Bush on the phony election so the dead was done and once again the democrats were snookered.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. The same group would've gone after Clark too

Doy. Oh and how republican of you to mention Skull and Bones. :eyes: Kerry and Bush have both said they did not know each other while at Yale.

[zeemike]

33. Except that Clark never had a chance

And every one knew it.But of course they would have gone after any one put up by the Demos no matter what. But they were obviously already loaded for Kerry.
People that belong to secret society's do not have to meet in college to be loyal bones men and go by the same secret rules that gives them a step up in the world. That is why they want to be in those secret society's is to get that step up.
Sorry but I voted for Kerry but it was because the choice had been taken away from me. It was ether him or the worst person in the world.

[FreedomAngel82]

37. Because he entered the race late!

He's never done politics before and he expected to win? Please! Oh and of course you use the ooooooo Skull and Bones!!!! :eyes: Whatever. Kerry's actions speak for himself. Who did BCCI? Who did Iran/Contra? Who did campaign reform before anyone else did? Who cares about the youth and opportunity? Who predicted 9/11? Who made a bill to raise pay for the military this last year? Who was the first to do a "out of Iraq" plan before John Murtha? John Kerry that's who. And anyone who spouts that "Skull and Bones" bullshit doesn't know shit about John Kerry and doesn't know shit about the group. Please do yourself a favor and do some fucking research before you spout shit about someone.

[zeemike]

55. With all due respects

I am 62 years old and I have had some pretty amazing life experiences in many different ways.
And I do know what a Skull and Bones secret society is and what it is for. Did you know that Prescott Bush was a major member and was supposedly responsible for digging up the skull of Geronimo? So the Skull and Bones has been for many years haunted by the Bush family as well as other well connected people.
But I supported Kerry in spite of all I know about his involvement with this elitists organization. And I am aware of most of what Karry has said and done, but in the end when the election ended and there was great doubt about the outcome of Ohio Kerry seemed like he could not wait to concede the election. Unlike Gore that was willing to fight it out Kerry caved long before it was certain that Ohio had a fair accounting of the vote. That tells me a lot. His actions makes him suspect in my eyes and I feel like my vote and financial support was wasted because the outcome was preordained.
I feel we were once again snookered by the power brokers in Washington and some of them are Democrats, and until we catch on to what they are doing and stop being manipulated by them and the MSM that cooperate with them we will have more of Bush like policies not less.

[formernaderite]

47. I always thought Clark was the Clintons hand picked

choice...granted I'm no Clark fan. I still suspect, if Hil runs..she'll hire Clark to tag along.

[dolstein]

3. Funny -- Dean's supporters are among the most eager to destroy other Dems

Hardly a day goes by when there aren't dozens of posts from Deaniacs talking about how we must defeat *DINO's* like Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein, who only vote the liberal line 85% of the time. Never mind the fact that defeating Democrats won't do a damn thing to change control of the Senate. It's a shame that Dean's supporters can't muster the same kind of energy when it comes to defeating Republicans.

[KoKo]

5. dolstein, I don't believe you read the whole article or you wouldn't have

made such a statement. The article is about how the DLC used Big Dem special interest money along with REPUG money to defeat Dean and maintain the "status quo" of special interests in the Dem Party.

It isn't the Progressives eating the DLC/DNC it's the other way around.

[dolstein]

7. Sorry, I stopped reading fairy tales when I was in kindergarten

A really hate to shatter your illusions, by the DLC isn't part of some great conspiracy to deprive left-wing Democrats of political power. The left-wing has managed to do a pretty good job of marginalizing themselves on their own. And the fact is, the progressive caucus voters of Iowa, not the DLC (or CNN) ended Howard Dean's candidacy.

Oh, and as long as I'm shattering your illusions . . .

1. The moon is NOT made of green cheese.
2. The tooth fairy doesn't really exist.
3. Ditto for Santa Claus.

[KoKo]

9. You admit you didn't read the article or the hundreds of other articles on

the Democratic Candidates who ran in 2004? I imagine you weren't involved in the Party either, and that you didn't get out and work for a couple of the candidates. I and others who did ....know the truth because we were inside the Party working on the Election.

Your comments were really kind of ...well...uninformed.

