Obama rewards failure: Tim Kaine to remain as DNC chairman

[brentspeak]

Because losing not only the House but also many Governor's mansions and state legislatures in 2010 -- and watching Wisconsin turn almost wholly red -- wasn't enough.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/kaine-to-stay-on-as-democratic.html

Posted at 12:36 PM ET, 01/ 2/2011

Kaine to stay on as Democratic National Committee Chairman

By Felicia Sonmez

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said Sunday that he plans to stay at the helm of the national party another two years because that's where President Obama wants him to serve.

"My agreement with the president is I was going to do what he wants me to do," Kaine said on CNN's "State of the Union." "And what I know sitting here today is he wants me to continue in this spot and that's what I'm going to do with excitement, you know, traveling all around the country, going through the TSA lines like everybody else, going out and being the president's advocate and promoter. And it's a wonderful job and I intend continue it."

Kaine, the former governor of Virginia, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/kaine-formally-appointed-to-he.html">was tapped by Obama in January 2009 to serve as the head of the DNC. Obama campaigned for Kaine's gubernatorial bid in 2005; two years later, Kaine became the first major elected official outside of Illinois to back Obama's White House bid. He also was on Obama's vice presidential shortlist in 2008.

Late last year, Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43035.html">reported that senior Democratic officials were floating the possibility of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs succeeding Kaine as DNC chairman, with Kaine potentially in line for a Cabinet job. At the time, the White House pushed back against the speculation and a Kaine aide noted that the chairmanship is a four-year term.

[eleny]

1. blech

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Tim Kaine a bigot and a southern loser

a worthless piece of shit that you pay for
by being a democrat...... yes .... your money goes to him too.

[brentspeak]

6. While it's true that Kaine is a loser, his being southern is immaterial n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. I don't think so.... he delivered Virginia and North Carolina

In Obama's mind.

Southern strategy is part of the deal and Kaine is still in that equation.

Its not immaterial this is still part of the Rahm thought.

Its very old school, and DLC in its thought.

Obama doesn't know the south so he goes to these assholes.

[former9thward]

24. He did not deliver Virginia and North Carolina

If you are talking about 2008 Howard Dean did. Kaine has not delivered anything.

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. I said in Obama's mind not mine

Also in the DLC's mind.

Deans the Man.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

88. But if Dean secured VA and NC, doesn't that mean that he had to appeal to more conservative

Democrats and Independents?

I love Dean very much, but he is the architect of the 50 State Strategy, no? If the case, then he would also be responsible for getting Blue Dog--and yes, DLC--Democrats elected, right?

How is that different from Kaine?

Also, I really believe that Jesus Christ himself could have been the head of the DNC and the Democrats would have STILL lost because the election was about the economy. When there is a bad economy, the party in control suffers. Added to that the fact that it is conventional that the party of the president typically loses seats in midterm or off-year elections.

Has little to do with Kaine.

[former9thward]

93. I don't blame Kaine specifically for the loss in 2010.

I agree the economy was the main issue. My only point in the post was to point out Dean was in charge in 2008 when we won those states, not Kaine. I don't how much Dean and his operatives had to do with the wins in those states in 2008.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. I understand that, but again, the win in those states was very much the result of the

50 State Strategy. Dean has made the point that the Democratic Party is a big tent. That's why he went to states that Republicans typically win, like VA and NC, to get good Democrats to run even though many of them were conservative or moderate. It is inevitable that in that case scenario, we will have to endure more Blue Dogs, more corporatists and more moderates in the Democratic Party. It's sad, but there just isn't quite enough Yellow Dog progressives. We need MORE of them, not less. But that wasn't what the 50 State Strategy was all about.

My point is that we had success when Dean was at the helm, not only just because he was good at what he did, but largely due to the political climate at that time. The economy had not yet tanked. Many Americans had Bush fatigue. And Republicans were losing simply because they had an "R" after their name. Case in point: Bob Erhlich, governor here in Maryland where I live. He lost in 2006 with a near 60% approval rating. Had little to do with the genius of Dean's strategy, and much more to do with the state of the economy, Bush fatigue, and other political factors.

2006 was the year in which no Democratic incumbent lost his/her seat. Not one. Of course, you didn't hear that in the media because it was good news for the Democrats.

