I was reading earlier today the post here by howie in seattle which referred to the MSNBC piece on Jerome Armstrong.
Blog pioneer maps political strategy for 2008
There was a lot of criticism by people who have not read the book. I don’t think that is really fair. There are some very good parts, and it is overall a good analysis of where we are and what we need to do.
I am not surprised Jerome is for Warner, he is a Virginian. He also worked for Kaine, and maybe others in VA. I am touchy on that situation with him, because my friend was banned from that blog for posting about Kaine’s religious views. But I stand for his right to support and work for whomever he pleases since he discloses that.
I would be wrong to discount the book’s message because Jerome supports Mark Warner. I don’t like a lot of stances Kos takes either, but the book has too many good things to discount it like some here are. There are things I agree with and things I disagree with.
As to Hackett, that is a situation that is interpreted different ways. The party is constantly screwing people. I know someone they royally screwed who went on to become party chairman. That guy held his head up high, ignored the ridicule, and went to do what he intended in the first place….find a way to change the party. Hackett could that also, and maybe he will.
I would read the book first. They are very critical of the DLC and the party committee heads. It is a good book, and they do see the hazards we face as a party. They spend a lot of time on the special issue groups who demand their way. Some of it I agree with, some not. But it is a good presentation of the problem.
They cover the way the DCCC has been targeting races for years ineffectively. Not only do they target just certain ones with money and press, but they totally ignore the others. The book advocates that this has to change. The authors agree with Dean that we have to run someone against every Republican.
One part really sticks with me, and I posted on this earlier elsewhere. It is the glee with which the DLC leaders greeted Dean’s loss in Iowa. Just a reminder of a little from the book. I did not know about the high five.
A lot of it I knew, but a few parts slapped me in the face. I try to dwell on the future of the party and bringing change, but now and then I allow myself a look back.
In one of the DLC’s monthly staff meeting, From explained his fears of a Dean candidacy—-his angry tone, his borrowing of the Wellstone rhetoric, his “weakness” on national security issues and his opposition to the brewing Iraq War. From believed that Dean’s use of Wellstone’s “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” line was directly aimed at Clinton’s centrist policies and therefore at the DLC. From took it as a personal affront, saying that “Dean would undo everything that Clinton had stood for” and put the Democratic Party permanently back into minority status……At one point, the normally reserved From pounded the table and said that “the DLC was there to protect the Democratic Party from itself”–said a source who was present.
And this part after Iowa makes me ill. I had heard rumors of this, but just reading the words is awful. This is speaking of a party at the DLC after the Iowa Caucuses.
At the DLC, the day after the Iowa caucus was a joyous one. At a pizza party celebration, Bruce Reed and Will Marshall were giddy with excitement. So giddy in fact, a partygoer informed us, “they engaged in the dorkiest high-five ever, and an effort toward a chest bump. It was sad.” Snips from pages 142, 143, 145
I could say no harm done, but that would not be true. The harm was in Al From’s arrogance, and in the attempted “chest bump” of Marshall and Reed. They did not win, they lost. A lot of harm was done to the new enthusiasts in the party in 04. The goal of taking back this party from those “dorks” is well worth it. It is worth reading this book with an open mind and not judging so quickly.
