Derailing Hackett -- This is NOT about some Left v. Centrist divide

[pat_k]

I've HAD IT with the way the mythical "divide" in the Democratic party is being characterized -- you know, the talk about the "left-leaning" blogs" vs. party centrists; liberals/progressives v. DLC, or some such crap.

The labels -- liberal, conservative, progressive, right, left -- have become so loaded they have lost all objective meaning.

Apparently I'm not the only one (e.g., many of the folks who posted in this thread sound like they've had it too).

Hackett's fate -- and our reaction to it -- tells us a lot about the REAL divides we are up against as we fight to take back our country.

We are NOT dealing with a divide between left v. right positions on "issues."

We are dealing with fascists v. anti-fascists; insiders v. outsiders; weakness v. strength.

Insider v. Outsider

Most of you are probably too young to remember, but not very long ago, politics wasn't viewed as the exclusive purview of the "professionals." Countless communities had vital Democratic Clubs and other associations where Americans experienced "politics" first hand. It wasn't always pretty, but people socialized, chose leaders, made decisions, and took civic action.

Over the decades, people have been pushed out of their own game. These days, the "professionals" run the show and they are VERY protective of their turf.

For the Al Froms of the world, we are game pieces that they -- the "professionals" -- manipulate. Heaven forbid any of us actually get involved! They may not even know WHY they feel so threatened by folks like Dean or Hackett, but their fear has absolutely nothing to do with the candidate's' positions on issues.

Political leaders who know that ordinary citizens are the REAL power-brokers in America are frightening creatures to the beltway establishment. If such a leader gains support and inspires people to exercise their power, some automated response system kicks the establishment in to self-protective mode (Images of the robot from "Lost in Space" come to mind -- "Danger, Will Robinson!").

The insider-outsider divide captures part of the story, but our anger and frustration is probably more closely tied to the weak-strong divide.

Weakness v. Strength

They are very different men, but like Dean, Hackett embodies strength. He doesn't muddle up simple truths with exceptions and caveats. He sticks to his guns.

Hackett's race for the Senate would have given the entire party a boost because he gives us a voice that's strong enough to channel our anger.

The BIGGEST problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak and unprincipled. We are as pissed off as we are because, instead of challenging their wimpy image by showcasing a strong candidate, they are adding salt to the wound by BANISHING that candidate!

It's About Us -- Not the Party. Not our Leaders.

When the insiders successfully push out people like Hackett or Dean, they hurt the party, but ultimately, WE are their real casualties. The bottom line is that the insiders are protecting their turf from us.

When a strong candidate inspires ordinary Americans to act in their civic capacity, the beltway analstocracy mobilizes -- as if by reflex -- to sabotage the source of our inspiration.

When they get their target, they return to business as usual, apparently believing the danger has been averted.

We know better. WE are the REAL danger to their insular world, and we are everywhere. Not an easy target.

Our immediate goals are clear: Impeach Bush and Cheney and reject the results of suspect elections. Actions large and small will make these goals a reality. As we move forward, we need to remember that, however they fail or anger us, we can't let it just be about them. Ultimately, it is about figuring out how to use our power to see that our will is done.

[xchrom]

1. thank you!

beautifully said.

this really is about -- as a common citizen -- not being declared irrelevant on every level.

[MisterLiberal]

81. Sorry, but

when we are not even given a choice in the PRIMARIES, are we supposed to sit down and shut up?

Remember when Harry Reid admitted he was going to do this last fall? I tried to warn everyone, but nooooo, the centrists, who are getting their way with our party, dismissed his statement that the party was going to fix the primaries.

How does it feel now?

[MoJoWorkin]

2. Thank you, too. You are EXACTLY RIGHT!

I have been trying to get that across on several posts here on DU, and they keep telling me "we need those with experience to handle the complicated committee system in the Senate." A very weak argument for kicking Hackett out. Geez, like I responded to Will Pitt--- Hackett is very quick on his feet, a lawyer, and was military (where all the things like the committee structure would be very familiar.) It wouldn't take him any time to get up to speed on the "committee system."

WE DESPERATELY NEED OUTSIDERS!


But, oh no, the insiders have done such a good job lately.:sarcasm:

[Mass]

4. How do you expect outsiders to succeed to change the party if they

fold at the first storm. Do you actually expect the insiders to give the keys to the outsiders by themselves. Hackett should have run for the primary. By getting out, he does not project strength, on the contrary.

I do agree that we need outsiders, but they have to be ready to fight for it.

[MoJoWorkin]

5. I have seen strong arm politics on the local level, and when they

don't want you to run, forget it. No matter how strong you are, you will get no where. Many a good candidate has been turned away and turned off by the insiders who will gaurd their empires at any cost. Our own Democrats are not above Swift-boating--I have seen it done with my own eyes, in county and state committee.

Hackett is smart enough to know when to fold'em.

This comment I keep seeing has no merit.

[FreedomAngel82]

91. Excuses excuses

I'm tired of the "oh Hackett's a victim!" Nonsense! He didn't fight, he had very low poll numbers within democrats and now HE backed down and he's blaming everyone but himself. He doesn't know politics and he can't fight shit.

[rexcat]

27. It is really safe for someone from MA..

to make a comment like yours. Hackett did not just "fold" as you have stated. His money supply was being cut off by the ODP leadership and by the leadership in the Senate (Reid for one). If you don't have the money you can't play the game. Also Hackett (IMO) was used by the ODP leadership and by the Democratic leadership in the Senate. When Brown, who initially encouraged Hackett to run against DeWine, stepped into the race the good old boy network reared its ugly head. Get your facts straight before you post!

[OzarkDem]

3. Hackett derailed himself

He took on a race that was far too big and expensive for a newbie and when his primary campaign failed he was too humiliated to admit it. Instead he chose to blame others. This is not an unusual scenario. Most candidates later realize they were wrong and admit it. I anticipate Hackett will do the same.

Unless someone can provide proof that Dem leaders "forced" Hackett out of the race, I'm writing it off to the usual anger and humiliation when a candidate's campaign fails.

Proof? Got any?

[MoJoWorkin]

6. What is your personal beef against Hackett, Ozark Dem?

It can't be just a difference of opinion, as there seems to be WAY too much vitriol in your posts.
Do you know him personally?

[OzarkDem]

44. No beef

I think he's a decent guy who has a future in politics.

But, like Hackett, I don't think all the trash talk is doing the Dem party any good and isn't going to help us win the Senate seat from DeWine.

[greenohio]

78. Your right, this way the leadership can do this whenever they want

without any second thoughts. We should just shut up and take it. I think that the week of the event, it is very appropriate to have a discussion about what type of behavior we feel is appropriate. We complain about our leadership all the time. Skulduggery in primary races against fellow Dems, is deserves discussion.

[sendero]

7. You are so full of it..

... it is hard to know where to start.

The OP has nailed it totally. Our party has been taken over by functionaries, just like the Republicans. Difference is, the Republicans are effective at getting elected, and we are not.

And tossing out someone like Hackett who had a good chance winning, to install a classic liberal like Sherrod Brown in a very red state was beyond stupid, it was treacherous.

[katinmn]

8. Hackett is not the first Dem forced out by the party leaders

It is a serious and growing problem that is now in public view.

If this is allowed to continue unchecked, we might as well forget about elections. Just let the Wash DC circle of friends play musical chairs.

[Punkingal]

10. What proof do you want?

I PERSONALLY know more than one candidate here in Las Vegas who was given the kiss of death by Harry Reid, in exactly the same way as Hackett was. THIS IS WHAT HE DOES.

[TankLV]

77. Hi Punkingal!

I can verify your statement.