The greater, more significant point is that while Kaine may not be the most ideal in terms of some of his views and the fact that he comes across as too cool and calm, the bottom line is that even if Dean were the chair, there's little guarantee that Democrats would not have lost. And lost big!

People here on this thread seem to be intimating that it is precisely due to Kaine that Democrats lost. My argument is that Democrats lost, by and large, due to the economy. Added to that, voter turnout was down from 2008. Voter turnout is always down in midterm elections. Nothing new there. And while we did a little better than in 2006, turnout was still very low. When turnout is low, Republicans win. And that's just the bottom line.

[Exilednight]

97. The 50 state strategy is not responsible for the blue dogs. That was all Rahm's doing. The 50

state strategy was pretty simplistic. The 50 state strategy allowed the states to pick the nominees they wanted, with the understanding that no matter who the Democratic nominee was, that person would have the full support of DNC and the Democratic party. Basically, Dean's strategy was to promise every candidate equal support no matter how much of a long shot they might be considered.

Rahm Emanuel took upon himself to seek what he considered "viable candidates", which often entailed finding the most conservative Democrat he could.

As far as Kaine being responsible, well there's a partial truth to what you are saying. While it is true that the controlling party often loses seats in mid-term elections, it could also be argued that the losses would not have been as big if Kaine had used Dean's strategy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

102. Yes, the 50 state strategy allowed states to pick the nominees...

...and re-read what you wrote: "no matter WHO the Democratic nominee was, that person would have the full support of the DNC..."

Yes!!! That was my point. The central point was that Dean wasn't going after *specific* Democratic candidates. He didn't care whether they were conservative, moderate or liberal. The difference between his strategy and Rahm's was that Rahm's energy was targeted specifically at Blue Dogs and moderates. His disdain for liberals is apparent even to this day. Dean's argument was that the Democratic Party should be an open tent and that all types of Democrats were welcome so long as they participated fairly in the process.

I don't understand what you're stating is any different from what I'm saying.

[Exilednight]

103. Dean believes in small d democracy. That is why he stayed out of

picking candidates to run. I am not certain, nor do I believe that it could or would ever be proven, but I have sneaky suspicion that Rahm went behind Dean's back when setting up the candidates.

Dean believed that the local party would be the ones picking candidates, not an outsider.

The broader point I was making was about Democratic losses and Kaine. If Kaine employed Dean's strategy, our losses probably would not of been as bad.

[lynne]

58. Kaine may be a bigot. He may be a loser. He is NOT a southerner.

Check his bio - born Minnesota, grew up Missouri, attended Harvard. He came to Virginia when he married the daughter of a past VA governor.

Call him what you want but don't call him southern because he isn't.

[Ozymanithrax]

65. As bigot is defined as...

BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Could you post a link that shows he is a bigot. I havn't seen that anywhere?

[muffin1]

79. He is opposed to same-sex marriage AND even civil unions.

He is opposed to gay couples adopting children. BIGOT. Duh.

[Ozymanithrax]

83. Thank you. n/e

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msongs]

4. Obama and the dems are trading the 50 state strategy for the Zero state strategy lol nt

[gateley]

7. Well said. nt

[TBF]

94. I think we may be better off that way. nt

[ProSense]

5. "Because losing not only the House and the Senate "

Democrats lost the Senate?

[brentspeak]

8. Corrected

You're actually right for once.

[ProSense]

10. "You're actually right for once."

I could say you're alway wrong, but what good would that do?

[rhett o rick]

14. Just because there were more D's than R's doesnt mean the D's controlled the Senate.

The huge number of bills that were not passed is a tribute to the control by the Republicans and their Blue Dog allies.

But I guess technically you are right. The Democrats didnt lose control of the Senate because they didnt have control of the Senate.

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. So you disagree with crap you can't defend?

You defend Caine....... yes I spelled it that way
and not Dean's strategy that worked?

Listen... you need to know when to post
and this is not the time.

The Kaine strategy didn't work.

[ProSense]

26. Hmmmm?

"Listen... you need to know when to post
and this is not the time."

I will post whenever the hell I want to if you don't mind.

[Ichingcarpenter]

32. Oh.... I see.... Caine is your son Abraham

Don't defend this guy....

He killed the Able Democratic Party.

[derby378]

36. Well, uh, yep...

...although with the Senate rules being as they are, the Republicans were able to get just about anything they wanted even when Democrats held a 60-seat caucus.