[FreedomAngel82]

27. Wrong

They're right. Dean is a former DLC member himself. Gore was a co-creator of the DLC. Kerry, compared to other dlcers, is very liberal and has not been affiliated with them since 2003 and isn't invited to anything anymore. If Dean is such the progressive you claim he is why did Kuicinch tell his supporters to support John Kerry? :eyes: Dean is a centrist democrat who wanted to move the party center. And just because you might not have been involved doesn't mean you don't know how to research. Duh.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. For once, I agree with Dolstein

The left-wing has managed to do a pretty good job of marginalizing themselves on their own

Don't need any help fro the right wing in that regard.

Speaking of help, is anyone in the DLC going to explain why a major source of their funding is the ultra fascist right wing cabal known as the Bradley Foundation?

[KoKo]

20. How has the "left" managed to do a pretty good job of marginalizing

themselves on their own?

:shrug:

[Capn Sunshine]

38. what, you need a list?

Only I'm not talking Dems. I'm talking THE LEFT. LEFT of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is the center.
Except those DLC guys, who are right wing, but still have some good points to make on rare occasion.

[depakid]

53. The Democratic party is the center? LOL

So, in the planet you live on, things like the bankruptcy bill, deregulation of the energy and financial sectors (read- abuse enabling laws), so called "free trade" that hands over national soveriegnty to multnational corportions, media consolidation, tax giveaways to the extremely wealthy at the expense of a budget surplus- nominees like Roberts and Alito- those things represent the "center?"

I have news, my friend- that's the far right by any account. What you call the LEFT- in in fact all that's left of the center.

And abandoning the center to pander to the far right is PRECISELY the reason that the Dems have become irrelevant in national politics. And look to stay that way for the foreseeable future- unless and until the party decides to return to traditional Democratic principles, and relegate the right wing DLC back to the fringe where they belong.

[RazzleDazzle]

36. Don't you mean don't confuse you with the facts?

Along with (fingers in ears), "Lalalala, I can't hear you."

The article you refuse to read does a pretty damned good job of describing the very "conspiracy" which the DLC is all about: money, power, influence among corporatists, and all that as a tangent to the main subject. But you, of course, can't allow yourself to contaminated with anything close to the truth about it.

[TankLV]

43. The DLC has STATED and WRITTEN goals that

are to marginalize, discredit, and drive the progresive and liberal dems from the party (to paraphrase their words, not mine).

THEY STATED IT THEMSELVES IN THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS!

It was posted here numerous times very recently.

The very OPPOSITE of what you state is true!

[rinsd]

18. Gephardt was DLC? And Dean was a Progressive?

When did that shit happen?

One theme I do notice is that while there is always priase for the dedication and ethusiasm for the Dean team, there are ALWAYS caveats about their inexperience.

So in the end, Dean and his group lost largely due to a 4 week mini campaign with less than a million dollars and a complaint media. I wonder what Bush would have done to him with $100M, 4 month and an even more compliant media.

[FreedomAngel82]

26. DEAN IS A FORMER DLCER HIMSELF!

THE ONLY REASON WHY HE IS NOT ON THE DLC LIST IS BECAUSE HE IS NO LONGER AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

[FreedomAngel82]

25. And never mind the fact

that Dean is a very centrist democrat who wanted to move the party more center himself. HE IS NOT A LIBERAL!

[JNelson6563]

54. Thanks for revealing your ignorance

yet again.

[KoKo]

4. Dean's "grassroots cash was a genuine threat to Party Brass..."

Given that this is how big money works for “Washington Democrats,” it is little wonder that Schwartz wanted to punish Dean for challenging the DC norm, even if the presidential hopeful had only stumbled into the role of “maverick progressive” by accident. The truth is, Schwartz didn’t want this new base of Democratic activists to take over the party he did business with.

Evidently, Dean’s movement scared the money-hungry Democrats right out of their thousand-dollar suits. McAuliffe, Reed, Kerry, Gephardt, and the Clintons were terrified of what he could do to the party they worked so hard to build during the 1990s. It didn’t matter that Dean was ideologically aligned with these centrist Democrats -- his grassroots cash was a genuine threat to party brass.


-snip-

Unfortunately, Dean forgot to mention that Kerry and the Democrats never planned on bringing real transformation even if Kerry had won, which we’ll get to later.