The races with Ensign and Porter come readily to mind.

I am so sick and tired of the way they put up "sacrificial" candidates to run against the repukes here AT THE LAST MOMENT!

How come there isn't a serious contender yet for that idiot bushbootlicker porter's seat I don't know.

[mzmolly]

13. Hackett said after having time to "chill" that it came down to money.

He also said "it was a wonderful experience" and "I'll help Brown in any way I can."

I agree that he was not forced out by dem leaders, he was "forced" out by those who claim to support him, yet didn't give him a dime.

[MoJoWorkin]

14. Wrong

[mzmolly]

29. Here's a link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2463583

Read the last paragraph.

[yodermon]

32. You mean this paragraph, right?

Hackett said he also was influenced by intense pressure in recent weeks from Democratic Party leaders urging him to leave the race and by frequent calls from donors saying they were being urged by top Democrats not to contribute to his campaign.

“I was getting a heck of a lot of calls and a heck of a lot of encouragement from a lot of highpowered folks to get out,” he said. “I’m just one guy, and when I’ve got the leadership of the Democratic Party in the most powerful country of the world, I’ve got to tell you, even I feel that.”

In a written statement earlier Tuesday, Hackett said he made his decision “reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind-thescenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign.”

http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/isope/1140006767212100.xml&coll=2

[mzmolly]

37. NO I mean this paragraph

“Here’s my take on it,” Hackett said. “I’ve got six weeks to raise 3 million bucks. And the hard-core reality is I’m probably not going to do that. That was my analysis.”

And this:

Hackett said that the highpressure tactics angered him initially but that he was feeling more philosophical as the hours passed since his decision to withdraw. “That’s politics,” he said.

“It’s been an absolutely fantastic experience,”

Note the quotation marks in my quote and the paraphrasing in yours.

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Every time I have heard him on Air America,

whether it be Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes or Stephanie Miller, I've been impressed with his graciousness in bowing out. He's a grown-up, it's clear, and his clear-eyed vision stands in sharp contrast to many of the wafflers in the Dem party leadership.

I emailed him that he should consider a run for Prez in 2008, just to keep Hillary and the DLC honest.

[MercutioATC]

19. Where in Ohio do you live, OzarkDem?

You seem to have such "insight" into Ohio voters.

[Kukesa]

23. Excellent question. Where in Ohio do you live, OzarkDem? nt

[OzarkDem]

45. As I've said before

I'm not going to tell you. I don't need any stalkers.

[MercutioATC]

63. Ah, yes. Giving a city name always invites stalkers...

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

24. Hackett QUIT and blamed others for his failures

and some people here don't want to admit reality is real.

[rexcat]

28. Another less than intelligent post by a Brown cultist.

[brentspeak]

43. I think that several of these Brown apologists are working for him

or for some official branch of the Democratic Party. Likely they're Brown staffers.

[LynneSin]

80. I am one of those "Brown Cultists"

Any other fricking assumptions you want to make about me?

And I live in Delaware and I have donated several times to Paul Hackett and personally I want my money back.

I don't support quitters. Reid & Schumer cannot stop democratic primaries but quitters can. DSCC can do what they want with their money and when Paul didn't get any of that money he quit. Why should I blame anyone else? He told us he was the 'outsider' but seemed to care too much what the 'insiders' say.

Stop making assumptions - it makes us all look bad here at DU. We're here to fight the republicans - remember? But I guess it would really suck to send to DC a pro-choice, pro-envirornment, anti-war, anti-patriot act, anti-free trade pacts candidate. We can't be supporting liberals like that could we? :eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. I would love a job like that--it would beat working night shifts in an ICU

and I also gave to Paul Hackett's race for the House seat.

But I gave to Sherrod Brown's campaign for the same reason I gave to Chuck Pennacchio's race in PA and will give to Casey's campaign if he wins the primary (which he almost certainly will). I support the most progressive.

[OzarkDem]

86. Or just loyal Dems

who happen to think he's a very good Congressman with enough money and experienced to beat DeWine.

I do recall attending an anti-war rally with him, though. I don't know of too many congressmen who would be willing to stand in the cold rain for nearly an hour, on a corner with a bunch of other anti-war activists waiting for Bush's motorcade to go by.

He stood out there with everyone else, in his shirtsleeves, soaked to the skin and gave a rousing speech, and cheered everyone on.

I've never, ever seen a Congressman do that. Don't you think Bush was surprised to see a seven term congressman standing in the crowd of protestors?

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. exactly a true grassroots Democrat

who takes positions on issues based on long held convictions

[Kolesar]

74. Name calling is pretty damn tasteless...eom

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[nolabels]

35. Don't need no proof, just an opinion

He did the correct thing (for him) but YOUR reasoning sucks.
Thank goodness we don't have prove how gravity works when we take a crap either :hurts:

It's goin get worse before it gets better

[sendero]

9. Some people..

.... can watch the water drip off the roof for hours and insist it's not raining.

You have nailed down the problem and stated it well. Time and time again, we see this scenario play out, first with Dean now with Hackett. Morons say "loose cannon" and "unelectable", but the fact is the real problem is "not going along with the tried and failed paradigmns of the past".

We have a party that doesn't give a shit that they are losing, because they PERSONALLY are doing fine. They get their salaries, their perks, their lifetime pensions and health care, their prestige, everything they want - whether they accomplish jack shit or not.

Now they try to play the "pragmatic, we can't afford a bruising primary" card? What kind of fucking moron buys that bullshit? If you do, I'm telling you right here, you are an idiot.

This is about controlling the trough and nothing else. I'm sick of it.

[Savannah Progressive]

54. I have commented often on the lie of "Electable"

As we headed into the Primaries in 2004, the clear favorite of the party faithful was Howard Dean, Dr. Dean was in the cat bird seat heading toward Iowa, until we were told by the Right-wing Media that decided for us that he was "Unelectable" and determined that we should choose Senator John Kerry because he was "Electable".

We allow the Media elites, all of whom are on the payroll of the Rich and Powerful, to decide our future for us. We allow the Rich and Powerful Corporate whores to decide what candidate we should run, by declaring our choice "Unelectable" and destroying the candidates chances.

I keep waiting for the "electable" stories to start up this year, and as we head into the Presidential Elections of 2008, I know we will hear those stories daily on every channel and in every paper.

[Punkingal]

11. You are exactly right.

And we have our own Democratic sheep to fight. The ones who still think things are the way they used to be.

[mzmolly]

12. It's about MONEY vs. HUBRIS

If "we" are everywhere, then WE have no excuse for not funding Paul Hacketts campaign. He had a mere 200k in his election fund. So, I would ask if all the people bitching about this situation actually contributed something financially?

[formernaderite]

15. Hackett seemed to have thought he should run in an unapposed

primary? Money gets tight, his poll numbers slide and some DC powerhogs make it uncomfortable? So what? He could easily have contacted grass root groups to raise money. Sorry, I just have a hard time buying this pity party. The problem is, his story is that the powers in the dem party asked him to run...and now he's pissed at them. Why did he align himself with them from the beginning? Didn't he have a "passion" for the run? His opponent in the primary happens to be a good guy, with a track record beyond being a pretty face, a former soldier and a lawyer. It was never supposed to be a coronation, this is still a democracy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. what about the candidates' positions on issues?

Is this important?

Mr. Hackett's issues/position statement - link:

http://www.hackettforcongress.com/about_issues

Mr. Brown's issues/position statement - link:

http://www.sherrodbrown.com/issues

I urge everyone to compare and decide for themselves which one offers a better, more progressive and clearer vision.