[gateley]

9. Sigh. Why? nt

[littlewolf]

11. wish Dean was back ..... sigh ....

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

13. What's really hard to believe

is that anyone thought Kaine was going anywhere or that Dean was going to take over the DNC.

Kaine staying because the President obviously has confidence in him.

[Ramulux]

15. What?

What the fuck are you talking about? Explain to me why Obama has confidence in him after he failed miserably at his job. I guess its crazy of me to assume that people who suck at their jobs get fired, especially when that failure results in unprecedented electoral losses.

[rhett o rick]

18. Maybe failure to you isnt failure to him. Dont forget he is playing chess. nm

[QC]

27. Googledimensional intergalactic chess, at that. n/t

[Exilednight]

52. While using Judo and showing everyone else in the room how dumb they are. n/t

[ProSense]

21. "Explain to me why Obama has confidence in him after he failed miserably at his job."

You do realize that is your opinion, right? The party in power typically racks up massive losses during mid-terms. Why do you think anyone was going to do any better, especially given that the so many are basing the losses on the President/Democrat's performance?

[dsc]

30. we lost more house seats and more state legislative seats

than any party has lost in any off year election in modern times. A case can surely be made that Kaine failed at his job. I happen to think he isn't solely to blame but he really should be getting replaced after this hot mess of an election.

[ProSense]

35. "than any party has lost in any off year election in modern times"

Wrong

<...>

If Steele decides to seek another term as chairman of the RNC, he can certainly boast about significant Republican gains in the midterm election. But when he said, "I have won more elections than any chairman since 1938," that's only true if you were to consider just the seat changes -- as opposed to the actual number of wins -- in the U.S. House. Republicans also picked up seats in the Senate this year, but they gained more in 1942, 1946 and 1994; Republican gains in governor elections were greater in 1994; and GOP gains in state legislatures were greater in 1966. And so we rate Steele's claim Half True.

more

[dsc]

37. I actually didn't mention the Senate nor governors races

so most of your bold is irrelevent. I wouldn't consider 1938 modern times so I was dead right on the House. As to the gains in state legislatures, I am not sure that is equal to legislative seats. He could mean gaining control of one or both houses of a state assembly as a gain in a legislature. In that case I could still be right on my other claim. I will try to find where I read about the state legislative seats.

[ProSense]

40. Well,

you said "we lost more house seats and more state legislative seats than any party has lost in any off year election in modern times."

And "I wouldn't consider 1938 modern times so I was dead right on the House."


What does 1938 have to do with 1966, which is what was stated: "GOP gains in state legislatures were greater in 1966"

[dsc]

42. apparently you chose not to read my post

so I will try again, very slowly. I stated, in my reply, in clear language, that I was looking to see if I was right, or wrong, about the state legislative seats. Your link said that the gains were higher in 1966 while I stated that since gains wasn't defined I wasn't sure what it meant. (did it mean losing a house of a legislature or a seat in a legislature) I will say that I have found what they apparently used to get the 1966 year. It stated we lost 690+ seats. I have found other links saying we lost 990+ seats. That is a pretty big difference and may have to do with New Hampshire. My guess is that I am right if NH is included but wrong if it isn't. (New Hampshire has a humungous number of seats so it inflates the total seat lost category). Even if I am wrong about the loss of state seats not being seen in the modern era the fact is happened only one other time should bring a lot of pause. So to sum up. I made two and only two claims in my post. One was that we hadn't seen a loss in the US House in the modern era, I was 100% correct, as even your link stated. Two was that we hadn't seen a loss of state legislative seats such as we had in the modern era. Here I was likely half right. Including New Hampshire brings us to a 998 seat loss (link to that) http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29628 Not including New Hampshire brings us to the 690 some seat loss your post supplied. I will admit including New Hampshire probably isn't the fairest thing so I will conceed that we merely lost more seats than any election since 1966 (ie in my lifetime and I am 43). It was a disasterous showing by any measure and far from the usual mid term losses you were trying to peddle in your post.

[ProSense]

44. Here's

your post

we lost more house seats and more state legislative seats

than any party has lost in any off year election in modern times. A case can surely be made that Kaine failed at his job. I happen to think he isn't solely to blame but he really should be getting replaced after this hot mess of an election.

