Dean, $, DNC, and the DLC....what's the problem? I am so confused!

Could someone please explain the problem here with Howard Dean? Why do the DNC and DLC hate him and don't want him to be the nominee?

Howard Dean is an "outsider"...yes, I get that and he has criticized the Democratic Party, which I felt is well deserved. All he wanted was for them to take off their pink tutus.

Anyhow, I understand why they are miffed about the criticism, but does that cancel out all he has done for the Democratic Party? Let's face it, he has worked his ass off to bring new Democrats into the party, fostered the idea of being proud of being a Democrat and is probably bringing a slew of people to the polls, especially young people.

Okay, he waived matching funds and in view of the whole reform campaign financing, I see their point, but why don't we all see Howard Dean's point. We want to beat * and if * raises at least 200 million, then he has the power to run bunches of nasty ads and other nasty things. So, HD says...hey, "why don't you people out there who vote donate $100 each and we can be on the same 'playing ground.'"

Okay, so why is HD bad for the Democratic Party?

BTW, I still haven't registered as a Democrat (Indy) <slap me>, but I want to vote for ANY Democratic nominee in the primaries.

This is not a thread to start a flame war, nor to sing praises of HD, but more about the DNC and DLC and why they hate HD.

The DNC is too busy to think about who the nominee or to take sides for and against anyone. They're job is to set up the infrastructure so the nominee and the underticket can win in 2004.

and all that.

I had jsut read about this. It looks like your basic power struggle between factions-

The division in the party over Dean is less about ideology than about power. Three years after Bill Clinton left office, he and Hillary still control what remains of a Democratic establishment. Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was installed by Clinton. Most of the powerful new fund-raising groups, known as 527s, and the new think tanks, such as the Center for American Progress, are run by the best and brightest of the Clinton administration. As "National Journal" noted in a detailed look at what it called "Hillary Inc.," the senator's network of fund-raising organizations "has begun to assume a quasi-party status." And some of the best Clinton talent is heavily invested in non-Dean campaigns, especially Joe Lieberman's (Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn), John Edwards's (Bruce Reed), and Wesley Clark's (Bruce Lindsey, Eli Segal, and Mickey Kantor).

Dean, by contrast, has come to represent the party's anti-establishment forces. While the other candidates, especially former self-styled front-runner John Kerry, started the campaign by wooing party leaders, Dean built a grassroots army first -- in part by bashing D.C. Democrats and their disastrous 2002 election strategy -- and is only now leveraging his fund-raising power to win over establishment types. No Democrats closely associated with the Clintons are working for the Dean campaign. In fact, it's hard to find a Clintonite who speaks favorably of the former Vermont governor. This evident schism is not just about Dean's opposition to the war -- or even his prospects in the general election. It's a turf war to decide who will control the future of the party.

This struggle is playing out in several of the party's organizations and constituencies. Indeed, Dean's high-profile labor endorsements -- the cornerstone of the tipping-point argument -- actually emphasize the party's divisions. Andy Stern, the leader of SEIU, is to the labor movement what Dean is to the Democratic Party -- an anti-establishment reformer. When the AFL-CIO failed to adopt reforms recommended by Stern earlier this year, he started a breakaway organization -- the New Unity Partnership -- with several other unions that is now seen as a major challenge to the AFL-CIO establishment. And SEIU is a lot like the Dean campaign. It's the fastest-growing union and one of the most democratically run. It's obsessed with organizing new members to whom it imparts a message of empowerment, unlike the more centralized AFL-CIO. Stern and SEIU, with their emphasis on health care instead of globalization, are the future of the labor movement in the United States, while the industrial unions, which back Dick Gephardt and have been bleeding members for years as they fight an uphill battle against free trade, are the past. SEIU's backing of Dean isn't a nod from the establishment -- it's a protest against it.

The Dean split is mirrored in the centrist New Democrat movement as well. No organization has been more hostile to Dean than the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). In May, Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and the president of the DLC -- the group that served as a policy springboard for Clinton's rise -- wrote their now-infamous manifesto warning that nominating Dean, whom they view as hopelessly left-wing, would bring certain defeat for Democrats in 2004. But, for months, another prominent New Democrat has been making a different case. Simon Rosenberg, who cut his teeth on Clinton's 1992 campaign and now heads the New Democrat Network (NDN), sees Dean as the most innovative and potentially transformative Democrat since Clinton himself. Like Stern, Rosenberg is a bit of a rebel within his own movement. He once worked for From, but his organization is now challenging the DLC and is becoming an increasingly influential player in Democratic politics. Unlike the more top-down DLC, NDN is building a grassroots network of donors and has become a key player in the new world of 527s. "NDN has not endorsed Dean or embraced him, but we have given our opinion that this is a serious campaign that is going to change the party," says Rosenberg.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/13/opinion/printable583484.shtml

:-)

Thanks bunches for the link. This is all precisely right on.