The Dean saga shows just how far right we are politically in the United States. Many have theories as to how this gross Democratic mindset unfolded, but the fact is, this trend is here to stay, and working within the party -- though noble in some regards -- cannot produce genuine shifts in ideological values, especially at the national level. Regrettably, even when there are signs that progressive challenges will alter the status quo of Washington politics, they all die a not-so-pleasant death.

[KoKo]

6. K&R because this article is a must read for folks here who don't know

how both Dean and Gore before him were destroyed by their own Democratic Party.

[Larkspur]

8. As usual Frank total misunderstands Dean and Dean supporters

Dean had said during his campaign that he would support the Dem nominee, if he didn't win. It was Kerry et all who would not support Dean if Dean won.

Dean also said consistanly that he wasn't a liberal, in the 1960's sense of the word, and that he was a fiscal conservative. Many of us supported Dean's support of civil rights and his fiscal conservatism.

But I do agree with Frank that Dean did threaten the Dem Establishment and they finally devised ways to bring Dean down.

However, neither Frank nor the Dem Establishment counted on the movement that Dean lead to stay alive. That movement put Dean, who originally had not planned on it, into the DNC Chair position. It was comical watching Kerry et all push their DNC Chair candidates and get told by the DNC voting members to stuff it.

Howard Dean is pulling from the inside of the Dem Party Establishment while we push from the outside to take our Party back for corporate interests. In the long run of the Dem Party history, Dean the DNC Chair will do more good for our country than perhaps Dean the President of the United States would have. Rebuilding an ossified Democratic Party into a lean and fit oppositionn Party is a monumental task but an important one if we want to put a brake on the slide towards Totalitarianism.

And one more thing that Frank forgets or ignores, many of us who were political neophytes working with the Dean Campaign are now joining local Democratic Committees to help Dean rebuild the Democratic Party from the grassroots upwards. There is an old Ethiopian proverb that says, "When spider webs unite they can halt a lion." We know that it will take time to rebuild the Dem Party but we are willing to put ourselves in position to help make that happen.

[KoKo]

10. I agree with much of what you say Larkspur. We just shouldn't forget

how it all works...and be better prepared next time. I think Frank's article is from a book he has coming out...so maybe he will flesh out more details in the book than this snip.

I worked here in my state to help get Dean into the DNC Chair...and felt he would do good work there. And, it was really hard trying to get around our State DLC apparatus to get Dean in. Still...his candidacy shouldn't have been undermined the way it was by the DLC Operatives. Whether it was his "turn" to be President or not...what was done to him was dirty...and it was done to those on the Left of the Dem Party, too. I used to be a very centrist leaning towards conservative Dem. I'm now considered a "Fringe Left" by my own party. So, I appreciated reading Frank's article.

[jonnyblitz]

14. I think the book was already written, it's called "Left Out:

How Liberals Helped Re-elect George W. Bush" by Joshua Frank. I read it and I am sure most Democratic Party loyalists who are thin skinned plus many hardcore Dean supporters would NOT like this book. I found it interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1567513107/qid=1140463951/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7317459-4928923?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[FreedomAngel82]

28. Oh good grief

Oh yes the former DLCer is a threat to them. :eyes: Whatever.

[Radical Activist]

30. The DNC voting members who made Dean chair

ARE the establishment. The tons of Democrats who endorsed Dean right before Iowa were the establishment too.

I know the framing of Dean as the man constantly battling the party establishment is powerful, but the facts don't fit the frames in this case.

[Guaranteed]

35. Sing it. :) nt

[The Magistrate]

12. A Very Poor Article, Sir

Among its efforts at mis-direction, a few things of importance do stand out to the attentive reader of, or more precisely, perhaps, the wader through, the thing.

First, the greatest proportion of funds to the Jones group came from the camp of Rep. Gephardt, and it is therefore at his feet the effort should be laid. The attempts to tie it to targets more convenient to the author's predilictions fail before that fact.

Second, the most damaging attack came from the Club For Growth, not a "libertarian" organization, as the author claims, but an extreme hard right clique that views itself as the keeper of Republican ultra-orthodoxy in primaries. The author ignores this well-known fact in order to, again, fashion events to his pre-existing template of "bad Democrats".