[pat_k]

66. See post #60

The dynamics transcend the issues
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2463516&mesg_id=2464945

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. I'm sorry but I think issues are what REAL democracy is all about

It is issues and finding people to articulate issues that makes participatory democracy have any relevance whatsoever.

[pat_k]

96. Real democracy is about promoting REAL bottom-up decision making.

See posts #73 and #82

. . .Whether through distributed or centralized action, when the decisions start coming up from the bottom, problems are identified and solved in a radically different way. When a sufficient number of people from across the geographic, racial, and economic spectrum are engaged in the process of getting their collective needs met, they demand the changes that are meaningful to them. When diverse interests actually participate, reaching solutions may not be pretty, but the solutions that come out of the process better reflect our collective values and needs. The traditional issue advocacy work that we are familiar with in our top-down political system is no longer a principle agent of change.

[Donna Zen]

17. Exactly right:

First to this constant whine that somehow Hackett was not smart enough before entering the race to know that he'd need money: he did know that, which is why Reid and Schumer promised him the heavens before they didn't.

I would like to add something to your comparisons: people who read and those that don't.

For many who have received the full treatment, first the courting with candy and flowers followed by the lash, it less that they are hardened or braver, but rather a function that being professional politicos, they have interrupted their lives or their livelihoods. They are on the public dime and the pay checks just keep coming.

For people who chose to run from the public sector, every source of their income must be forfeited. When Wes Clark said that after he dropped out the race he had to decide whether he could pay a secretary or pay his mortgage, I once again, thanked him for the sacrifice he made. The same scenario applies to Paul Hackett. I think the decision to run in the special election was his disgust with Washington finding an outlet, but in the case of the senate race, he was absolutely courted.

Just as I cannot bring myself to ever ask Wes Clark to run again, I’m also now convinced that reaching out to great people and asking them to join a joyless process, one which sacrifices their families welfare, is asking too much.

Note: Wes Clark has repeatedly put his stars on the table to defend Democrats charged with lack of national security credentials. This morning driving to work, I wondered once again, what Democrats would ever support him against the swiftboats. Perhaps that anonymous Democratic campaign staffer who pronounced the Fighting Dems as one trick ponies.

[inchhigh]

18. Great post

[crispini]

20. You know, I agree that it's insider vs. outsider, but

if you (us, the grassroots) want to take over a system, one of the things that you have to learn is how the system is set up so that you can work its levers and change it.

It is certainly possible for someone who is not part of a local party structure to run, if he then taps into a different part of the local political energy, i.e. trial lawyers, teachers, etc. But this becomes harder and harder to do as you move up to bigger and more expensive races.

[pat_k]

67. You seem to envision a very different "take over" . .

Citizens are the "levers."

When people say it is all about money, they seem forget that money is spent to manipulate the ultimate power-brokers: We the People.

When people say lobbyists have all the influence, they seem to forget that citizens can be very capable lobbyists. A few hundred persistent citizen lobbyists can do as much or more than 10 million dollars worth of "professional" lobbyist muscle.

As increasing numbers of us turn our complaints into action and get better and better at prompting our "leaders" to LEAD, we are changing the entire nature of the game -- and the nature of the people we elect.

[ngGale]

21. K & R ... for Independent thinking!

This is a good discussion...one of many I hope we will have. Agree or disagree, it's the lack of independent thought that is driving this country. "We the people" have been left behind (sorry about the pun!);-)

[second edition]

22. This race is and the 2006 races are about winning. We need to

regain some power or we will never have a voice.After we regain some power, we can then feel more comfortable about having more open primaries. While I agree with your comments about the party being for us, it does us no good to run candidates who are placed in a position where they are to weak to win. A democratic primary would have weaken the eventual winner and left him vulnerable to defeat in the general election. The repubs are well funded and save themselves for the general elections. We are going to need all the money and energy we can muster in order to win in Ohio. As hard as it may be for you to understand, Hackett was the weaker of the two candidates- having less experience in government, running and less fund raising abilities.

[MrBenchley]

25. Unless Democrats actually ARE winning

In which case we have to jettison candidates like Hillary, Feinstein, and Lieberman (and Ike Skelton and Gene Taylor and all the other Democrats who turn up on the left wing enemies lists) to make way for obscure bobos who are refugees from the Green party.

[Armstead]

26. I agree with you partially, but disagree about this

The Democratic Party does need to open up more. It needs new blood who will talk straight, etc. etc. etc.

However, we all have to deal with reality.

Think of professional baseball. Most players have to slog it out in the minor leagues for a while before moving up into the big leagues.

No matter how promising some hotshot college pitcher is, he is not going to get yanked from his college team to pitch in the World Series immediately.

In Ohio, this wasn;t a case of some hackneyed centrist pushing out a liberal. In this case, there was a seasoned member of the House who IS A CLEAR PROGRESSIVE and is experienced with the machinery who has a shot at unseating a GOP wingnut. That to me is a positive outcome.

As impatient as we all get for change, let's remember that change is not easy. Let's not go for the instant gratification of flash and style over substance.

[mzmolly]

30. Great post.

:hi:

[Senator]

38. No, you "disagree" plenty

Please Note: I really don't mean to single you out personally, rather I think your post is emblematic of just how ingrained and intractable our "reality problem" has become.

The main point of the original post (first thing said) was that we continue (having been well-trained?) to see and discuss only through the prism of "loaded" labels that have "lost all objective meaning."

The substantive part of your "disagreement" simply repeats this behavior. You say because a "progressive" was selected the beltway barons, it's a "positive outcome."

It's the "selection" itself that is the problem. The reality.

But the rest of your post is I think illustrative of a much more pervasive and damaging situation.

However artfully worded, it is simply a euphemistic exhortation for inaction. It displays all of the other problematic characteristics identified by the original post. (Since another problem we have on our side is too much talk, I'd rather not go through it bit by bit -- unless you insist.)

It leaves the reader wondering just what part, if any, of the original post you do agree with.

---
www.january6th.org

[Armstead]

39. Here's where I agree and disagree

I hate the dominance of the Beltway Strategists, the DLC and all of the otehr barriers that have ben erected to close off politics from new ideas and fresh candidates and the truth in policies and messages. It needs a more direct pipeline between the grassroots and the halls of power.

I also think we need more people like Hackett who talk like real people, and who are not in the straightjacket of "pollspeak" and timid soundbites.

But a the same time, Politics is politics. It's not a TV show, it's not group therapy, it's not American Idol. It's not a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney movie "Hey kids, let's put on a show." That may be great for local and state politics. But high office is not the place for Amateur Hour.

Ideally, in my view, there should be a collaboration between the "professional poiliticians" and the rest of us. That means the peopel who have dedicated themselves to public service and professional politics listen and respond and work with the concerns of the grass roots. We tell them what we want done, they provide the expertise and resources to do it.

The system should also be open to those in the grassroots who want to dedicate more time by becoming candidates, like Hackett. BUT, that doesn't mean that people who enter should be exempt from the same things that peope in any field have to contend with. You don't start at the top. You work your way up. You build a track record. You learn how the process operates in the real world. etc.

It's the difference betweemn a Howard Dean -- who was an insurgent in some ways but had proven himself as Governor, or Kucinich, who also has a track record in the house and otehr positions in Ohio.

I don't know if that explains it well, but that's how I see it.

[Senator]

56. It does explain what you see -- something by and large illusory

Again, I'm sorry to single you out personally but your post is a well-articulated description of the view many (most?) people have. And sadly, that view -- the one we're "supposed to have" -- is one that serves the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy well, and the rest of us poorly.

Because what you describe simply doesn't exist. It is the "Fairy Tale" we've been told, and repeat to ourselves, to help us sleep through the night.

