Burnt Orange Report

I was an avid ABB democrat during the primaries. I did not support any one candidate but donated the max to Kerry once he was selected. All in all, I kicked in close to $3,000 to the democratic party/candidates this election cycle.

I subscribe to the theory that it will take an economic meltdown and bread lines before $20,000/yr Republicans see the light and begin to vote for a party that will fight for their interests. I also believe this meltdown will occur long before the Rapture.

In my opinion tonight, I think Howard Dean is the best candidate to credibly pick up the pieces after the inevitable Bush economic debacle. So, any choice that would make it difficult for Dean to assume the mantle of contender in 2008 is one I would oppose.

Concerned Citizen

To be perfectly honest, I don't think Dean will be able to run in 2008. He's got a lot of name recognition, but I think people will be reluctant to donate and make it hard for him to compete.

If I had to guess, I'd say Hillary is running (though for the longest time I thought it was a joke to fill airtime on Hardball) and Kerry will make another go. They both have high platofrms, the US Senate to make themselves heard for a campaign.

I think the best thing Dean can do right now is the hard work of rebuilding our party from the ground up. I'm talking office space with interns and regular meetings. The whole 9 yards. That's what we need at this point, otherwise it won't really matter if we win the White House.

We also need to start thinking about the party and the presidential campaign as two different things. The DNC needs autonomy and a renewed focus on down-ballot races. The Republicans spent years just winning school board elections and city council seats then slowly moving up the ballot. We need the same thing and the DNC under a Dean leadership, I think, is the perfect vehicle to help us do that.

I dont think Hillary will run, nor do I think she should since she is an easy target as that crazy liberal lady. If this was a perfect world, hell, I would ask for an amendment to repeal term limits if she ran and won.

I think this is my own crazy talk, but for some reason I see a revival of Gore and his running mate will be Bill Richardson. That's what my magic 8 ball said.

I'm amazed at how one can be both anti-DLC because of their perceived corporatism, but then go on to support Frost despite being the biggest horsetrading, corporate suck up the DCCC had to offer. Can I be the only one that sees this disconnect?

I agree with Greg about Gore and Richardson. I don't agree that Hillary is crazy liberal. I am behind Gore in 08. I think that he has grown and changed a lot, and four more years of him speaking like a true Dem and reaching out not only to our base, but those who feel left behind and out of the process, will help our party.

Frankly, I think Jerry Springer ought to be DNC chair. But that is just me.

A lot of my feelings on the DLC are just those: feelings. It's not so much because of "perceived corporatism" but more of a mistrust of the guys who haven't gotten us anywhere in the past two presidential elections. And that's not just the DLC and not everybody in the DLC is an "appeaser". A lot of my political beliefs stem from my own disillusionment after the 2000 elections and my desire to win and win while being proud of being a Democrat.

I think Andrea hit the nail on the head when she mentioned Gore attracting those that feel left behind. She probably meant those that are left behind in the system, but I mean those that are left behind feeling that no one really represents them except this other handful of Democratic outsiders challenging the establishment.

You can see disconnect in my supporting Frost, but I see just one more person who feels that Democrats are not being represented here in Texas or in other places. And I do think that I share some principles and ideas with him. I think I share some ideas and principles with you. From your comments on one of my earlier posts, I think we have a very similar view on abortion.

I guess I'm saying it is a little petty of me to rag on the DLC all of the time, but I'm not perfect and I do have some serious problems with the group as a whole. I'm not going to ever get over the Applebee's comments right after the election. I thought some of what Sosnik was saying was so stupid. I think he was right when he said that the solution to the party's problems would come from outside Washington, though.

I'm just trying to come up with some solutions. As always, I'm interested to hear anybody else's solutions, too.

eh, my name is mike, not greg. I said gore/richardson

(I'm just wasting time since i dont want to study for my final tomorrow)

Oh, about Hillary. I dont think she is a crazy liberal either, i think she will painted as one by the right just like they did with Kerry, and if she does run, hopefully she will do a better job fighting back, because she isn't a New England weenie

I'm in the ABH crowd in 2008 - Anyone But Hillary. Democrats need to have an affirmative agenda in 2008. It'll be an open seat election against a non-incumbent administration. Instead of having to campaign about what we're against, we can set the agenda, if we're smart enough to do it. Hillary would dominate the campaign, and it would be an election about her, rather than ideas. For the same reason, the GOP would be silly to nominate Jeb Bush. He'd make the election a referendum over the past 8 years, and not about new GOP post-2008 ideas.

Other than that, I'm open to ideas. I'd like to learn more about Vilsack and Mark Warner, but I could end up supporting Gore or Kerry again. Both are honorable men that I was proud to support. But this whole talk is still a few years away, and speculation at this point is irrelevent. The field won't develop until 2006.

As for my thoughts on the DLC... I think they did the party a lot of good in the 1980s and early 1990s when we needed a serious jolt to become competitive in national elections again. Fortunately, we've managed to be competitive in the past four national elections. Major changes aren't needed, but stylistic, strategic, technological and message changes still need to be made. I think that the DLC was rather backward looking in it's rather shrill anti-Dean attacks. They could have opposed his candidacy without demeaning his supporters. Their biggest problem was going after Dean without any attempt to understand how or why Dean achieved the success and support that he did.

There were rational, coherent concerns about a Dean nomination in late 2003 (just as there are rational, coherent concerns about him leading the DNC) - views that I shared if you'll take a look back at my posts at the time, but instead of bashing a Dean, a more reasonable idea would have been to learn from his approach without yielding their ideology. That's why I have a profound respect for Simon Rosenberg. He's a moderate / centrist type who never supported Dean, but was able to appreciate what Dean did for the party. Rosenberg has now become one of the more technolgically innovative Democrats in the country over the past year. I respect that, and that's what I'd like to see for party chair.