The idea Maj. Hackett was quashed because he meant to change how things were done in Washington is yet another example of the author wrenching events into his preconceived view. Maj. Hackett was hardly a figure of the left, certainly not in comparison the Rep. Brown. Subsequent events have demonstrated that far from meaning to change how things were done, he meant to run a primary campaign assailing the patriotism and toughness of Rep. Brown: in other words, that he meant to run a standard attack campaign on the Republican model, pitched to hostility against the left.

[Capn Sunshine]

15. Everyone pay attention

Magistrate has hit the nail on the head here. He has it exactly right

The Club for Growth was a "pretend" libertarian outfit, that may account for Frank's confusion.

Maj. Hackett was no leftist, he was right of center on a lot of issues, but his stand on Iraq endeared him to progressives who want someone, anyone , to stand up and call bullshit on the quagmire without fear of looking soft on terrorism.

[The Magistrate]

16. Thank You, Captain

The facts about that particular organization are so widely known that Mr. Franks must be aware of them, and so it is impossible for me to view his efort here as anything but a propagandist's distortion aimed at the ingnorant....

[MH1]

19. Thank you for confirming my sense of it too.

I have seen Frank distort before...he is no friend to Democrats, period.

[blm]

22. That's my take, too. CATO went from praising Dean's centrist pragmatism

to loudmouthing against him as a radical leftist. There was NOTHING sincere about Club for Growth or the CATO folks running that show.

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. Bingo

Frank only wants to divide and conquer Dems, and stirring up the Deaniac hornet's nest is a surefire way to do so.

When is Frank going to cry about the "establishment Dems" derailing Kerry's filibuster?

*crickets*

[MH1]

13. Funny, I wonder if he'll defend Kerry against the Beltway Democrats?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x471099

Somehow I doubt it though. :eyes:

[Le Taz Hot]

17. Thank you so much

for posting this. This is a must-read for all those who dismiss well-documented claims of insider "skullduggery" AND the entire purpose of Wes Clark's candidacy. If I had a star I'd K&R (sorry, husband's STILL out of work and I can't afford even $5).

[karynnj]

50. I think that Clinton may have prompted Clark's run -

my by suggesting he had a chance. I don't think he personally ran to destroy Dean's campaign (Dean did that well enough himself). The other thing is that, unlike many Clintonistas, Clark proved to be an excellent surrogate for Kerry in the general election.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. Even though he used to be one of them

[Radical Activist]

31. One of what? A beltway Democrat or a DLCer?

The way I see it, he used to be a DLCer and now that the party establishment elected him DNC Chair, he's a beltway Democrat too.
I just hope the left has a good candidate to get behind in '08 so desperate progressives don't get sucked into the campaign of a DLC faker like Dean.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. When he was governor he was a DLC member

He is only no longer a member and listed on their site because he's no longer an elected official such as governor, senator etc. He is a very centrist democrat (maybe you could say on the edge of moderate on some things). John Kerry is the most progressive from the group. He is no longer affiliated with them and hasn't been since 2003. He's never invited to anything they do either but they have him listed on their site. :eyes: I do support and like Dean as party chairman and think he is doing a good job so far. It'll be interesting to see how the midterms go. I think his work with the DNC is fine but I get tired of this crap that the DLC was out to get Dean when he was one of them. They don't like Kerry either.

[Radical Activist]

29. We all know Dean was a moderate "new" Democrat? Really? Like Clinton?

Because I thought he was from the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" like Paul Wellstone and I seem to remember he compared himself to Barbara Boxer in contrast the the Republican-light members of the party. Maybe the contradiction of Dean trying to be all things to all people, which we see again in this article, is why Dean started losing momentum right before Iowa.

Maybe the answer is that Dean worked as a centrist red herring to distract and derail the progressive and anti-war movements from supporting a real progressive. It would certainly explain why he got so much positive corporate media coverage before Iowa, and why he was rewarded by the party establishment with the position of DNC Chair. Even if his progressive supporters had gotten Dean into office, the establishment would have been secure in the knowledge that Dean was just another mainstream "new" Democrat who successfully pacified the left by throwing them some red meat in his speeches.

Has the author of this article still not woken up to the fact that the DLC's early criticisms of Dean earned him a lot of extra media coverage and support from primary voters who are more liberal? The DLC attacks helped Dean more than they hurt him. The candidates who posed a REAL threat to the DLC agenda were completely ignored by the DLC.