You decry the dominance of the beltway careerist strategists, then continue to speak (and think) in their language of "new ideas," "fresh candidates," "policies and messages," "grassroots," and "halls of power." This is the real "pollspeak." Palatable euphemisms that seem to mean something but only serve to distance both speaker and listener from the simple underlying realities.

The simplest underlying reality to keep in mind is -- they're all just people.

It's ironic that you'd mention it, but our politics are exactly like a TV Show (or a movie franchise, or a "franchised" therapy model, and frankly most other endeavors). And our "Politcs: The MiniSeries" has "jumped the shark." This is term of art applied to shows that have been on too long, run out of ideas, and gotten silly. The reality of what happens is that certain people (stars, writers, key producers - the ones who brought the success) leave or "do other things" and the others (all "qualified professionals") try to continue with a facsimile of what it was.

But the reality is:

• There's no "professional" with any "expertise and resources." They're just people -- understandingly scrambling to do the best they can with limited information from the same nearly-impotent Euphemedia we rightly dismiss.
  
  
• There's no difference between local/state and "high office" politics (as Tip O. said "it's all local"). They're just people -- understandably engaging in some self-aggrandizing hyperbole promoted by their local (DC) culture.
  
  
• There's no one that's "dedicated themselves to public service." They're just people -- understandably rationalizing what is usually a non-lucrative, all-too-often-thankless career in what once interested them or that they fell into.
  
  
• There's no qualification "process" to be "exempt" from. Just people -- who decide for their own reasons to help or be a candidate; who can hire technicians (legal and other) to provide any institutional knowledge they need. So sadly perhaps, you start where you can afford to. But money can flow very quickly to "the right people."

As to the Howard Dean campaign. You are correct that it is instructive, but incorrect as to the lessons/facts. The phenomenon of that effort had virtually nothing to do with his "status" as ex-Governor. I would refer you (and others) to Trippi's book. He makes it clear that they were "riding a tiger."

That tiger was just people -- reacting to the situation we're discussing. Acting independently to provide energy, ideas, fund-raising, boots on the ground, research, etc... from mainly-outside the party structure. It succeeded miles beyond what any "expert" could have predicted. And consequently scared the crap out of the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy (and incidently cost them tens of millions and a good chunk of their credibility to put a stop to it).

But there's no need to take my word (or the original poster's) word for this description of reality. Go talk with these "professionals" and holders of "high office" in the "halls of power." You may need to wait some time if you insist on seeing a Senator themself, but to talk to senior staff, correspond with some "expert" or "journalist," or anyone else you might consider a "professional" is really not difficult.

They're generally not scouring minions of some evil cabal (save the PNACons). They generally consider themselves to be "people persons." They quite naturally like the attention. Become a pen-pal. Take a DLCer to lunch. They'll get an ego-stroke and you'll get reality checkup.

You'll see, they're just people.

---
www.january6th.com

[Armstead]

70. But what's your point? I know they're "just people"

Let me make an analogy as to how I see it.

I'm a good driver. But I couldn't change the oil in my car to dave my life. My interests and abilities are in otehr things. So I turn to my trusty mechanic to keep my car running, because that is his job. He's focused on learning that and gaining the experience to know how to fix cars. I haven't. I know he's "just a person" too, and that he may make mistakes. And that some mechanics may try to gyp me....But basically, if I trust my mechanic, I'll take his word for things unless it seems stinky.

Everyone in politics is "just people" too, good, bad and indifferent. I have talked to a lot of people in that field, and I know how they see things. Sometimes i agree with them, sometimes not.

But the point is that they are the technicians of democracy, just like a mechanic or a doctor or any otehr professional is a technician in their field.

I'm not going to trust someone with maybe good intentions but no experience to fix my car, take out my appendix or anything else.

My point above was that as imperfect and often f'd up as many of them may be, they are experienced i9n the skills and systems that will help the majority who are focused on otehr aspects of life to get their values and desires and interests through the mechanics of the political system.

They should be questioned and challenged. But I don't think we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater in our desires for reform and a more open politial process.

[Donna Zen]

41. Ohio the liberal haven

This is Ohio we're talking about here...not a DLC bush-blank-checker running in California. Ohio.


This is really a surprise to me, although I'm not sure why. The voices that council that different states have different political climates which call for Democrats of varying political liberalism/conservatism, now want me to believe a new absolute: Ohio will elect a confirmed liberal. Okay. Forget that Ohio is cold on DeWine because he is too moderate, as in not conservative enough, for them. That would ruin this story of how bad Hackett is and how Ohio is about to enter the liberal light. True, I don't live in Ohio, although I did and my family still do.

BTW, Paul Wellstone was once a professor who stepped directly to the Senate; thank the goddess that Chuck Schumer wasn't running he show back then.

[Armstead]

42. Wellstone had a record in grassroots politics

He also was often at odds with his own party.

But there was a difference. He had been long engaged in grassroots politics before he entered the Big Ring. He also ran on a clear agenda of liberal policies.

As for Ohio, there is nothing that can be done if the voters decide that Dewine is too moderate for them. If that's the case they will be on the dark side, no matter who the democrats run.

I don't believe that's necessarily so. A liberal who can send the right ECONOMIC MESSAGE to all of the working class people who are getting screwed could stand a chance of winning. That's the challenge for all of us -- to make that connection betweemn liberal/progressive policies and the actual self interest of the majority.

[Donna Zen]

50. There is another lesson for all of us

...the people want change. Real change.

I was under the misunderstanding that Wellstone hadn't run for anything before the senate. Thank you for correcting me.

BTW, I read recently that Brown is moving toward the center, which I understand politically, but all this gushing liberal stuff is foolish.

What will drive people away is top-down heavy handedness propagated by people who have sold every progressive bone in their body.

[Totally Committed]

31. This is the post I would have written if...

I could have found a way past my own anger, which is so great at this point that I am rendered into an inarticulate banshee, with too many emotions and not enough words to express myself as elegantly as this.

When I read this part of the OP... "Most of you are probably too young to remember, but not very long ago, politics wasn't viewed as the exclusive purview of the 'professionals.' Countless communities had vital Democratic Clubs and other associations where Americans experienced 'politics' first hand. It wasn't always pretty, but people socialized, chose leaders, made decisions, and took civic action."... my heart cried "YES!" I remember those days. And, as most moments when one feels their innermost frustrations are not only understood, but shared, my mind relaxed and my thoughts were able to crystallize.

I agree with everything written. This sentence: "Ultimately, it is about figuring out how to use our power to see that our will is done." is an elegant end thought to this piece. Will we ever see the day when OUR will is done again by the people we elect to do just that? That is the question, and in a way, is the ultimate challenge posed. I think our goal may be greater than that which is stated, but baby steps are all we have at our disposal at the moment.

What the younger people on this forum need to realize is that people like me -- those who have been politically active for DECADES -- are feeling an acute sense of frustration, anger, and pain at how things seem to have turned out for this Party. To spend an entire adult lifetime on something only to have it seem worse, not better, for all the toil and effort put in makes for some very dark moments, I can tell you. Call it an excuse, call it an explanation, but see it for what it is: It is sadness and pain with which we post day after day about our disgust and frustration about a Party which has gone (I love this word) "insular". We cannot legislate our agenda until we govern, and we cannot govern if we do not win. Knowing this and watching this Party lose election after election because they have decided to ignore us rather than represent us is agony. Remember that the next time you decide to rip another DU-er a new one because they are anti-DLC or want a more progressive, stronger voice to stand up for them.

