Interesting piece by E.J. Dionne Jr. in WP

[Pirate Smile]

Can Dean Give 'Em A Winner?

It includes a long list of what Dean needs to get done as DNC Chair and an analysis of the state of the party operations in the states - not good - and how important the head of the DNC will be because of this

"But the very fact that Dean sought the job -- can you remember any failed presidential candidate who went on to be Democratic Party chairman? -- suggests that he understands something that few others in his party get: In the age of electronic media, at this moment of highly polarized politics, leading the opposition party's formal organization is potentially one of the most powerful positions in American politics.

-snip-
People don't understand how disproportionately important the Democratic National Committee is going to be in driving politics for Democrats," Rosenberg says. "We used to have precinct captains and county chairmen: Your relationship to the party was brokered by many intermediaries. Now, there are millions of Americans who have a direct relationship with the national party which is more meaningful than their relationship with their local party." If you doubt that, compare how much money was raised for national Democrats online, and how much was delivered by the remains of the old local party organizations.

As party chairman, Rosenberg argues, Dean will have direct access to those millions of Democrats through e-mail and more control over the Democratic "brand" than any congressional leader could hope to enjoy. That prospect exhilarates some Democrats and petrifies others -- and helps explain why Dean went after the job. "

Dionne talks about how much depends on how Dean and the party settle two core arguments:

1. The Need to Oppose vs. the Need to Offer Alternatives

2. Ideas vs. Organization

"Dean's flaws are well known, and he'll be under tremendous pressure from the competing factions of the must-do crowd. His greatest potential strength, which he sought to bring home in his acceptance speech yesterday, is that he understands how much rank-and-file Democrats yearn to fight for things that matter and to stand for more than just what consultants tell them they should say. Democrats know Dean's chairmanship will be a hell of a ride, but they're willing to take some risks to get off the road to nowhere."

Whoops - forgot the link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18482-2005Feb12.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Thanks for posting

[moggie12]

2. Excellent article - it sounds like the arguments we have here at DU

Dionne's list of all the things that various Democrats want Dean and the Dems to do made me smile: There's so many ideas for how to "fix" the Party, many of which are contradictory, that it's going to be quite a process going forward.

Very thought-provoking article, with a hopeful conclusion -- like Dionne, I think Howard Dean is the right man for the job.

Thanks for posting that -- well worth reading.

[Pirate Smile]

4. I think it is a good overview and points out a lot of different issues.

I didn't think it fit for LBN but I want to encourage people to read the entire article. I'd nominate it for greatest page but I can't.

The answers to all of these issues are not nearly as obvious as some people seem to think they are but I feel incredibly hopeful now with Dean as Chair. :)

[moggie12]

5. Not as obvious is right --

The foreign policy side of the equation is going to be the hardest for the Dems to sort out, I think. Just this passage from the article could get a rollicking debate going:

"Kerry tried to thread the needle in 2004 by opposing Bush's approach while insisting that he, too, would be tough on terrorism. It didn't work. On this question, Dean may have a Nixon-to-China opportunity: As a leader with credibility among the party's doves, he may be well placed to bring together the party's feuding factions to create a tough internationalism that is the only plausible counter to Bush's approach. This task is political, but also intellectual and moral, and one the party cannot evade."

[blm]

6. Media downplayed Kerry's credentials on the terror issue while covering up

for Bush's FAILURES on the terror issue. In fact, terror was always mentioned in terms of Bush's success. THAT is how the media shaped the public's perception.

How many Americans know that Bush, Cheney and Rice REFUSED to read the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror that was handed to them on Jan30, 2001?

How many Americans know that Bush was handed the conclusive evidence that it was definitely Bin Laden behind the bombing of the USSCole and it was HE who failed to respond, not Clinton?

How many Americans know that Bush wouldn't allow the Saudis to be implicated for their support of Bin Laden in the final 9-11 report, and had those pages redacted?

How many Americans know that Bin Laden WANTED to overthrow Saddam's secular government for YEARS and replace it with an Islamic theocracy?

How many Americans know that Bin Laden wanted US military bases CLOSED in Saudi Arabia and that Bush quietly closed those bases last year?

How many Americans know that John Kerry was tracking down terror financiers and closing terrorist supporting banks as far back as 1991?

How many Americans know George Bush was making deals with these same terrorist banks and pocketing millions from those deals?

How many Americans know that the GOP ignored Kerry's warnings on the spreading of terrorism in his 1996 book, The New War?

The answer to all these questions is DAMN FEW....thanks to the corporate media who works to protect Bush by preventing the American public from learning any pertinent truths about him or those who oppose him.

Dean has to EXPOSE the GOP control over most of the media and their shaping of the news to keep the dictatortot propped up. That and the BBV issue are the only concerns that need to be dealt with IMMEDIATELY. All else is a waste of time and energy.

[Pirate Smile]

8. I agree that Dean has to change the current media equation or else it

is an uphill battle. Sometimes when I watch the news channels or hear talk radio (not AAR - I have to stream that where I live) I'm amazed Democrats haven't lost even more ground.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. .

[blm]

7. It bothers me that Dionne never nails the corporate media as the liars who

promote the idea that George Bush is a heroic figure in regard to the terror issue while they misrepresent the Democrats as "weak on the terror issue" ad nauseum.

I'd guess Dionne doesn't watch or hear what most of the American people are subjected to by the corporate media.

[Pirate Smile]

9. I wish he would focus on that but I think this article was just on the

Democratic Party. The screwed up media is another obstacle for the Democratic Party.

I don't always see everything he writes so I'm not sure if he doesn't recognize that problem or that this article just was focused on something else.

[blm]

10. The media propping of Bush and the GOP is THE greatest obstacle

for the Democratic party who suffers BECAUSE of the corporate media lies and mischaracterizations.

Dionne has never confronted the biased performance of the media that I know of. He's probably one of those lefties who bends over backwards BECAUSE of that very same corporate media's mischaracterization that the media is liberal... Focking sad joke.

[Old and In the Way]

12. That's the problem.

Anyone in corporate media has to "watch what they say". I have no doubts that the progressive, liberal reporters/journalists, commentators are on a short leash with their opinions of the media that they work for. But it's not like we don't know.

I'll bet the Republicans would love to go back in time and revisit their votes on developing the internet. This is the one place where freedom of speech and the truth can still be found.

[cestpaspossible]

11. Well, he is part of it.

If he wrote what you said it would probably just be censored, I mean edited out.