When I first read the headline of this post I thought it was going to be about Dean attacking other Democrats in the primary. The fact is that Dean's early campaign was built on attacking other Democrats. I don't like Republican-light Democrats either but Dean made those criticisms of other Dems the heart of his campaign. You can't attack other Democrats for months and then cry like a spoiled little baby when they hit back. Get real.

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Thank you

If you go to c-span.org and type in John Kerry look for him on "Road to the White House" from August 8th, 2003. Towards the end he talks to reporters and one reporter asks him about Howard Dean. This reporter is trying to bait Kerry into bashing Dean but Kerry doesn't. Instead he answers the question very well and tells how we shouldn't be about bashing each other but focusing on our own individual plans so people can choose who they want to support. The whole thing is very weird and confusing and does make me wonder. Sometimes I wonder if the point my dad made about everything with the democrats and he said that he thought they were trying to deliberatley make the democrats lose (no matter who it was) for Hillary. :shrug:

[KoKo]

32. Here is great synopsis from "The Nation" about DLC's Role......

Published on Friday, March 4, 2005 by The Nation
Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt
by Ari Berman


from the March 21, 2005 issue of The Nation

In May 2003 the centrist Democratic Leadership Council published its yearly list of "100 New Democrats to Watch." The DLC frequently puts out these lists as a way to publicly solidify its identification with the New Democratic movement within the Democratic Party. The 2003 list, however, contained a number of questionable additions, including then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. As a state senator, Obama had continually passed progressive legislation--a record that he vowed to add to when he began his run for the US Senate on a platform of clear opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and NAFTA, all positions anathema to the DLC. The puzzling addition caused The Black Commentator magazine to wonder, a month after the DLC list came out, whether Obama had been "corrupted" by the centrist group. Obama's reply to the Commentator was indicative of how the DLC plays the "New Democrat" card.

"Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago," Obama wrote. "I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list.... I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform." After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC.

Today, the same is true for many politicians. After dominating the party in the 1990s, the DLC is struggling to maintain its identity and influence in a party beset by losses and determined to oppose George W. Bush. Prominent New Democrats no longer refer to themselves as such. The New Democratic movement of pro-free market moderates, which helped catapult Bill Clinton into the White House in 1992, has splintered, transformed by a reinvigoration of grassroots energy. A host of new donors, groups and tactics has forged a new direction for Democrats inside and outside the party, bringing together vital parts of the old centrist establishment and the traditional Democratic base. The ideological independence of the DLC, which pushed the party to the right, has come to be viewed as a threat rather than a virtue, forcing the DLC to adapt accordingly. Corporate fundraisers and DC connections--the lifeblood of the DLC--matter less and less: Witness the ascent of MoveOn.org and Howard Dean's election as chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). "It's not that the DLC changed," says Kenneth Baer, who wrote a history of the organization. "It's that the world changed around the DLC."

Today's DLC is a far cry from the anti-establishment organization created by New Democrats who captured power within the party in the Clinton era by distancing themselves from the party's traditional base and liberal candidates. After co-founding the DLC in 1985, former Congressional aide Al From aggressively expanded what had been an informal caucus of Southern and Western Congressmen into a $7-million-a-year operation at its peak in 2000. By that time it had 5,000 members, who paid $50 a pop to join; and politicians, policy wonks and lobbyists flocked to its annual conferences. The DLC's tough free-market positions, connections to big business and early media savvy enticed Clinton into becoming chair in 1990. Although the organization always took more credit than it deserved for his 1992 victory, downplaying Ross Perot's impact and Clinton's own charisma, that election nevertheless institutionalized the DLC's rising status. DLC strategists William Galston, Elaine Kamarck and Bruce Reed became top domestic policy aides in the Clinton White House. After the Republican Revolution of 1994, From told the Democrats to "get with the program." The DLC quickly became the new Washington establishment, launching state chapters, creating a New Democratic Coalition in Congress and expanding its Progressive Policy Institute think tank. A top aide to Jesse Jackson groused of the post-Clinton Democratic Party, "The DLC has taken it over."