Here's my response

Wrong

<...>

If Steele decides to seek another term as chairman of the RNC, he can certainly boast about significant Republican gains in the midterm election. But when he said, "I have won more elections than any chairman since 1938," that's only true if you were to consider just the seat changes -- as opposed to the actual number of wins -- in the U.S. House. Republicans also picked up seats in the Senate this year, but they gained more in 1942, 1946 and 1994; Republican gains in governor elections were greater in 1994; and GOP gains in state legislatures were greater in 1966. And so we rate Steele's claim Half True.

more

"apparently you chose not to read my post"

I read it. Did I miss something in your above comment?

[dsc]

45. I give up it is crystal clear that you just post your answers without

ever reading what is posted. So post your blue links, I really don't care. The fact is, had the GOP not shot itself in the foot in DE and NV, we would have lost those seats too, meaning that he would have seen greater Senate losses than those elections as well. The fact is that he definately lost more House seats than anyone since 1938, he lost more state legislative seats if you include NH than anyone since God knows when, since 1966 if you don't include NH, and he lucked out in the Senate or he would have at least been as bad as anyone since 1946.

[ProSense]

55. Another thing,

that link you provided is to is a rabid wingnut site.

[karynnj]

78. The loses in the House were large - but the reason was that we were so successful

in 2006 and 2008. That meant we had far more seats to lose than any party usually has.

The fact is that in 2006, we won back BOTH Houses of Congress. Yet did you see the media call 2006 the seismic change that they said 2010 to be?

It would be silly to say that 2010 was not a disaster for us, as 2006 was for them, but it is not fair to solely credit the RNC or DNC heads for the big wins. In 2006, there was more reason to credit Dean because of things he did to make the state parties viable and to have candidates in areas that we could not normally win.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

90. The economy lost it for the Democrats. In addition, if you agree that the

50 State Strategy was responsible for the Democratic sweep in 2006 and 2008, then you have to agree that Dean's strategy led to some Blue Dog and DLCers winning in the House and Senate. If that's the case, then Kaine can't be blamed. Again, it was the economy that lost the election for Democrats. To be fair, I still believe that had the Democrats taken up with the expiring Bush tax cuts, it would have been a winner for them, and they probably could have saved a shitload of those seats in the House. The bottom line is that the losses experienced were directly tied to the economy, not to mention the fact that not enough Democrats got out and voted. Kaine is irrelevant.

[Ramulux]

31. You cant be serious

So apparently being head of the DNC doesn't mean anything and if you are the head of it and the democrats experience a brutal electoral beat-down you aren't held responsible at all in any way. If that's true would you say that Dean's 50 state strategy had absolutely nothing to do with our victories in 2006 and 2008?

Kaine came in and destroyed everything that Dean had set up, and went back to doing things the way the DNC used to do thing, meaning only spending money in competitive districts, pretending conservative districts dont exist, letting state and local parties flounder without any assistance, and aggressively seeking wealthy donors over grassroots donors. Kaine himself is a DLC moderate joke with no charisma who couldn't put together a decent messaging campaign to save his life. Did you see his appearance on the Daily Show before the election, it was painful and embarrassing, and made the democratic party look like it had no idea what it was doing. You ask what he could have done differently, how about everything. How about keeping a strategy that was responsible for bringing democrats back from the grave, how about actually going after the republicans at any point during the year when their leaders made insane incendiary remarks, how about working to grow the local parties, how about doing your fucking job.

[ProSense]

38. "Kaine came in and destroyed everything that Dean had set up"

No, he didn't.