TC

[Pithy Cherub]

33. Outstanding, Outstanding, Outstanding!

Because the politicians are elected, they are their to legislate on behalf of the constituents that elected them. The elected congressinal delegations form caucuses to get legislation passed (supposedly) for the good of the country and their local jurisdictions. Currently, politicians want elections to be local but financed from various constituencies across the nation. Being elected and then placed in a leadership role has morphed into a patriarchal system where they are the final arbiters of candidate selection, recipients of corporate largess and the seekers of lobbyist largesse. Yes, it has been that way for as long as voters remain unsophisticated and stay aligned with voting for the party. A new day is dawning.

In today's political world money outranks constituent needs or requests. The infestation of money into those who fundraise the best currently equates into who would be best to be represent a constituency. That is determined by a cabal in backroom deals on the political scene. the people are now demanding a more energetic and wide ranging debate about representation. This is a power struggle and this is only the beginning of elected leaders learning to share that power. The elected leaders forgot they work for the We The People. It is time to continuously remind them and make them understand there is a price to be paid for subverting the will of the People. A new day is dawning.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. If Brown is a weak insider -- I hope we get a lot more weak insiders

like him. I'm sorry, but I still prefer liberals/progressive candidates

Brown Tops DeWine in New Poll
An Opinion Consultants poll finds Ohio voters favor Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 43% to 38%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/brown_tops_dewine_in_new_poll.html

Sherrod Brown is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is an outspoken member of the Progressive Caucus.

Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Feingold

courtesy of vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103&type=category&category=Foreign%2BAid%2Band%2BPolicy%2BIssues&go.x=12&go.y=8

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 84 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 77 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Education Association 89 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2004. .

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 94 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 In 2004 National Organization for Women endorsed Representative Brown.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

[OzarkDem]

46. Thank you Douglas

You've been doing a great job.

[Kukesa]

47. Let's go get coffee Ozark -- where in Ohio do you live? nt

[OzarkDem]

48. In Brown's District

[Kukesa]

51. Oh goody.

I have relatives in Akron and Cuyahoga Falls and we often sail on Lake Erie so Lorain would be a possibility, too.

Coffee?


(edit for spelling)

[OzarkDem]

62. No thanks

[VolcanoJen]

55. "Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy...

... or Sen. Feingold."

Let's make sure you're not in charge of the bumperstickers come November.

:-)

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. don't worry....I tailor the message for the audiance

:nopity:

[pat_k]

60. The dynamics transcend the "issues"

Positions on the issues constitute a variable that can -- and should be -- ignored as we evaluate what the fate of the Hackett campaign tells us about the forces we are up against in the fight to take back our country. (i.e., the essential dynamics -- insider v. outsider; weakness v. strength -- exemplified by Hackett's withdrawal transcend any specific issue).

We are so conditioned to think in terms of issues that asserting "issues don't matter" undoubtedly sounds like heresy. I'll try to summarize the ideas that lead to this "heresy."

Issues are the name of the game when politics is a spectator sport
A vast majority of Americans -- including many who consider themselves to be involved -- view politics as a spectator sport. Most simply don't have anyone in their social sphere who provides a model for effective citizen action. Local associations have provided such models in the past, but such groups are few and far between these days. For the most part, Americans believe that "people like me just don’t do that" or they believe that voting or volunteering for candidates is the only way they can affect policy

When your only contribution is to pick leaders off a menu, the "ingredients of the dish" are of paramount importance.

When people connect with each other, they effectively represent their common interests
The way people talk about our government exposes the degree to which it is viewed as something "cooked up" by others, rather than something of our own creation. When the public institutions that enable our demands to become reality are so dysfunctional, it can be difficult to see how our power manifests itself -- but that does not mean we do not have power.

Our power to protect our interests is rooted in our connections with each other. If you doubt this, consider the American Legion, which is not exactly an organization that one would apply the label "progressive" to. Despite the "conservative" label, members of American Legion Posts across the nation were instrumental in designing and passing the most progressive legislation we have seen in decades: the GI Bill.

By contrast, consider the AARP, which is made up of lot's of people who got together based on status (being old together). Unlike the American Legion, members of AARP do not meet and connect with each other in local associations. It is basically a top down "strategic" organization in which the members are largely viewed as game pieces. Because member participation is limited, the AARP does things like support Bush's prescription drug horror.

The rewards of changing the "rules of the game" can be far greater than enacting a specific change
Regardless of the participants (elected officials, candidates, analysts, neighbors) most conversations about politics reflect the assumption that citizen participation is limited to electoral politics -- i.e., candidates market themselves and their solutions and we "buy" (help elect) the package we like best. In other words, we are seen consumers of a product we don't help to create.

In a democracy, it almost goes without saying that the chances of making progress toward “a more perfect union” increase with the number and diversity of the people engaged in the process. In other words, the quality of the "products" (solutions to our common problems) are directly related to the number of people involved in thier creation.

As increasing numbers of people transform their relationship to power and expand their participation beyond electoral politics, they create conditions that allow us to do a better job of shaping a responsive government that serves our common interests.

A leader who inspires people to stand up fight for their interests is a more powerful agent of change than a leader who is focused on enacting specific programs or policies. (akin to teaching someone to fish v. giving them a fish)

Attributes that inspire citizens to connect and participate are more important than positions on issues
I knew Howard Dean was "my guy" when, in answer to the standard "How will you get your <whatever> proposal enacted?" he said something like "If I'm elected, it will be because Americans stood up and proved they have the power to take back the country. It will be their efforts that make <whatever> happen"

It was the first time in years I heard a politician assert something that reflected a deeply-held belief that this game is really about us, not them. It was my first indication that when he said "You Have the Power," it was not empty rhetoric. He believed it. Nothing I have heard from him since has contradicted that. His belief in people-power inspired people to believe in themselves and to discover their power through action.

Although it may be impossible to identify the attributes that enable some leaders to wake people up to their own power, we can be sure of one thing: when such leaders emerge and gain support, they will face intense opposition from the beltway "insiders."

[LWolf]

69. You've labeled me pretty clearly here.

I can't say that I truly understand what you are saying, but my interpretation leaves me cold.

I'm one who cares more about issues than personalities or parties. That leaves me well-labeled as the "outsider," and politics has generally been a spectator sport. I was an independent for most of my life; I became a democrat in 2003 to participate in the primary, and help choose someone to oust GWB. After 2 years of meetings, actions, and financial support, I was left in the same position that I started in: the outsider, a spectator watching events that turned my stomach. While I still carry the "D," I haven't experienced any joy in it.

I haven't changed. I still care more about issues than personalities or parties, and, frankly, I don't find any politicians or candidates "charismatic." When they verbalize one of my deeply-held beliefs, which happens all too rarely, I'm glad. If they verbalized it after their opportunity to actually take action has safely passed, I feel a deep disgust. I don't relate to the Dean, Clark, Kerry, Clinton, Hackett, etc. fans; it feels like a jr. high school cheerleading squad, with the geeks able to think outside the box still left unappreciated.

I guess, according to your scenario, I lack "connections." That's probably true. It's no mystery why my screen name is "L(one)Wolf." I don't see anything that really offers a place for me, or for those like me, however. When a "leader" speaks out on an issue, AND BACKS IT UP WITH TIMELY ACTION, I'd like to see some organized support. They are the true leaders, whether they've been anointed by TPTB or not. Most often, I see people who give a quick verbal approval, and then move the conversation on to the more "important," "real" leaders.

What am I missing in what you are trying to communicate here?

[pat_k]

73. May be a disconnect in how I am using terms

We may be using the terms "insider" and "outsider" a bit differently. I tried to clarify my use of the terms in this post

It sounds like your experiences during the campaign -- attending meetings, taking action, and contributing hard earned dollars -- didn't meet your need to be effective.

Watching them steal another Presidential election was almost unbearable. But that horror cannot erase what people like you did during the campaign. Our actions can have more ripple effects than we will ever know.

