From October 24 2006:

Am I the only one that remembers the hope we once had? I was at my office watching election results four years ago on election night. Watching and trying to keep hope alive — for Mondale, for Carnahan, for Strickland, for Cleland. And we lost. And some pundit — and I wish for the life of me I could remember who — said that if the Democrats had stood for something, they might still have lost, but losing wouldn’t feel so bad. And he was right. That’s how I felt four years ago. Democrats voted in support of the war. Wellstone was killed. And then came the losses. Out of that defeat came new life. Out of the knowledge that we lost not in spite of our principles, but because we failed to state our principles, we were all able to take solace. And in the immediate aftermath of that campaign came the campaign of Howard Dean. We believed in him and in the fact that victory belonged to those who said what they meant, and stood for change.

I, for one, stayed up all night on election night 2002, wondering what I had fought for, and where my party went from here. I was in college and interning for the DLC at the time — and I was totally aware that we had been instrumental in handing Bush the Senate. We had a war that was about to begin, and a base that was angry at us. But that night gave me my Bulworth moment — I was not going to live through that kind of defeat again. We may lose, but as far as I was concerned, we weren’t going to lose because we had once again forgotten the people who put us in power.

Now I’m no angel, and after working at the DLC, I interned for a conservative, pro-war Democratic Senator in the beginning of 2003 — just as we were starting the run-up to war. Yup, working for him during the week, and marching in war protests on the weekends. I suppose I was a bit of a hypocrite, but that was okay: I could get my paycheck from the Establishment, and give my heart to the Activists. And on that little black and white TV on my desk, I watched Howard Dean talk about the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” and I tried not to show my excitement.

But I grew up a bit that year; Dean lost in Iowa, and I could no longer justify my affiliation with the Washington based Democratic Party. I left that and moved somewhere in the mid-west to help out a Congressional candidate with little Washington support. Lost that one too, as most Democratic campaigners lost in ‘04. Came back home again, with at least a conscience clearer than it had been two years earlier.

But here we are, 2006. Now we have a shot at the House. We have a shot at the Senate. And all that fight and inspiration seems to have left us as we once again look for the politically adroit way to win now that we have the opportunity. We listen to Rahm Emmanuel — a man who is as much responsible for this decade’s Democratic defeats as anyone — as though his word is the gospel and the way to Democratic victory. And to what end? I hope as much as anyone that Democrats win in 15 days. I am a proud, lifelong Democrat, and I will cede ground to no one on how excited I am to see Democrats finally control Congress. But there is a part of me that misses the victory from the defeat four years ago. There is a part of me that feels that if we win, we will lose our edge — we will become the “party in power.” We will lose that Bulworth moment that I had that night.

I remember reading that following the hugely successful Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 – 1956, the people who helped to sustain that boycott felt a sense of disappointment. Yes, they had won a great victory over injustice, and they had defeated the leadership in Alabama. But could they sustain a mass movement in the face of victory? It took almost four years — when the student sit-in movement began — for the fire that was sparked in Montgomery to spread. I AM excited about our prospects this November, but let’s not forget why we got here in the first place. Let’s not disregard the helplessness of Karl Rove’s glory days. Let’s not forget a Party leadership that abandoned its own members to court “the moderates” and the activist Democrats that brought us back to a position of power within the Party. Let’s not forget the glory we felt watching Ned Lamont beat those Democrats that ignored us on August 8th. Let’s not forget that John Kerry — a deeply flawed candidate in his own right — learned the lessons of his defeat and turned to the activists for his political future. Let’s not forget that we set out to change this Party; that MoveOn has moved from a fringe group on the Left, to a real player in Democratic politics; that Howard Dean has gone from an asterisk in 2003 Primary polls to the Chairman of our Party. We took this Party back. We led it to victory. And shame on us if we ever let them forget who they are indebted to again.

From August 2006:A response to Ed Kilgore: Scroll down for piece about Feingold attacking centrists.

So, on one hand, yeah that’s me. DLC = bad; activist Democrats like Dean and Lamont = good. I am a MoveOn member. I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I’ve done all those activist-y things like marching in protests, reading Huffington Post, and wishing like hell that Al Gore would make another go at it. And yeah, I do think Feingold’s “rant” was a profile in courage. Yup, you know me so well, Ed. And you know the funny thing? You think that I have the DLC pegged in the same two-dimensional world-view as the one you use to see me.

But, before you “blah, blah, blah” and “bark bark woof woof” through my viewpoint, or dismiss me as naïve because my political coming-of-age came during a “truly weird series of events,” and lacks the wisdom that comes from contradictory evidence, just try to understand what led up to my satisfaction on Tuesday night…

It isn’t that people like me (what did American Prospect call us? New New Democrats? MoveOn Democrats?) take it as gospel that the DLC is a bunch of soulless, corporate sell-outs that hurt the Party, provide cover to the Administration, and desperately seek the approval of FoxNews. These may be the conclusions that we reach, but please give us a bit more credit for sophistication than that. You honestly believe we can’t tell the difference between Bob Shrum and his “old interest-group liberalism” and the DLC because hell, to us, you’re all just The Establishment. We can create the boogey-man much easier without making the distinction, right? But just maybe we CAN see the difference, and choose to reject both. Maybe we see that activists are really shut out of both processes – by back-room deals and pet issues from the old Democrats, and by the constant taunts of “undisciplined,” and “unelectable,” and yes, the desire to compete for corporate cash from the DLC. Both are elites, both are anti-populist (And not the kind of populists that you claim “indiscriminately attack corporations” and “look nostalgically to a pre-capitalist past,” but Jacksonian populism, you know, little “d” democrat.) But back to Tuesday night…

Do you think that when I watched Ned Lamont get up there to claim victory, I cracked open a beer and said “Yeah, there’s a big F*** You to the DLC!” Naa… I wasn’t thinking about you guys. I was thinking about idealism. I remembered Al Gore’s concession speech, and the near-immediate calls to move on from that election from Republicans, the media, and even Democrats. I remembered Dick Gephardt standing on the White House lawn in support of Bush’s war resolution and realizing that for the first time I was out of step with my own party. I remembered the day Howard Dean dropped his Presidential bid, and everyone in Democratic circles – yourself probably included – enjoyed the moment (and, in the case of Al From and Will Marshall, reportedly bumped chests at a “victory” party). Well, I’m in my mid-20s, and I admittedly lack the wisdom that your experience might bring you, but I do know that I had invested quite a bit of idealism in that race, and maybe you should’ve taken a little less satisfaction in squelching that idealism and giving me a list of reasons why I needed to grow up. But I didn’t need to grow up. I needed to stay motivated. Because on Tuesday night, idealism won, and I got to celebrate the victory I had wanted for so long.

I know what you would say – that we haven’t cornered the market on idealism. That the centrist stance of the DLC is a reflection of actual principles, and not cunning calculation. But, if that’s the case, why is it that you feel the need to reassure that it is “really and truly a debate among Democrats about how–not whether–to drive Republicans from power.” If your stance is about principles and not political expediency, why is your only qualm with our politics about process and strategy?

I could give you the facts that you expect from someone on my side. I could talk about the need for our Barry Goldwater, and prepare my rebuttal for when you explain that that could never work on our side because the country is inherently more conservative than liberal, and how we tried that with McGovern, blah blah blah, woof woof, bark, bark. I could paint you in that two-dimensional corner and assume that you were a Lieberman supporter in the Presidential primary, or I could take that second look and acknowledge that you supported John Kerry from the start. Of course, that would be me giving you the kind of nuance you regularly deny people on my side. I could attempt to be witty and match your own Note-ish, Hotline-ish, and generally dismissive tone when writing about you. But no. I just wanted you to know why I was so excited about Ned Lamont, and why I was happy to read Russ Feingold’s comments. Maybe there is even a bit of dissonance in you – I can’t help but notice that you haven’t quite tipped your hand about your endorsement in this Connecticut Senate race. Maybe you have allowed yourself those rare moments where you stop playing defense and actually empathize with the rabble-rousing, MoveOn Democrats and the idealism we allow ourselves to feel about the political process. And hey, even if you don’t, can you at least give us the respect of not caricaturing our beliefs by assuming we know nothing about yours?

From July 25, 2005:

Couple of interesting developments today…

Apparently, Hillary Clinton is not so positive of this. She called for a cease-fire today in the intra-party wars at this year’s conference. That makes sense… the DLC starts the wars, divides the Party, rides those divisions to victory with Bill Clinton, and now that they are on the defensive, has their rising star call for a cease-fire.

Naa… in the words of Harry Truman, “Put them on the defensive and never apologize for anything.” The Democratic Party will not be able to make peace with the DLC.

Guess the cease-fire will have to wait…

From July 6, 2005:Today, NYT reporter Judith Miller and Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper faced a civil contempt charge for failing to reveal the confidential White House source who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. “The Source” called Cooper at the last minute and waived the confidentiality, allowing Cooper to testify before the Grand Jury. While the contempt charge against Cooper was dropped, Miller was immediately remanded to custody and will serve up to 120 days in a D.C. jail.

Arguments over the first amendment aside (and I admit, that’s quite an argument to just lay aside…), today’s events bring us very close to the outing of the White House source. Karl Rove’s lawyer has confirmed that Rove was “a source,” but insists he was not the source who leaked Plame’s identity. If Rove is the source, he is not only a traitor for his role in the scandal, but he is also a coward for allowing a reporter to serve jail time for his crime.

In any event, it is a bit difficult to digest the fact that Judith Miller is now serving time, while Bob Novak — the man who actually exposed the identity of Valerie Plame — is free.

As a neat aside (and bringing the odd coincidences full circle), Joseph Wilson’s NYT op-ed titled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa” — the expose that led the White House to exact revenge by outing Wilson’s wife — was published by the Times two years ago… today. Weird, huh?

From July 5, 2005:

Impeachment.

A new Zogby poll out shows that 43% of the American public believes that impeachment is an appropriate response if it is demonstrated that Bush misled the nation to war. More surprising is the percentage of Republican respondents — 25% — who support impeachment in this circumstance.

But, once again, with a solid chunk of the electorate (and a majority of their Party’s members) behind impeachment, Democratic leaders are silent on the subject. Unlike the Republican leadership, who responded to — if not led — the conservative outcry for Clinton’s impeachment in ‘98, Democrats seem content to allow Bush to continue his term and retire with dignity, no matter what the charges warrant.

Most likely, Democrats are worried about the political consequences (rather than the legal merits) of pushing for impeachment, and believe waiting out the current term and allowing the anti-Bush hostilities to brew is a more prudent course of action. Without control of Congress, it is assured that impeachment proceedings would fail — and fail big.

But forcing a discussion would likely create political pressure on Republicans who defend Bush, and would solidify the public perception that the war in Iraq was at minimum an unbelievable blunder and at worst a crime. Republicans who would fight impeachment preceedings would be placed on the defensive — particularly those who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

The “I” word may seem risky, but if history (well…. history over the past five years) has shown anything, we can assume that what is considered radical at this point will become consensus very soon. When Bush was pushing for war with Iraq, only the “fringe” elements opposed it. Now, a solid majority of Americans oppose the war. The first politicians/commentators to argue that Bush misled (i.e. “lied”) the nation into war were considered treasonous; now most Americans agree. The word “impeach” may sound shocking now, but is a growing sentiment with the Party’s rank and file (and apparently even many Republicans).

Bush deserves to be impeached. He lied us into a war that has cost the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. He has tarnished our image throughout the world, and left us vulnerable to legitimate threats. He lied to Congress. He lied to the public. He is responsible for the disaster he has created. And he must be held accountable. But Democrats in leadership are afraid to hold him accountable — leaving 43% of the American public without a mainstream stamp of approval.

Like other “radical” positions supported by Bush opponents throughout his Administration, impeachment is gaining a sizable constituency. Who will be the first mainstream Democrat to be the voice of this burgeoning movement?

From June 2005:

John Edwards had some harsh words in response to Howard Dean’s comments about the Republican work ethic. Dean charged that many Republicans had “never made an honest living in their lives.”

Edwards responded: “The chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman for the party,” Edwards said. “He’s a voice. I don’t agree with it.”

The problem I have with Edwards’ statement has nothing to do with Edwards personally, and it certainly isn’t just a blind defense of Dean. The problem I have with Edwards’ statement is that he distanced himself from tough anti-Republican rhetoric. Personally, I don’t feel that my Party has to coddle Republicans, and I have a hard time defending milquetoast Democrats who claim to be “populists” and then back off Dean’s old-fashioned populist rallying cry. The Republicans have no problem getting tough with us. They paint us as godless unpatriotic cowards. What’s wrong with a Democrat (and yes, a SPOKESMAN for the Party) attacking Republicans for their elitism, greed, selfishness, and insensitivity to working people? Hasn’t our Party learned anything?

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans know they’re right. I’m tired of pretending that Republicans are just as good and just as honest as Democrats. I’m tired of pretending that we share a set of values, if not a shared idea of how to achieve those values. I want a leader to take a stand and go after the Right with the same zeal that they have gone after us. I cannot understand why a major figure within the Party (or two including Biden) would have a problem with that.

From May 2005:

The Right is pushing for the confirmation of John Bolton, extremist judges, a complete dissolution of our nation’s social safety net, and a stay-the-course policy on our disastrous efforts in Iraq.

If ever there was a time to make sure Democrats Stand Up and Keep Fighting — this is it.

Too many of our best activists are still disillusioned by November’s election results. Too many people believe that nothing can be done to stop (or even slow) the Bush regime’s Right-wing agenda. Ironically, that apathy is threatening to become a self-fulfilling prophecy — with the Right able to steamroll its way to absolute power because the people who would stop it failed to take notice.

Question of the Day: Why did you want to work here?

So, I want to thank all of you. You are the activists at the core of this trend. You are the only thing standing between George Bush and his Right-wing agenda. And together we will take this country back from its current catastrophic leadership.

From February 2005:One of the more interesting mini-controversies of the past few days is the saga involving the New York Republican Chairman, Steven Minarik, and his attempts to link the Democratic Party to the civil rights attorney, Lynn Stewart, convicted of aiding imprisoned terrorists. Earlier this week, Minarik declared: “The Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart, and Howard Dean.” The attack was rebuked by NY Republican governor, George Pataki, who called it “outside the realm of appropriate political debate,” and Howard Dean called for an apology or the resignation of Minarik.

The story took an interesting turn yesterday when Minarik attempted to push a photo of Stewart with various Democratic activists (Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, etc…). The only problem is that the woman in the photo was not Stewart. Some people would argue that using a photo of one person to prove something about a completely different person isn’t exactly solid evidence (although it does bring to mind Bush’s bin Laden-Hussein link). But not for Minarik. He is sticking by his story that Stewart is a registered and active Democrat.Even if this fact was proven true, exactly what is he implying it says about the Democratic Party? I guess the values of a political party are responsible for the actions of its members. It makes me wonder exactly what Republican values drove activist Republican Ted Bundy to murder 16 women? Maybe, if we can dig up a photo of Bundy (or apparently even someone who isn’t Bundy) standing with other recognizable Republicans (and I’m sure there are pictures from the days he campaigned for the GOP), then we could prove, once and for all, that the Republican Party is far far out of the mainstream. In fact, most Americans oppose serial murder, and would be shocked to know that the Republican Party has embraced them.

From February 2005:Alright — I admit it. I may reject most insider opinion (and who can blame me when they are almost always wrong), but I do have one very inside guilty pleasure — ABC News “The Note.” Along with The Hotline, The Note is the political Establishment’s Bible (and, unlike The Hotline, it can be accessed by the general public). Usually, The Note is actually pretty insightful, but I do think they missed the point a bit in their reporting on the White House vs. Harry Reid on Friday.

Last week, the RNC put out a 16 page release in an attempt to “Daschleize” Reid — calling him an obstructionist, and trying to damage his reputation in the red state of Nevada. Reid became furious, and took to the Senate floor to accuse Bush of being disingenuous in his pledge to reach out to Democrats.The Note weighed in on the politics of the dispute on Friday:

Note to Democrats: we shall repeat this again . . . a bit more slowly.

The reason . . . why . . . the . . RNC . . . is . . .going . . . after . . . Harry . . . Reid . . . is . . . to . . . make . . . him . . . mad . . . and . . . get . . . Democrats . . . all . . . riled . . . up.