And it's also, btw, why Clark is even in the race. When Kerry and Edwards and Gephardt and Lieberman were all bombing out, SOMETHING had to be done to "stop Dean!" Clinton encourged Dean and loaded him up with ex-Clinton aides. This isn't just my speculation -- it's been documented elsewhere.

Eloriel

Clark is in the race to try to keep Howard Dean from ripping power away from Bill and Hillary, and taking the Democrat Party over to the far left. Gotta keep the party safe for Hillary in 2008.

Have to stop the Democratic Party's from shifting even .0005mm to Left at ALL costs.

The DLC and Clark was a marriage made in heaven. One man shopping for a Party and the other shopping for a crypto-Republican candidate.

The advent of George Soros into the fray is NOT good news for any Progressive Democrat. George Soros' $10 million are for one candidate only and that candidate is Wesley Clark. For $10 million, you can buy a Presidency that will get back at people like Putin who are not allowing you to rape and plunder their country like you did the rest of their region.

Serious trouble coming.

Dean is still too right wing for me but he's too populist for the DLC and that's a good thing.

I'm still with Kucinich though...

I just posted one of those articles here the night before. If I find it, I'll post it for you again.

the historical aspect of the DNC, the players, and how it all works together. I have beeen apolitical <ashamed to say> most of my life and in the past 5 years have become quite political and I have a lot to learn. That's one of the reasons I love DU. There are some really enlightened people here.

This sure helps understand the power struggle going on.

(snip)

Dean, by contrast, has come to represent the party's anti-establishment forces. While the other candidates, especially former self-styled front-runner John Kerry, started the campaign by wooing party leaders, Dean built a grassroots army first -- in part by bashing D.C. Democrats and their disastrous 2002 election strategy -- and is only now leveraging his fund-raising power to win over establishment types. No Democrats closely associated with the Clintons are working for the Dean campaign. In fact, it's hard to find a Clintonite who speaks favorably of the former Vermont governor. This evident schism is not just about Dean's opposition to the war -- or even his prospects in the general election. It's a turf war to decide who will control the future of the party.

(snip)

Perhaps Gore would not endorse the former Vermont governor (though Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, says "they talk relatively regularly"). Regardless, he'll have to choose sides, because the Democrats are splitting into two parties: the party of Clinton, and the party of Dean.

Dean was the DNC's man leading the state-level charge to elect more Dem governors in 2002. Now it turns out he was really "against" the establishment after all. Coulda fooled me.

As opposed to Lieberman, DLC and centralized/autocratic Unions?

I'll take the former. In a flash.


(Excellent post, p_l)

someone like Howard Dean comes out of seemingly no where and has a Grassroots Campaign the size of The Hulk on Steroids? Isn't "power" what it's all about?

Nixon got his prefurred candidate then, and if the "frontrunner" this time wins, Bush will get it in 04

Century! Dean Will Win!

Dean is going to give him a swift kick out of office and restore the Democracy.

Sorry he's there dream candidate for good reason

in 1984, instead of the telegenic and charismatic Gary Hart- who was then generating the same kind of enthusiasm as Dean, especially among younger voters. Hart could (in my opinion would) have beaten Reagan in 1984, but the party establishment made certain that didn't happen.

If the Clinton wing of the DNC or DLC (pick 'em) plays games with their "superdelegates" again, we may indeed have a historical redux- just not the one you're envisioning.

and maybe because he's a blowhard

and to be more specific, THE DLC and THE DNC don't hate him, but a very big percentage of longtime loyalists and operatives of those bodies do.

He's spinning this unlike from these people into some corporate conspiracy/red meat for his supporters which is pure bullshit, because Dean has not shown an ounce of spine in standing up to corporate interest in Vermont and in his platform COMPARED to most other candidates

and some prominent Republicans as well:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml

and the dlc types are big losers..and I'm glad Dean is the antithesis of those bozos. We are Grassroots of the People! Dean will win and the dlcers will lose their power.

he has never rejected his affiliation with the DLC. Only his campaign staff has exploited the conspiratorial nature of his supporters to fire them up for political advantage to paint his rivals with that brush.

That's what his whole primary campaign is about, ignorant stereotyping. About Washington, about congress, about southernors etc.

It doesn't take any spine to throw red meat and preach to the converted as much as possible in a primary.

The democratic leadership in entirely to blame for the state the democrats are currently in. They curl up in fetal positions the second the RW launches an attack on them and they have failed to stand up and fight for democrats and democratic principles. They have supported repug-lite democrats and cast them as our models for a winning strategy in '04 and are pissed-off to see that someone not of their making has bypassed them. They're losers. :thumbsdown:

It's all about power, isn't it?