But the DLC's great hopes in 2000 of becoming a permanent power center in Washington never materialized. Al Gore's promising New Democratic candidacy turned sour for the DLC when Gore, a DLC founder, switched to a populist strategy after trailing in the polls. No one but the DLC believes that strategy cost Gore the election. "Gore's defeat didn't reinvigorate the DLC as the defeat of Dukakis did, nor did it vindicate their strategy like the election of 1992," says Baer, a Gore speechwriter in 2000. In George W. Bush's first term, the DLC emerged as an important backer of "compassionate conservatism" and convinced the Democratic leadership to back Bush's war with Iraq. Current and former DLC chairmen Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt flanked Bush at a ceremony announcing the war resolution. Still enthralled by centrist orthodoxy, prowar candidates emerged as early frontrunners in the Democratic primary.

No candidate embodied the New Democrat ethos better than Lieberman, whose moral purity, hawkish views and name recognition earned him early Beltway supporters. Thus, when Howard Dean came into view, the DLC was quick to underestimate Dean's potential resonance with Democratic voters, misjudge the transformative nature of his campaign and mischaracterize the ideological bent of many of his supporters. After supporting a losing candidate in Lieberman, the unpopular war in Iraq and an outdated platform, attacking Dean was the only way the DLC could shift the Democratic debate.

"What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration; the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home," From and Reed wrote in a fiery memo titled "The Real Soul of the Democratic Party" on May 15, 2003. Four days later, after Dean won the endorsement of the 1.5 million-member public employees union AFSCME, the DLC denounced the union as "fringe activists." But others were having second thoughts--about strategy and the DLC. As Dean surged ahead, DNC chairman and Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe told From to quiet the attacks. All nine Democratic contenders skipped the DLC's annual convention in Philadelphia.

For his part, Dean became the first serious presidential candidate to challenge the DLC openly since Jesse Jackson. But along with his clear antiwar stance, Dean frequently invoked his record of balancing budgets and his A rating from the NRA. (In fact, in 1996 the DLC had praised re-election of "the centrist Gov. Howard Dean" as indicative of a blossoming "New Democratic leadership.") This led many analysts to wonder whether the DLC's animosity was more about power than ideology. "Mr. From fancies himself a kingmaker," wrote then-Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt, "and Dr. Dean hasn't supped sufficiently at his table."
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:VaTnqGsnqO0J:www.thenation.com/doc/20050321/berman+Going+Nowhere+the+DLC+Sputters+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[FreedomAngel82]

42. Very interesting article

So do you think Obama is still not apart of them? I don't go to their site so I don't know. :shrug: And it makes me wonder with Kerry. He's still listed on their site but he hasn't been invited to anything since 2003 and they don't have anything to do with each other. It's strange because he's the most liberal of the group. But I do also think the DLC is more about power and popularity than policies. They won two elections with Clinton and now all of a sudden they're experts? LOL! I don't think so!

[KoKo]

44. I don't know about Obama...but I have a feeling he's pretty centrist but

he may understand the DLC was a creation of it's time when the Party needed to move a little Rightward.

Many of us here, feel the party went too far Right and we want to bring it back to it's "Labor/Humanist Roots."

I think Obama is "pragmatic." I think he's fine as long as we get some good Lefties to balance him.... :shrug:

[threadkillaz]

34. "Nobody here but us gunslingers" - Paul Begala

Dean's Rough Ride by William Greider
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040308/greider

"Over the last thirty years, we have allowed multinational corporations and other special interests to use our nation's government to undermine our nation's promise." - Howard Dean

[KoKo]

45. You couldn't get better than what Dean said in that one sentence.

He get's it...and as folks here keep point out ...he's not a Leftist...yet he says what We on the Left of the DLC keep saying.

[gordianot]

40. The fix is in, keep Mr. Smith out of the beltway. Unless...........

He is an ignorant Repuke Moran.

[KoKo]

46. I know...."NO MR. SMITH's are WELCOME, ANYMORE....apologize caps

lock...just said for emphasis.......

[OzarkDem]

48. Smells more and more like Rove

amazing how all this is playing so well in his grand scheme to split Dems.