With regard to "issues", the central question for me is "Who defines the problems? Who defines the solutions?"

The assumption underlying political discourse today is that that our "leaders" do all the defining and we judge and reject or accept what they come up with. (e.g., all the blather about the Democrats not having an agenda to "sell" people assumes one way communication, from them to us.)

In a top down political world, public servants are NOT serving the public; they are seeking to manipulate the public.

Political processes serve us better when ordinary citizens take a significant role. In the 1940's, it was not a candidate or a party that first put the spotlight on the need for something like the GI Bill. Veterans of WWII did that. The problem and its solution were defined from the bottom up.

The vast majority of the nation is in complete agreement on countless "issues." Divisions by label and party affiliation are undermining our ability to make progress on the things Americans care most about. When the system is so broken that the clear will of the electorate is consistently thwarted, I think we need to take a step back from issue advocacy and ask ourselves "What is wrong with this picture?"

When I step back and ask that question, I see forces at work that have very little to do with the positions candidates take on the issues.

For me, Taking Back Our Country means establishing institutions and processes that promote REAL bottom-up decision-making.

The horrors of this administration are motivating ordinary citizens to stand up and act. We are in crisis, and people are responding and effectively organizing themselves. People are exerting influence that is a threat to the "top down" system.

The rising tide of citizen action gives me more hope for the future than any elected official or candidate could give me.

Perhaps I am not as disillusioned with elected officials and candidates because I don't see them helping us increase our power and influence with them. For that, I look to my fellow citizens.

As we connect with each other to lobby for Impeachment or to support candidates who believe in "people power," I hope we can use our efforts to create more powerful associations that endure beyond any specific campaign.

Not sure if any of this helps to clarify my earlier posts for you. In any case, Goodnight, and Good luck!

[LWolf]

76. This part is really clear:

With regard to "issues", the central question for me is "Who defines the problems? Who defines the solutions?"

The assumption underlying political discourse today is that that our "leaders" do all the defining and we judge and reject or accept what they come up with. (e.g., all the blather about the Democrats not having an agenda to "sell" people assumes one way communication, from them to us.)

In a top down political world, public servants are NOT serving the public; they are seeking to manipulate the public.

Political processes serve us better when ordinary citizens take a significant role. In the 1940's, it was not a candidate or a party that first put the spotlight on the need for something like the GI Bill. Veterans of WWII did that. The problem and its solution were defined from the bottom up.


I can clearly state that I am SICK of supposed "leaders" defining the problems and the solutions, and that I want the top to facilitate the decisions made at the bottom, not the other way around. I've felt this quite keenly in my profession over the years. As an educator, I feel like the time I spend with my students leaves me in a better position to make decisions about curriculum, budget, and structure than an administrator or a politician, especially if they've never been in a classroom, rarely been there, or it's been decades since they've been there. I want to tell them what I need to help my students create success, and I want them to go out and get the job of providing it done.

I want the same thing with my political "leaders." I want to be one of the "people" who define the issue and the action, and I want them to carry out the action we decide on. I'm not looking for a hero or a savior to ride in on a white horse and "save" us. I'm looking for someone who can listen to the people that he/she serves and provide the service they are paid for.

[pat_k]

82. The best leaders are saved by us -- not the other way around. . .

I'm not looking for a political hero or savior either. I didn't intend to convey the impression that I regarded Dean or Hackett as saviors, but when I described "outsider" leaders as people who inspire citizen action, I undoubtedly gave that impression.

Describing "bottom up" endeavors in "top down" terms is a common error that can be tough to avoid.

Transformation begins invisibility -- across fences, around tables, in small pockets of activity. As people organize and act they discover new skills in themselves and others. Because people have a basic need to be effective, they gravitate to the players and activities that are successfully accomplishing concrete goals. Leaders emerge from the bottom or are attracted from the outside.

Once transformative action is underway, the feedback loop between leaders and rank and file actors creates a chicken egg problem. For those describing the phenomenon, it can appear that the leader is attracting more and more people, and inspiring more and more action, but in fact, people are being attracted by the energy and activity happening on the ground.

For observers of the phenomenon, it is almost impossible to get a handle on the multitude of actions taken by countless people. The most salient aspects are the actions of leaders, and so, the leaders tend to be viewed as the drivers.

If the leader starts to believe the hype -- that they are personally responsible for bringing about the collective actions of the rank file -- it is usually the beginning of the end.

The examples are few and far between, but "outsider" leaders know who's in charge and out of that knowledge, they actively seek ways to promote decision-making from the bottom up.

It may not have started out that way, but at some point, the Dean for America campaign became a "bottom up" phenomenon. A vast majority of those who supported his campaign were "conventional" supporters, but a significant number organized in Meetups and online to create pockets of effective action. When one group hit on a particularly effective thing, it was picked up by others. Along the way, ordinary people accomplished big things and more pockets of activity came together. However they may have rationalized their reasons for supporting the campaign, many were attracted simply because it feels good to be associated with a center of energetic activity.

Dean didn't create the "magic" -- it came from the bottom up. As Trippi described it, Dean was just riding the tiger. Unfortunately, we live in a world of top-down assumptions and many of his supporters viewed Dean as the creator of the "magic." The supporters who saw more in Dean (and in Trippi) than was actually there could certainly strike observers as being "over the top."

What is upsetting to "insiders" in a top down system are organized efforts by the subjects of their control (the "outsiders") to set the agenda by invading the halls of power or bypassing them. Even if the "insiders" recognize the need for "outsider" input, the status quo tends to be self-sustaining.

Bottom up action can be distributed (many loosely connected pockets of action) or centralized (leader or organization). When it is distributed, the "insiders" can't do much about it, but when they have a center to go after, they do (e.g., demonizing MoveOn; demonizing Dean).

Fortunately for us all, when tranformation is being driven from the bottom up, taking out a particular leader can't stop "the rabble."

The Hackett campaign was perceived as a threat because it was attracting a significant number of people who are committed to making "people-power" an effective force in shaping our government. The insider forces that targeted him may not have a clue what motivated them. Whatever their rationalization for acting, I have no doubt that those rationalizations have little to do with the basic forces that actually motivated them.

There are reasons "outsider" leaders are so few and far between. When such leaders emerge, insider attack can take them out. If they survive insider attack, some fall victim to their own success, and turn into top down leaders. Fortunately, since the leaders are not the real driving force, the shortage of outsider leaders is not fatal.

A final note on "issues": Whether through distributed or centralized action, when the decisions start coming up from the bottom, problems are identified and solved in a radically different way. When a sufficient number of people from across the geographic, racial, and economic spectrum are engaged in the process of getting their collective needs met, they demand the changes that are meaningful to them. When diverse interests actually participate, reaching solutions may not be pretty, but the solutions that come out of the process better reflect our collective values and needs. The traditional issue advocacy work that we are familiar with in our top-down political system is no longer a principle agent of change.

Perhaps I'm a cockeyed optimist, but I firmly believe that, as we fight to purge the Bush Syndicate and their follow racketeers from our government, we are creating "bottom up" channels that will not be closed when the fight is done.

We are forward looking creatures. We are not so hot at seeing how far we have come, but not long ago, at least half this nation felt completely silenced by a world gone mad. It seemed that no one was giving voice to our frustration. If you had plucked me up during the Sunday shows in February of 2002 and plopped me down today, I would be thrilled with the transformation in the dialog.

[OzarkDem]

92. Problem is none of these apply to the Brown Hackett race

It wasn't a "top-down" decision. Hackett was in way over his head and couldn't raise enough money in an incredibly expensive race. He chose to drop out because he knew he couldn't win bit felt the need to save face by blaming it on others.