Republicans do not truly believe that a few e-mails a month challenging Reid’s record in Nevada is going to somehow change the dynamic of politics in that state; South Dakota and Tom Daschle are very different animals — just compare the Bush win percentages in the two states, and see how closely Kenny Guinn and John Ensign and Harry Reid work together.

The more Democrats whine and moan over the attacks against Harry Reid, the less they concentrate on more important matters to them . . . and the more they appear to be the party of opposition . . . rather than the opposition party.

My first reaction to the dispute was similar to The Note’s — but for different reasons. I am tired of seeing the Democrats’ strategy against the ongoing Republican offensive as a mix of surprise and indignancy. If they haven’t learned that this is the Republicans game, and that we need to fight just as hard, then they are apparently incapable of learning.

But Reid’s tirade against the Republican Party may have actually been a shrewd move for a reason The Note ignores. As a soft-spoken moderate, Reid had yet to unite the activist base behind him. But by turning the fact that Republicans are attacking him (instead of working with him) into national news, he sent the signal to the Party base that he is not a friend to the Republican leadership. If Republicans are attacking him so hard, the Democratic base will assume he is doing something right.

The same type of strategy actually worked to Clinton’s advantage in the ’90s as well. His policies and rhetoric were centrist, and grassroots Democrats had reason to be suspicious of him. But the simple fact that the Republicans hated him served as a force to unite Democrats behind Clinton. The more they went after him, the more Democrats stood behind him. And unlike Clinton, Reid was able to line up his Party without becoming a divisive figure with Republicans.

A quick check of the liberal blogs proves the apparent success of Reid’s strategy. Two weeks ago, there was widespread criticism of Reid from the Left, but since the incident, there has been almost lockstep support.

I am still not a fan of the strategy of whining about tough Republican attacks. I think it makes us look weak and inept. But maybe, just this once, Reid did what he had to do, and managed to rally the base to his defense. And maybe The Note missed that point.

From February 2005:

About a year and a half ago — just after the Sleepless Summer Tour, I had a chance to see Howard Dean speak in person at a rally in College Park, Maryland. It was an amazing day — more than 4,500 University of Maryland students, and other area supporters (like myself) sat at an outdoor amphitheater in perfect weather at the peak of the greatest grassroots campaign in generations, listening to a candidate finally stand on a national stage and ask the questions Democrats across the country had been asking in their communities. The celebration would end a few months later in Iowa, and as it turned out, over the next year, Democrats would have very little to celebrate. But 2004 is over, and with the ascendency of Howard Dean as Party Chairman, the Democrats — and particularly the people represented by those 4,500 in College Park — finally have a new reason to celebrate. And so, when it was announced that Dean was set to speak this evening to a group of grassroots supporters at Capitol City Brewery in DC, I hopped on the Metro and headed down there.

I couldn’t believe the sight when I got off the train at Union Station. I arrived almost half an hour before the event was to begin, and lines were already snaked around the block. Loudspeakers were set up outside the Brewery, and music blasted as the supporters waited in line. After waiting for about twenty minutes, I was finally able to enter the brewery, and was equally stunned by what I saw inside. The place was absolutely packed. Signs that hung down from the balcony read “You Have the Power,” “The Doctor/Governor/Chairman is In,” and “I Want My Country Back!” — all slogans, or renditions of slogans from the ‘04 campaign. At the front of the brewery was a stage, and a Democracy for America sign behind it. Above the DFA sign was the familiar slogan “People Powered Howard.”The crowd was mostly young — average age of 25, I would guess — and extremely enthusiastic. People lined the balcony, trying to get a better view of the stage, and the people on the main floor angled for a spot close to the stage. After buying a beer, I managed to work my way up near the front of the brewery — near the TV cameras and print reporters. I ended up standing directly behind AP reporter Will Lester (a pretty big guy, who blocked my line of sight for much of the event). Everywhere I looked were reminders of the Presidential campaign, and it was heartening to see that the supporters were still there, and willing to turn out to celebrate an incoming Party Chairman. Several people had “I See Dean People” T-shirts, and several others had the Sleepless Summer Tour shirts.