Update: DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan e-mails: "While there were nearly a half dozen blind quotes criticizing our strategy, we have elected to respond on the record to provide a semblance of balance to this story. This story and the concerns expressed by these strategists are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the effort OFA and the DNC are engaged in. First, our strategy is based on turning out base and reliable as we would traditionally do, AND turning out those who would otherwise be 'fall off' voters from 2008. Turning out so called 'surge' voters is not exclusive of turning out our base. In fact, and second, our base and the surge voter population have high level of overlap. Of the 15 million first time voters in 2008, 30% were under 30 years old; a majority were minority voters. Third, in order to run an expanded turnout operation we have raised and committed more resources both in terms of money and manpower to do so.The DNC has raised a record $165 million this cycle so far, and has committed a total of $50 million to 2010 efforts. $20 million in transfers to state parties and campaign committees (this is not including 50-state strategy dollars or other transfers) and $30 million in additional services. By way of comparison our total commitment in 2006 was $17 million. So, even the direct transfer amount alone, that would ostensibly be used in a way the state party and committees traditionally use those funds, is greater than our TOTAL commitment in 2006. That said, all $50 million of our resources are directed to turning out base, reliable, sporadic and surge voters. For example, we recently announced a $3 million advertising effort to reach African American voters, which is more than ten times what was invested in 2006. It should also be noted that the idea that we are committing nearly 3 times as much total as the last midterm cycle to this year's midterms clearly demonstrates that our focus is singularly on getting as many Democrats elected this year as we can. Fourth, with OFA Democrats now have the largest field effort in the history of the party for a non-presidential year with offices in all 50 states, organizers and volunteers in all 435 congressional districts, and with trained, experienced field staff that has been working in the communities they are going to turn out the vote in for the last 21 months."

"By turning out base and reliable voters as we would ordinarily do in addition to expanding the pool to turn out surge voters, and dedicating more resources by multiple folds to do so, we haven't taken on any additional risk. The risk would be incurred by not optimizing and leveraging our resources."

link

Some voters didn't turn out, in part typical of a midterm, but some claimed they wanted to teach the Democratic Party a lesson. It didn't work out well for anyone.

[brentspeak]

47. So, according to the DNC, Dean, with much less $$, did more

while Kaine, with much more $$, did much less.

Thanks for quoting official DNC apologetics to defeat whatever point it was you wanted to make. Very sporting of you.

[ProSense]

48. Well,

if Republicans had kept both the House and the Senate in 2006, against the historical trend and with Bush's lousy record, the Democratic Party would have been in real trouble.

[karynnj]

76. Dean did an incredible job revitalizing the state parties in 2006,

but comparing the results of 2006 and 2008 to 2010 and attributing the difference to the person who chaired the DNC is silly. By November 2006, Bush's and the Republicans' popularity had fallen to the incredible lows. Katrina and wanting a deadline in Iraq had moved most independents and some Republicans to want a change. Here, Dean is very popular and he is given all the credit. In the MSM, Schumer, as head of the DSCC and Emmanuel, as head of the DCCC are given a large chunk of the credit.

Similarly, in 2010, the media and the Republicans whipped up many in the middle who were hurting and who believed the Republicans that Obama did not work hard enough on the economy - in spite of the many successful things he did and the lack of any help given by the Republicans. Ask yourselves if Michael Steele was the reason for those Republican gains.

That is not to let Kaine off the hook, but any criticisms should be on what he did or what he failed to do. This is not like duplicate bridge where all pairs play the same hands - there will be years where minimizing the damage might be the best that can be done - and others are years where gains - even unexpected gains - could be achieved. As to Wisconsin, I think Feingold turned down DNC and DSCC money. I am not from Wisconsin and I have no idea if his taking money and putting out ads as early as the Republican could have made a difference in his race or through the natural synergy in the Governor's race.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

91. You're absolutely wrong. And the interesting this is that Dean himself

isn't the liberal stalwart that many people convince themselves that he is. Dean is actually quite fiscally conservative. His 50 State Strategy was undoubtedly responsible for getting more Democrats--at ALL levels--elected to office, governors, too! But here's the reality that DUers cannot seem to grasp: With the 50 State Strategy came some disadvantages--you get more Democrats, but you get a variety of Democrats. We had Democrats like Jon Tester, for instance, winning in Red states. We had conservative Democratic governors like Manchin winning office. The honest truth is that the 50 State Strategy gave us many Blue Dogs and DLCers. It's funny that people are attacking Kaine for being DLC. So are many Democrats who were elected via Dean's 50 State Strategy, and in fact, Kaine himself was the product of Dean's strategy in Virginia, as was Mark Warner.

One point that I think you did get right is that the messaging could have been better. But that message didn't get out when Dean was the head of the DNC, either. Indeed, Dean was made into a caricature in the mainstream press and treated rather unfairly. All we saw was "the scream" over and over again. So, Dean's message was clouded by his run for the presidency, though his 50 State Strategy was a winner.