Well we, the people have the power and it will come to fruition in '05!

this is always , and ever shall be , about power ( money) and influence ( power). Now my experience is that the wing of the party that most DLC members are from is , well, the "established, connected" party machinery. This is as true in California as elsewhere; it's a staid bunch of well meaning but established, turf protecting, in-group "club" folks.

They were able to enforce this by , as central to the party, being sources for major funds. I myself am connected to this network via the banking industry.

But in addition to being a card carrying connected I-can-get-you lots-of-money guy, I'm different from these guys in one respect:
I was firmly against the war. I was totally against Bush no matter how much money he threw me in tax cuts. I view his family as an organized cabal, an evil unto itself, and I'm pretty convinced that they are somehow complicit in 9-11.

This is outside the box thinking to the establishment, despite its accepted and common expression on sites like DU.

Enter Howard Dean. His outspoken manner resonated within me as I was overjoyed to find national voice given to my feelings, long a source of rage and frustration with the established network of DLC backed toadies like Lieberman and Gephardt & Daschle, guys I think slept through the 2002 elections over my constant entreaties to stand up and fight.

BUT Howard Dean is not only outspoken , but low and behold, he embraces a technology unknown...UNKNOWN!! I'm not kidding you! To the regular party mechanism: internet fundraising and it's true power and capabilities.

SO what it means, just like the Democratic Party Caucus I attended last night----these guys,mostly retired men and women, are one generation removed from the awareness of this medium, and suddenly, all that is orderly and controllable in the political universe of theirs has just gone by the wayside; not only that but the usual characters they all know and lunch with , are not present in this campaign...but the difference is FOR A CHANGE, this candidate has more money ( power!) than any other candidate. And to top this off, he doesn't NEED anything from the party other than for them to come to him.

So, our organization is rejecting their status quo philosophy, and that doesn't play well. Many of them do not know what is happening , and they are used to being "in the know". This miffs them.
They sense a loss of control of the mechanism, and the only thing they can compare it with is (gasp) that awful time we kids siezed control before, way back in '72 , and look how THAT turned out!

Well most of us kids involved with the Mc Govern insurgency are older and wiser , guys like me, who remained active in the party mechanism and continued to work. And believe me, Dean is so NOT Mc Govern I wouldn't know where to start.

But it's this loss of control to insurgents that the established party mechanism is bucking. First they thought Kerry was their answer. Now, General Clark. But they still don't "get it".
I have mollified them in California, told them to be prepared for all kinds of newbies, enthusiastic newbies, who don't understand party machinery and have no patience for Robert's Rules of Order. But they can tell its a changing of the guard, and they silently drag their feet. But our numbers are irresistable, and our money talks. We are bringing in a significant part of the 50-60% that don't vote, numbers that with any luck will outweigh the tiny fraction of "swing voters" that the established know-it-alls still think we have to appeal to.

THIS is the source of the friction, and the division. We act like we don't care if the swing voter comes along or not. Because the way it looks to us right now, we don't need them. Hence, the "moving the party leftward". But only in their minds. We're actually just following the footsteps of those who went before us, and that path has been there for years, for all to see.All you needed to do was open your eyes.

And maybe log on.

I think it's how we thought it was. I really just hope they have the good sense to put this power struggle behind them and support whoever the democratic nominee is, even if it's "not one of their own." Thanks for the first-hand account.

Control, 'the devil you know'...

You've written it down in a way that makes me think it's a *good* time to be alive.

Good stuff, Capn Sunshine.

including the candidates repug-like attacks before, during and after the last debate over inocuous statements.

I'm a relative newbie to politics and feel there is so much going on that I'm not seeing. Reading this is like putting on those three-D glasses and being able to see what I'm missing.

I bow to your greatness, oh wise one. :yourock:

I did vote for Nixon and Reagan I suppose mostly because the Democrats didn't seem to have it together. They seemed soft and unsure of what was the right direction to take. Course I was mad at Johnson for the Viet Nam situation and hoped Nixon could fix it. Yeah, years later. Still I didn't get it and voted for friendly and positive Reagan. I messed up again. Finally Clinton got my vote. What happen in the 2002 election? No one was out there speaking strongly for our positions. Our Senators voted to let Bush go to war and made passive remarks about what they wanted to do and not much on how they were going to do it. And you wonder why Dean is so popular? Before the last election people on this site complained because no one was speaking out in the Democratic party. Now someone is and Dem's are jumping on his case. Go figure.

Dean is rapidly wrapping it all up anyway, so the hollering and kicking is now more and more just a lot of noise some 50 miles back on the road---road that he already left behind. :hi: