Which "Dem" strategists do we need to remove before 08?

[Protagoras]

Given the stupefyingly terrible advice that our major candidates received in 00 and 04 (not even mentioning the midterms) I think it behooves us to look at who's giving this advice (give up, don't fight, don't respond to swiftboaters, pander to the middle-right, sound like a republican).

Frankly I think most of our candidates are far too maleable but we aren't going to change that. There is a machine that one appears to need to climb into in order to gain the nomination and receive funding. This machine is a reality that I intensely dislike but grudgingly accept at least in the short term. Acceptance of the machine as a whole though doesn't mean I am willing to overlook obviously broken parts. And it's those I want to identify and focus on.

The elections themselves are coming down the road. We can only do so much to change them now. But it's not too early to begin working on those broken cogs.

So I'm asking for some help kick starting the process. Who do you find to be the most broken of cogs within our party machine? And what do you think is the most effective means of replacing or adjusting them?

I think if you Drove the Dukakis Bus off the cliff, if you followed it up by advising Gore to avoid a "constitutional crisis" after the theft of 00, and then told Kerry to ignore the Swift Boaters...its time for YOU to go...go back to advising those running for dog catchers.

But strangly my impression is WINNING isn't an actual criteria for keeping a job as a top Political strategist.

And lets not let them deceive us either. Many of them will come out and talk tough as nails when it's safe (I have a poodle in my neighborhood who acts similarly when they are behind a fence and you are a few yards past their yard). I don't buy into the effectiveness or the benefit of using Maccaullif, Schrum, or Brazille. But these are just the most visible. In the end I think if these "advisors" are in bed with the Corporations rather than the people...If most of their interviews are being given to FAUX instead of the Nation...then we're probably looking at someone who's as soulless and probably as useless as Dick Morris.

It's time to look at who is standing BEHIND THE CURTAIN...pull it back and make sure we want THEM to be doing that job. Otherwise we'll be looking at another election where our candidates do bizarre things like select Lieberman as their Running-Mate...soften or hide from their positions on most liberal issues, rely on excessive nuance and poli-speak rather than talking to people, and lay down like cowards when attacked.

So who would you keep? Who do we need to remove? I think it's time to clean some house and bring in some fresh, energetic, liberal blood to distinguish ourselves. Win or lose swinging instead of going down with our hands tied behind our back.

I want a WIN. So I want WINNERS running the show!

[William769]

1. Are you up to the task?

I am sure they would appreciate your insightful help.

[Protagoras]

4. I'm probably too idealistic still.

But I am moving toward running for a local office (just trying to adjust work to permit it) because I think that helps too. I volunteer and contribute and blog and write letters to my rep and LTTE, but I'm self aware enough to know that I'm not qualified at a big level (yet). But I'm not qualified to be a mercedes mechanic either, that doesn't stop me from figuring out after a few bad services that I need to find a better one. I think we can do this as Political Consumers who have had too many bad services for several years now.

Without turning this into a love-fest, I do think there are several great bloggers out there who would be great young-blood in the movement...and most of them have enough name recognition (and even appearances on TV etc) that they might be able to play a great role in a future national effort.

But that's all an aside from the more immediate need to identify and work toward changing the current crop at the top.

[EFerrari]

11. Or, you reconfigure "the top". Without the consent of

your community, D.C. isn't possible. :)

[Asgaya Dihi]

2. I'd tend to agree

I'm not going to get into what the Republicans of today turned out to be, more what the public impression of them was as they climbed into power. As a lot of people here have pointed out much of the public really didn't agree with some of their policies even before they abandoned their principles, so why did they get elected in the first place?

My impression was it was simply because people thought they stood for something. They turned out to be wrong, but that's what got them in. Personally if I thought someone actually had an open mind and the conviction to do what was right I'd vote for them over someone who blew with the wind, you can at least present facts to the first and try to change their mind but the second is just watching the polls.