[karynnj]

49. This article would be more believable if there was

less guilt by association or innuendo. He lists people who gave money to Kerry in June 2004 - to make a case they supported Kerry in the primaries. He also will say (x), who contributed to Kerry and others gave (large sum) to this anti- Dean committee. This does not prove what he is intending to prove that Kerry had anything to do with this. (Also, if someone specifically didn't want a candidate and was willing to create attack ads, is it surprising that they would want to give money to his opponents?)

[DarkTirade]

51. I woulda voted for him.

And I think after the 'Dean Scream' shit, they forgot one important detail.
The professoinal wrestling fans.
There are a lot of 'em out there. And they can vote. :)

[RogueTrooper]

52. Dean lost

because, he as a candidate, and his campaign were not good enough to win. Too often the Dean campaign preached shrilly when we should have been listening to the views others. Our ill-mannered approach to campaign communications ( You are either with us or you are a centrist-sell-out-DLC-shill ). The campaign itself was chaotic: It's approach to traditional media, particularly paid media was poor and amateurish - Our adverts were some of the worst I had ever seen in a political campaign. The campaign had no sense of self-defense ( 20% of the voter letters were written by supporters of, and for, other candidates. People blame the other candidates and "The DLC" for bringing Dean down - and there is, sadly, a large readership for this kind of self pitying tripe. They act as if those people had no right to try and take down Dean. Of course they did: The Dean campaign should have been strong enough to fight back. It wasn't; so we lost.

We should be honest with ourselves and take responsibility for our own failures. Howard Dean is a better person than many of his supporters. I include myself in that.

[IndianaGreen]

56. Kerry lost too, to a moron like Bush!

You wouldn't have heard Dean saying something stupid like "I voted for it before I voted against it" as Kerry did during the campaign, nor you would have seen Dean giving a convoluted message of the Iraq war, as Kerry did.

The moral of the story, which we haven't learned yet (the Brown v. Hackett fiasco), is to ignore the losers in the Beltway and pick who we want, not who the MSM or the party hacks want.

[RogueTrooper]

58. I wasn't a Kerry supporter IG

and I was always harbored doubts about his viability at a Presidential candidate. Your straw man won't work with me - I was a Dean supporter: Right from the early days to the day Dean withdrew - It broke my heart. Dean was a very good candidate - he was an excellent candidate, in fact; but at too many levels his campaign sucked.

As for Hackett: Apart for being a good sound bite machine he was a pisspoor candidate with pisspoor campaign staff ( something that is is currently being amply demonstrated by their disgraceful leaking of their opposition research ).

The true moral of this story is that there are more people in the Democratic coalition that college educated, internet using middle-class white people. If we want electoral success for our candidates we have to stow our disdain for other members of our elector coalition. Our party's Washington elites were wrong to do what they did to Hackett; but Hackett would never have won the primary.

[Snivi Yllom]

59. amen

unfortunately the DNC never learns from its mistakes

We are doomed to repetition of the past in 2008 when Mrs. you know who wins the nomination.

[wisteria]

61. Dean had it easy, he didn't have to defend any votes or explain

the decisions he had made in regards to the war and other issues on national defense, he didn't have any. You are being unfair to Kerry by regurgitating old Repub talking points and refusing to acknowledge that many people, besides yourself did not think Bush was a moron.

Nicely put, get over it, Dean lost because of Dean and his appeal had run thin.

[RogueTrooper]

62. No, I said

Dean lost because his campaign was not good enough. I did not say Dean was not good enough.

And the "Dean had it easy, he didn't have to defend any votes or explain
Posted by wisteria" is, frankly, facetious rubbish. Dean, as the Govenor of Vermont, had over a decade of governance to defend. Dean had the civil unions vote to defend. Your defense is little better than the: "I'm working hard. It's hard being President; but I'm working hard" George W. Bush trots out on the odd occaision somebody asks him questions about his fuck ups.

[zeemike]

57. I absolutely agree

The Dean campaign was armatures playing with hardened professionals that knew all the tricks and how to set the traps to catch him.
But in a way it saddens me that real people that have no hard experience with the powerful king makers in Washington don't have a chance, only because the public falls for the tricks of the powerful.
But perhaps it is the best we can do. I fear that if someone that poses such a threat to the power structure would never live long enough to do any good.

[Cocoa]

60. rumors of Howard Dean's death are greatly exaggerated

he's alive and doing fine as a very active and effective DNC chair.

(also rumors of his headache are greatly exaggerated :-))