You need to remember that the conditions on the ground in this country were drastically different in 2006 and 2008 than in 2010. It was the ECONOMY that did it. Democrats would have most likely lost even if Dean were the DNC head. Why? Because it's the ECONOMY!

[derby378]

39. In my neck of the woods, when you show up for a football game...

...you expect to have a good time cheering for your team, eating some nachos, and cuddling with your beloved for a little warmth, but you also expect that your team will play to win.

If a football team walks onto the gridiron expecting to lose the game because the gossip is that "it's their turn to lose," they might as well forfeit the game and go home.

Democrats are not supposed to play to lose. We play to win or we don't play at all. That's how it works, and that's how it's gonna work if we want any hope of taking back seats in 2012.

[rhett o rick]

16. No one thought the president was going to replace Kaine with Dean. He has made it crystal

where his allegiances are, and it aint with grassroots Democrats.

[ProSense]

20. Evidently

someone thought the President was going to replace Kaine with someone, in the case of the comment responded to, that someone was Dean.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. So basically Kaine did a heckuva job?

[hulka38]

87. LOL

[muffin1]

80. Of COURSE Obama has confidence in Kaine.

Birds of a feather, and all.

[tabbycat31]

17. Kaine's job should have gone to Russ Feingold

[karynnj]

77. Feingold would not have wanted Kaine's job

Look at the main part of that job - raising money. This is one thing that Feingold hated, not something he would want as his main job. As we have the presidency, the head of the DNC is not that significant a voice of the party - the President and his cabinet are. If we lost the Presidency, then Kaine would be a real problem as he doesn't seem to be good spokesperson.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Aside from his bigotry Kaine is a wet blanket, a human

sedative, he is stage weight.

[vaberella]

61. He's a bigot? n/t

[dsc]

71. yes he is

he has a horrific gay rights record, he was even against ENDA for much of his elected career. He has improved but going by his record in office, it wasn't pretty.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dkf]

28. "My agreement with the president is I was going to do what he wants me to do," Kaine said

Kaine is only implementing what Obama wants him to. If he was removed it would be a comment on Obama mostly.

[Exilednight]

54. If he is doing what Obama wants him to do, then this election strategy was a comment on Obama. n/t

[dkf]

64. It was a comment on Obama's strategy certainly.

And it failed which is why he reassessed the situation and changed so drastically.

[Exilednight]

66. Keeping Kaine around is a drastic change? Then here's my question

If Kaine's strategy, which he blames Obama for, was so bad, then why doesn't Obama go with a proven workable plan like Dean's 50 state strategy? It worked to get Obama elected to the presidency.

[dkf]

67. No....the change was in the way he governed where he started leading the deal making.

He realized the arguments they were running on didn't work in the midterms so they changed their reliance on that message and negotiated with the arepi s to get what they wanted instead.

The elections showed that the public didn't punish Republicans for favoring the rich.

[Exilednight]

73. If that's the message Obama got, then he's not as smart as some would like to believe. n/t

[stray cat]

29. Given the economy and overall disappointment did you really expect to win seats?

[derby378]

34. This essentially means we're back to square one...

...which means that if we want to see any fundamental change in the way the Democratic Party does things, we're gonna have to rebuild the party from the ground up.

We had that chance from 2006-2008. Unfortunately, we missed the mark, and the party wound up in the hands of the same old-boy network that was calling the shots before. Obama's election had no effect on this. The end result is an administration that has become increasingly tone-deaf and a party hierarchy that is highly resistant to fundamental change.

It is regrettable. But there may still be time to take the party - this time, for real - and effect a little change of our own.

[Mass]

41. I am not really surprised, but it is not a good sign for 2012.

It is less the federal elections that are the issue (given that there are other avenues for them, like the DSCC and DCCC), but the state and local elections. We lost a lot of states last year and this will have a large impact on 2012 elections. We do not need to compound the problem in 2012

[DCBob]

43. Just confirms that President Obama is still a moderate..

Always was... hardly shocking to anyone that has been paying attention.

[brentspeak]

46. If holding onto the guy who oversaw unprecendented electoral defeats equals "moderate"

Then a new, 21st century definition of the word "moderate" needs to be implemented:

mod-er-ate adj

1) : to be stupid beyond all comprehension <"They watched as the man stuck his wet fingers in a wall outlet, and thought to themselves, 'What a moderate idiot!'">

[DCBob]

49. The economy and big media were responsible for the "unprecedented electoral defeats"..

any "idiot" knows that.

[Hydra]

51. There was also something about not actually fulfilling campaign promises

And something about jobs...what was that again?

[Exilednight]

53. Yes, it has nothing to do with the bad policy that was passed of as progressiveness or

the fact that Democrats in the Senate took a cue from the leader of the party and threw everything on the table before negotiations began.

[totodeinhere]

56. Did "big media" hold a gun to the heads of voters and force them to vote GOP?

I don't think so. People have got to think for themselves and not necessarily swallow what the media feeds them. And BTW, if Democrats had voted in the same numbers that the right wing did, we would have won that election. I blame Democratic voters themselves as much as anyone.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. That is if they actually choose to do so

Too many people are unable and/or willing to consult a variety of media sources before heading into the voting booth. Those whom enjoy Fox News, Limbaugh, et. al like them so much that they are more than willing to believe in their words as gospel and allow them to do their thinking for them.

[DCBob]

62. The right-wing was jazzed up.. Democrats were not...

I still say the bad economy/jobs situation and the non-stop bashing from Faux and other big corportate media and conservative talk shows were mostly responsible for that.

[JVS]

63. Seems accurate enough.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. where 'moderate' is actually center-right.

[Hawkowl]

82. Hardly

Obama has always been conservative, with a flair for moderate speechifying. He has always cozied up to the monied establishment as soon as he has taken any office.

[budkin]

50. Christ

[vaberella]

59. Can Obama remove the DNC chair? I didn't know that was in his power. n/t

[Exilednight]

85. Yes, he can. As a sitting Democratic President, Obama is the leader of the party and has the power

to hire and fire the DNC Chairman. Obama also has the power to hire and fire the Executive Director.

It was Obama who appointed Kaine to his position.

How do people claim to be Democrats and not know the inner workings of their own party? It totally baffles me.

[dsc]

99. Obama is the leader of our party

He determines who the chair is. If the President isn't a Democrat, then we have an open election like we did when Dean won it.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tomm2thumbs]

68. probably the deal he cut when he didn't pick him as his V.P. - parting gifts and all...

just my guess -

[Raine]

69. and in the next election he can work to lose

the Senate. :eyes: :argh:

[BlueIris]

70. I would bet money Kaine doesn't stay past March. nt

[Stoic]

72. I want my Howard Dean back! n/t

[truebrit71]

81. [phone]

..of course that would require the President to acknowledge that Doctor Dean had a big hand in getting him elected in the first place..

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

92. Just realize that Dean's strategy entailed getting Blue Dogs and DLCers elected as well.

The 50 State Strategy was just that. You guys are complaining about Obama/Kaine being moderate or conservative or whatever. What the hell do you think the 50 State Strategy was? It wasn't targeted to liberal Democrats only. Most of that strategy gave us conservative, moderate and Corporate Democrats. You guys are hilarious. Out of touch with reality and what the 50 State Strategy really accomplished.

[AtomicKitten]

98. That is the unvarnished truth.

:fistbump:

[bvar22]

84. Of course, there are those who would consider him very successful.

Business Friendly/WallStreet/1percenter "Democrats" couldn't be happier.
And Social Security is NEXT on their Hit List.

[tritsofme]

86. To vilify Kaine and absolve Pelosi over the election results is completely disingenuous.

[KoKo]

101. Pelosi's "House Dems" passed lots of Progressive Legislation that has Died in the Senate under Reid

from Nevada.

House Dems were Penalized for Harry Reid's cowardice because he knew he would have a tough race in Nevada this Fall ...because of the horrible Mortgage Crisis and Nevada's economy in freefall.

Pelosi was sacrificed to keep Reid in Power. She did a great job against all odds. The HOUSE is the PEOPLE'S PLACE...the SENATE is where the REAL POWER LIES...because of the way the Constitution has evolved and they serve six years instead of two like the House. House Memebers can always be thrown out after two years..but Senate is entrenched for too long taking money from the Lobbyists, PACS and Think Tanks.

[hulka38]

89. This is all about the DLC holding onto its power

over the Democratic Party. Kaine is talentless but very safe and won't deviate from the DLC agenda.

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. By your measure, Michael Steele is a success

[craigmatic]

100. I can't disagree with this. Kaine has failed as chair. He should step down.