I think we're too caught up in trying to triangulate everything, and when we try to make everyone happy what happens is we end up making nobody happy. Find a worthy cause and stand for it, even if it isn't popular at first. If you're right then educate the people, maybe you can make a real change and leave a legacy for history instead of just cause a blip in a poll. We aren't going to get anywhere by trying to be almost as Republican as a Republican. They already have that choice, if that's what they want they'll vote for it.

[ginnyinWI]

3. a related article today at Huffpo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/2008-only-a-loser-can-wi_b_19839.html

It's about how consultants steered both Gore and Kerry wrong, weakening their images and campaigns, and how Dem strategists need to get a clue and stop trying to re-run a Clinton-style campaign, something that is wrong and outdated for today's world. And it's about how both Gore and Kerry are the only two who have learned this lesson from going through it personally, and would not fall into this trap again.

[Protagoras]

6. Great link

a lot to digest but I think it's spot on.

One thing about all the "strategists" out there...I think we need True Believers...people who are actually passionate about the process and the candidate. We don't need neutral, profesisonal PR grunts who are probably firmly entrenched in old models. We don't need people who know from day one that they're going to make more money After a Losing campaign speaking on FAUX NEWS than they could ever expect if they Won or if they took a position in the new admin...we want people who want to win because it's right to win and because they believe in the cause more than they believe in their own personal fame or pocket book.

[EFerrari]

5. What about start with the ones that went on talk shows the weekend

after the 2004 election and sat there AND AGREED WITH REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS instead of questioning the obvious thefts in Ohio and Florida?

They agreed that the Republicans gained in the Latino vote -- not true.

They agreed that kids didn't come out for Kerry -- not true.

They agreed that they lost the "values votes" -- a category so broad as to be completely worthless and one that breaks down when you actually try to find that constituency.

I respectfully suggest starting with those people. Because they are probably the same people who told Kerry not to fight for the election he won because he would look like a sore loser.

[90-percent]

7. what to do?

The current crew are well paid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their track record is quite clear on this.

All we need now are fighters that know how to use THE TRUTH!

There is enough of THE TRUTH out there to imprison most Republicans.

Beating them with THE TRUTH in mere Elections should be much easier, even with fixed electronic voting.

-85% Jimmy

[EFerrari]

8. We challenge Federal elections because we have no basis

for believing the results reflect the will of the electorate.

That would be a start. :)

[SoFlaJet]

9. Rahm Emanuel

who has gone on record last week in his support for GOP-Lite candidate Clinton

[EFerrari]

10. Donna Brazile -- a good friend of Karl's. n/t

[spag68]

13. Clinton

I presume you mean Sen. Clinton. Are you a rethug. plant? If not get off the Senaters case as she is raising and giving out money to many other dems. and is a success here in N.Y.

[JNelson6563]

20. I beg to differ

Sen. Clinton is invading states with some hard races and sucking as much cash out as she can. I got a call from a highly placed person and they are trying to organize a bus-load of women to drive to somewhere in MI to meet with Clinton. $100 for the bus ride and more for the event. All to help with Clinton's re-election. Nevermind that we have a Dem Gov. up against a billionaire and a Senator we need to keep.

Typical Hillary.

Julie

[SoFlaJet]

26. I have thousands

of posts here and was here way before you ever were-you have 330... how dare you man-insulting me like that.I have a right to my feelings and even though I like Hillary I don't like how she tries to play it both ways politically speaking...

[etherealtruth]

16. Ah because you can't be "good"

...unless you support ....which candidates????

[spag68]

18. candidates

suport any dem.candidate you want. Just don't run down those you don't.

[etherealtruth]

21. Circular firing squads. nt.

[Squeech]

12. I couldn't agree more

There was a story in blogtopia (y!sctp!) about the DCCC forcing Feingold to accept one of their plugged-in but useless consultants or they weren't going to give him any money. This after Feingold had already won several elections with his own local media people, in a state that leans red. They wouldn't accept Feingold's contention that he and his team obviously had a better understanding of the politics of his constituency, evidenced by the fact that he won.

But I can't find the story right now, and I'm probably mis-remembering the details.

Anyway, stories like that are too commonplace. Feingold also thinks that the reason so few Democrats supported his censure resolution was, all their terminally risk-averse consultants told them not to.