Bad form.

No one likes top-down management in the Dem party, but that wasn't the case in this situation.

[pat_k]

94. However it is rationalized, when Brown changed his mind

. . . and announced his entrance into the race, he was motivated by self-protective insider forces (assumptions and rationalization that protect the top-down status quo).

[OzarkDem]

98. Brown rescued the race

and we should be grateful to him for doing so.

[pat_k]

99. Perfect example of the rationalizations and assumptions that protect . .

. . .the top down status quo.

Hackett's candidacy, win or lose, was a watershed.

From my original post

. . .
They are very different men, but like Dean, Hackett embodies strength. He doesn't muddle up simple truths with exceptions and caveats. He sticks to his guns.

Hackett's race for the Senate would have given the entire party a boost because he gives us a voice that's strong enough to channel our anger.

The BIGGEST problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak and unprincipled. . .

Chris Matthews can be an idiot, but even he pointed out the obvious in his interview with Hackett tonight, i.e., Hackett's race would have gotten a national spotlight.

Hackett expresses the anger that people across the nation feel. There are no other candidates in the national spotlight who do so. With a national audience, his strong statements would have been identified with the Democratic "brand" and would have given the entire party a boost in the strength department.

Whatever your personal reaction to Paul Hackett, his candidacy is just what the Democratic Party needed to challenge the weak image currently associated with Democrats. The weak image is a far bigger problem than any position on any issue or any particular race.

The image of weakness itself has its roots in insider rationalization and assumptions (if we stand up, there will be backlash; we need to keep our powder dry, . . .). The opposing forces of insider v. outsider and weakness v. strength operate in tandem.

[pat_k]

97. No, actually. . .

. . . Hackett's fundraising was right on target by any standard. Insider forces (assumptions and rationalization that support top-down status quo) motivated Brown to change his mind and enter the race. It is those forces that I'm talking about. I am not talking about this particular candidacy or the rationalization invoked in this case.

[autorank]

36. Our "Bosses" need a Pink Slip ... and in a hurry.

They never win, and often they don't even fight.

They're maladroit and tactless.

Dems to bosses: "You're fired."

[eridani]

68. She got elected again, didn't she?

If you get marginalized, you can build your own sources of support. McKinney did, as did Wellstone and Sanders.

[Lone_Wolf]

40. Okay then... why is a progressive like Cynthia McKinney marganilized

by the Democratic Party? To be fair, we is she marginalized by the party's leaders?

Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi recognize McKinney's prior seniority?

http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1265/index.php

http://64.239.13.64/free/ww3/121604_rice_mckinney.shtml

[MrBenchley]

49. Because she's a fucking loon who flirts with antiSemitism

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[bpilgrim]

100. look who's talk'n

peace

[Generator]

53. Excellent, excellent post

Woah. One thing I said I wouldn't do is fight with the pro-DLC or pro-Hillary crowd on DU. I don't know what these people believe, honestly, or who they are. No matter what you say-no matter what happens-how many times the same old thinking, the same old candidates continue to lose-they just say more please! and we will win the next one-this fight isn't the big one. As I said on another thread-I don't care so much about whatever Democratic group (DLC etc.)whomever belongs to-I care about what they DO-how they vote in congress, what they say that needs to be said. Anybody with a brain has got to realize even if they have a D behind their name-if they don't vote with the other Democrats that are trying to do good work-if they do nothing with their words but enable the Republicans day after day then they are useless.

At this point-even the talk about winning back congress may not be enough. I've seen the Dems we have with the Alito vote. That was the test of their lifetimes if anything was. So the Dems we have with a few more Dems of the old school-the get along to get along to get along with eyes wide shut crowd so we get a MAJORITY in the Senate what are the Dems going to do? Are they really hold Bush and the rest accountable? Or are they really Democrats? Being a Democrat isn't a title it's actually what you DO. How hard is that to figure out? If they don't support me, I don't support them. And the crap that's been spewed about Hackett is disgusting. He didn't quit-he was forced out by in the words of Dean, "skullduggery". I trust Dean. I don't agree with everything Hackett said, Dean said, Kerry said. But what I want is those I trust. That is the whole world right now. Because if all we are going to do is lose, at least we need some integrity, some reason to care about voting for someone. And that's what Hackett had.

[Neil Lisst]

57. I feel bad for Hackett, but this happens every election cycle

Every two years, some political rookies get out there and plow the early fields of opposition to challenge some Republican at some level. Elected Dems have passed on running for the office, but THEN they see that the Pub is vulnerable, and they step on the guy or gal who plowed that field.

It's not a very pretty scene, but it repeats itself like the tides are drawn by the moon.

What DO you do?

I think the Chairman of the Board said it best ...

I
pick myself UP
and get
BACK IN THE RACEEEEEEE
that's life ....

Hackett needs to decide what he wants, and if it's to run for congress, go to the peeps whom he promised and get them to release him from that promise. See that those people get help going another direction.

[Buck Rabbit]

61. So the Chairman of the DNC is an outsider.

This party is in deep ca ca when its own chairman is an outsider. But you probably are talking about the 2004 election.

Dean was a victim of ABB. (Anybody But Bush). The theory was put forth to go with the safest candidate and it would be a walk over because Bush was a drooling stooge.

Pick the tall white guy.
The one who is measured in his speech and is less likely to say something to feed the spin machine.
A war hero vet to run against the chicken hawk.
A seasoned debater who always stays in emotional control

Kerry was the safe bet. It seemed all we needed to do was not make any mistakes, thus the fear of Dean.

Kerry was not my choice and I did a protest vote for Dennis in our meaningless late primary. But even I had to admit the strategy looked unbeatable on paper. Enter evil genius Karl Rove and we all know what happened after that.

My rambling point is it wasn't Dean's outsider status that did him in. Both Clinton and Carter were as much outsiders as Dean and it didn't stop them. It was the desire to beat Bush at all costs using the candidate we thought had the best chance to win even if it was a nose-pinching vote.

If Hackett had been leading in the polls and out collecting Brown, Schumer and Reid would have been laying palms in front of his feet and telling Brown to drop dead. They are both ideologically closer to Hackett. It wasn't about insider/outsider it was about paving the way for the assumed winner. They also wanted a twofer in the House race. Winning as many races as possible is their goal, mine too. Paul got trampled in our desire to win.

[pat_k]

72. Outsider is not defined by location or job title, it is defined by ones

. . .view of who runs the show.

The modern American political system is almost exclusively a top down system. The people operating within that system -- the insiders -- have internalized assumptions that sustain it.

Outsiders are members of the "bottom" who seek to participate in the decisions made at the top. Outsiders are inherently advocates of bottom-up decision-making.

Both insiders and outsiders can see that the "top-down" system is a failed system that can't even accomplish goals that more than 75% of us passionately believe we must to commit our resources to.

The well-meaning at the top blame the bottom for being unresponsive to their manipulations, while those at the bottom complain about the blindness and failures of those at the top. (and racketeers steal whatever the system allows them to.)

With every new failure, more of the folks at the bottom (that would be us) are coming to the conclusion that we have to stop complaining about "their" failures, and DO something! Anything!

As they have throughout history, individuals and groups are figuring out effective ways to effect change from the bottom up.

----------------------------------------------------------
A person's place on the insider - outsider continuum is not tied to location or job title.

If an "outsider" organization or leader shuts down "bottom-up" dynamics in favor of more familiar top-down decision-making, they cease being "outsiders."

Conversely, if an "insider" organization or leader challenges the status quo and promotes bottom up decision making, they cease being "insiders."

----------------------------------------------------------
Is Dean an Insider or Outsider?

