Random Comment on the new DNC chair (from Nebraska Democrats blog) #2

At 12/15/2004 08:16:11 PM, Kyle Michaelis said...

Frankly, I think geography is a poor basis on which to choose the next DNC chair. East, west, north, south, or right dab in the middle - doesn't much matter to me. All that really matters is what HE (as seems likely to be the case) is going to do to redefine, restructure, and reinvigorate the party nationwide.

Of course, no one here is going to disagree with that. I just think it's rather misguided to search for a DNC chair who makes a point to reach pick-up driving Southerners with Confederate flags and shotgun racks in their rear windows. Sure, it would be nice if those people were on our side (probably), but that's ultimately the job of our actual candidates to accomplish. The best a DNC chair can really do is to ensure that state and local parties are able to remain competitive in every race and region in the country.

Blame McAuliffe all you want for the backseat Nebraska took in the recent election, but ultimately he was acting on behalf of the John Kerry campaign to best serve that candidate's interests and improve his chances of victory. That's what he did, even if 2004 proved the foolish limitations of strategizing too heavily around the electoral college, for which McAuliffe is not to blame. A nationwide office deserves a nationwide campaign, and I'm actually glad that was reasserted this year if nothing else.

In this instance, the lessons of 2000's anomalous result were taken too closely to heart and now we show evidence of doing the same all over again. There's a not so thin line between refocusing and over-compensating in this process of redefining ourselves. Complaints about "Republican-lite" Democrats demean us all in an attempt to refashion the party in treasonous Tom Delay-style that is antithetical to our every principle. The world is indeed in a sad state of affairs when "the good guys" have resorted to such lowly name-calling, demagoguery, and self-demonization. Being a proud Democrat should speak to a common vision, but that doesn't mean there's not plenty of room for disagreement.

Say what you will about the Kerry campaign, but anyone who thinks he didn't represent the party well ON THE ISSUES is pretty well detached from any historical context, not to mention reality. Needing a tighter message, better delivery, and a more pro-active agenda is not the call for deep soul-searching and movement on the issues that some would like it to be. We pretty much are who we are. We just need to give people a reason to trust us once again.

We don't need to move left or right. We don't need any of that old time religion. What we've got to do is make our case in terms people understand and relate to, a job that basically falls to our elected representatives and candidates because its beyond the scope of the party organization and hierarchy no matter who's in charge.

If Jesus were a Democrat, he wouldn't do a damn bit of good as party chair. What we need is a better strategy, not a new Messiah.

I'd say give the people what they want, except these aren't THE PEOPLE, at least not as I know them - which would be fine if it weren't for that whole democracy bit.

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: The DNC, State Parties and the next Chair