[spag68]

14. Consultants

Maybe it would be a good idea to go back to some of Bills advisor's

[Protagoras]

15. Some of those early people have since sold their souls

but the early James Carvelle and Paul Begala were a tour de force. I used to love Dee Dee Myers but it seems like she's kinda imploded (love her work on TWW though) and Stephanopolous sold his soul for David Brinkley's chair.

His first term cabinet from Wiki was:

Cabinet - 1st Term
Al Gore, Vice-President, 1993
Warren Christopher, Secretary of State, 1993
Lloyd Bentsen, Treasury Secretary, 1993
Robert Rubin, Treasury Secretary, 1995
Janet Reno, Attorney General, 1993
Les Aspin, Secretary of Defense, 1993
William Perry, Secretary of Defense, 1994
Bruce Babbitt, Interior Secretary, 1993
Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture, 1993
Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, 1995
Ron Brown, Commerce Secretary, 1993
Mickey Kantor, Commerce Secretary, 1996
Robert Reich, Labor Secretary, 1993
Donna Shalala, Secretary of HHS, 1993
Henry Cisneros, Secretary of HUD, 1993
Frederico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, 1993
Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, 1993
Richard Riley, Education Secretary, 1993
Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 1993

and his campaign advisors were
James Carville
George Stephanopolous
Paul Begala
David Wilhelm

Robet Reich might be one of my picks for helping a future campaign, not sure that I see any others atm. I keep thinking Paul Begala might have a grain of integrity left...just not entirely sure after the death cycle of Crossfire.

[spag68]

17. Campaign picks

Reich was and is one of the smartest people I have seen in public life, and will not be bullied on the talk shows. Babbitt and his whole family have always been forceful ecologists. Carville is my favorite, but I worry about his wife.

[Squeech]

22. Reich isn't my favorite

He subsequently ran for governor of Massachusetts, and got his ass handed to him-- and this state is a policy wonk's paradise. He couldn't connect with voters.

I do like him as a policy wonk, but I wouldn't hire him to work on a campaign. They're different jobs requiring different skills.

But yeah, we certainly do need more Democratic spokespeople who can stand up for themselves and their party in media debates-- unlike Joementum, or Klein, or Stephanopolis, or Colmes, or...

[Protagoras]

23. This is one place where I think a personal inability

may not conflict with campaign skills. Reich isn't charismatic enough to win his own office. But he isn't a sellout and he is smart enough to help a charismatic person win. He isn't the ideal frontman but he can be a darn good voice from the shadows. That's why he'd be an advisor and not a candidate.

[BooScout]

19. I know one they don't need to lose....(James Carville)

....and I'm sure that more than a few here will disagree with me.....but that one is James Carville. If Kerry had brought him on earlier then he may well have not lost. Kerry wanted to go after the Swift Boaters and was 'advised' not to by his consultants. I remember screaming at him when I would see him on TV and telling him to respond, as did Carville on CNN. It was not until Kerry brought Carville on, very late in the game that the campaign did start to fight back. By then it was too late the damage had been done. That coupled with many mistakes early in the campaign cost Kerry the election.

Carville knows the score. He's got the experience and he knows what he's doing when it comes to campaigns. He needs to be brought in and brought in early if they can persuade him to do so. It's my understanding that he won't do American campaigns anymore.

Carville has preached Party reform until he's blue in the face, but except for Dean out there battling by his lonesome I have not seen much reform in the Democratic Party. They are still chasing issues and the issues serve to divide the Party as much as unify it.

The Democratic Party needs to be agressive with reform, needs to kick Washington politics in the ass and go after big business (think oil companies and those companies outsourcing) with a big damned stick and they need to do it fast.

[Protagoras]

24. How much sway does Dean have over these decisions?

This is one aspect of the advisor and purse strings issue that I'm still unclear on...the role of the DNC chairman in allocation. I understand his role as cheerleader and fundraiser. But does he get much of a voice after the cash flows in? I like his spunk. I'd like to know more about the staff he surrounds himself with.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. All of them. The candidates should speak for themselves.

If they can't handle it, they should look for work they can do.