At the outset of his campaign, I have no idea whether Dean "got" the fact that We the People ultimately run the show. My guess is that he held conventional "insider" views.

For reasons that we many never understand, a significant number of his supporters stepped out of their traditional roles and became "movers and shakers." Whether or not he believed in people-power at the start, be became a believer when he witnessed it in action. It is probably impossible to determine what started it, but forces came together to in the campaign to create a virtuous cycle of action => results => increased support => confidence=> action=>

It is not surprising that public discussion and analysis of the Dean campaign typically centers on the way the campaign revolutionized fundraising through its use of the Internet. The Dean campaign did prove that large sums of money can be raised in small contributions from a large base. And this lesson alone has the potential to shift power from the few to the many.

However, one other powerful aspect of the campaign, its use of Meetups to engage supporters, is often ignored.

The Meetups served as the basic organizational unit for the campaign in many states. It is through the Meetups that many supporters of the campaign became members and participants. Over and over again, we hear from people that it was the connections made at the Meetups, and the sense of effectiveness generated through planning and executing local activities, that hooked them.

It was the threat of bottom-up action that set off alarm bells inside the beltway. Insiders poured BIG money into turning voters away from Dean. The circular and counter-productive "electability" BS did not arise spontaneously. It was carefully cultivated -- and was a critical component of the ABD (Anybody But Dean) campaign spearheaded by the DLC.

What better way to derail an extremely popular candidate than to convince people that, instead of voting for the candidate they want to vote for, they should vote for someone they think someone else will vote for?

When voters try to read each others minds, instead of voting for the candidate they judge will do the best job, it is a sure bet that they'll elect a nominee that few voters actually wanted (and therefore, is in fact the most UNelectable).

[Usrename]

64. You are looking at the situation correctly.

The nation will split over this issue of Empire. It is not a partisan struggle. Many Democratic leaders believe in this regime's criminal pursuit of power and wealth. I would sooner give my vote to someone who respects and has faith in the Constitution and the law, rather than someone with a particular party affiliation. Some leaders of our party SUPPORT the policies of this criminal cabal and will support it even if they do take back some seats in Congress.

[pat_k]

65. I'm delighted with the great response to this. . .

. . . Thanks!

I just posted a response that may help clarify my assertions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2463516&mesg_id=2464945

I'm looking forward to responding to more of your posts later tonight.

[Greyhound]

71. The ONE AREA OF AGREEMENT that both the

Democratic and Republican Parties have is that Nobody else can play! So every time you see a populist figure appear on the horizon with a message of reform you can see bipartisanism at it's best. Kill the messenger and distort her/his message to justify it.
:puke:

[Kolesar]

75. Hackett's BIGGEST backer, Representative Tim Ryan, told him to pull out

Tim Ryan even took him around the Mahoning Valley a few weeks before to "meet the family" (figuratively) and see his fundraising prospects.

Paul Hackett's campaign was struggling with message, research and fundraising. He pulled out because he could not win.

I suppose you could have flown to Cincy and organized for him, or sold your audio/video collection to donate $2000 to his campaign, but that was a lost opportunity and it is over now.

[LynneSin]

79. Hackett gave us a voice? You're kidding me, right?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Hackett's voice to me is basically "You don't get what you want you quit". That's not the voice I want representing me (well not that he could for any of us because probably the bulk of posting there are NOT from Ohio)

He quit that race because the DSCC, which has every right to support the candidate that comes out more viable, went with the other candidate. Does that idiot (and I mean that) think he's the only 'outsider' candidate out there fighting to win?

Do yourself a favor, get over the Hackett thing because it was never ever about us but about him getting support he wanted from the insiders and quitting when he didn't get what he wanted. If you want to support real candidates who have the balls to stay with the fight even if they don't get the insider support then consider Chuck Pennacchio or that guy out of Montana (who yes, his name escapes me). They're fighting the battle. To me, quitters never win. He made his own decision to quit that race - not the DLC (although no one involved Reid/Schumer/Brown are DLC), not the DSCC, not the DNC - PAUL QUIT.

[pat_k]

93. No. Not kidding. . .

From my original post

. . .
They are very different men, but like Dean, Hackett embodies strength. He doesn't muddle up simple truths with exceptions and caveats. He sticks to his guns.

Hackett's race for the Senate would have given the entire party a boost because he gives us a voice that's strong enough to channel our anger.

The BIGGEST problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak and unprincipled. . .

Chris Matthews can be an idiot, but even he pointed out the obvious in his interview with Hackett tonight, i.e., Hackett's race would have gotten a national spotlight.

Hackett expresses the anger that people across the nation feel. There are no other candidates in the national spotlight who do so. With a national audience, his strong statements would have been identified with the Democratic "brand" and would have given the entire party a boost in the strength department.

Whatever your personal reaction to Paul Hackett, his candidacy is just what the Democratic Party needed to challenge the weak image currently associated with Democrats. The weak image is a far bigger problem than any position on any issue or any particular race.

My original post said nothing about Brown. Insider forces did not step in and make a choice between two candidates vying for the nomination. Insider forces derailed Hackett the moment Brown changed his mind and entered the race.

But, I am not talking about one race or one event. I am talking about forces we need to understand and contend with as we seek to take back this country and create infrastructure that promotes bottom-up decision making. Hackett's fate provides an example of these forces at work, but it is the forces (insider v. outsider; weakness v. strength), not the specifics of this example, that are at issue.

[bpilgrim]

101. looks like the insiders have a communication problem

not used to talking to a motivated electorate, my times are a change'n

peace

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. So tell me,

Am I one of "you" or one of "them"? How could I tell?

It is striking that those eager to divide the world up into two discrete camps with no middle ground always assume that their audience will all be in the same one they are.

[pat_k]

89. If you believe our political system would benefit from more bottom-up. . .

. . .decision making and are committed to making "people-power" a stronger political force, then you're in the "outsider" camp.

If you are protective of the top-down status quo, you're in the "insider" camp.

For the most part, I believe the DU audience falls into the "outsider" camp, and so I use the terms "we" or "us."

Perhaps posts #34, #69, #76 will clarify my use of terms.

Sure, people can fall somewhere on an insider/outsider continuum -- Dean retains "outsider" attitudes, but sometimes falls into "insider" protective action.

Categorizing is inherent to human thought. Grouping actions into types and grouping people based on the types of actions that predominate in their behavior organizes thinking as we develop concepts about social or political interactions. It usually goes without saying that the categories we create as we organize thinking are rarely exclusive, but it is also true that interactions are often motivated by opposing forces -- e.g., impulse to protect status quo v. impulse to shake things up.

[FreedomAngel82]

90. So why didn't he fight them?

Why did HE back down? Why did he take his ball and go home and whine? This is the second test he's failed. Sorry but he's not a fighter.

[pat_k]

95. As I noted in post #93

...I am not talking about one race or one event. I am talking about forces we need to understand and contend with as we seek to take back this country and create infrastructure that promotes bottom-up decision making. Hackett's fate provides an example of these forces at work, but it is the forces (insider v. outsider; weakness v. strength), not the specifics of this example, that are at issue.

[PassingFair]

102. K & R

Well said.

If the democratic party does not promote populist candidates, the
'pukes will produce some of their own.

We are playing a LOSING GAME.

And I, like Paul Hackett, am FED UP with selling
our lives and livelihoods to the highest bidders.

Enough!

[CarlSheeler4U]

103. When you're on the money, you're on the money. Run Forrest run

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/19/1730/42036

Carl
Sheeler for US Senate
www.carlsheeler.com

Be a patriot and pass the bulletin board link to every person you know and every blog you can and ask the same from them, too.