Report from the DNC Northeastern Caucus

[Note: I came with Driving Votes, so thanks to Elena et al. for organizing our presence and getting us in!] Each candidate for DNC Chair spoke for 5 minutes, and then answered a few questions posed by voting DNC members and chosen by the moderator.
On the whole, the candidates delivered the same basic message:  work the grassroots and netroots; support the state organizations financially and listen to their wisdom;  develop a 50-state strategy; work on language and framing, but stand up for core Democratic principles; etc.
Most of the questions were kind of weak, but the answers still tended to be interesting.

Impressions of each candidate below . . .

Dean was very good, subdued but firm in his presentation, hit the main notes but also showed his knack for cutting through the bull and saying the thing that needs to be said.

Rosenberg also was impressive and I was surprised by how effective he was as a speaker, as I'd never heard anything about that before.  I liked most everything he had to say.  Course most of it sounded like Dean, so . . .

Wellington Webb was really great as a speaker and I really liked most of what he said, but I was put off by the fact that he seemed kind of stuck in the "identity politics" mindset.  I'm not against taking those issues seriously at all, but I don't think that should be the core approach of the DNC Chair.  The pitfalls of this way of looking at things were revealed when he said that it was bad politics for Dem Senators to have given Rice a hard time and voted against her, because it made the African-American base think that they were attacking her because she is a successful Black woman.  Sheesh!  That's a GOP talking point!  According to this way of thinking, BushCo can appoint any creep, just so long as they belong to a minority ethnic group, and we can't criticize them.

Fowler was quite effective and entertaining as a speaker, and said the "right things," but I didn't find him persuasive--he kept saying "I've been there with you for 20 years" about the grassroots and state Party folks, like he was some grizzled veteran--guy can't be more than very early 30s.  From what I've gleaned from previous discussions, he wasn't all that effective as an organizer either.  So for this reason he seemed a bit of a poseur and also a kind of immature.

Frost really turned me off.  I'd heard him on an NPR interview before and kind of liked him, but he was very abrasive today.  For one thing, he was LOUD and I felt like I was being yelled at.  He also seemed irritable in general and nothing he said was particularly original.  His main argument in his favor seemed to be that he is from Texas.

Roemer--ugh!  He seemed really arrogant, and also seemed to be yelling and berating us.  And then he brought up the "choice" issue, saying that he thought the Party should be a big tent without a litmus test (I agree, but the tent should have mosquito netting so we don't get eaten alive).  He finally crashed and burned when he announced that we should not become captives of a "special interest group."  There was loud hissing from the people.  So what is this special interest group, Tim?  Women?  Pro-choice Americans (2/3 to 3/4 of the population)?  He lost the crowd for good, there.

I was not familiar with Leland before.  He seemed fine but not outstanding in any way.

Issues that I thought were short-changed both in the candidates' comments and the members' questions were how to counter the right-wing media glut and how to reform the election system, although this did get some mentions.

The DNC members and the public attendees had been told not to engage in any "demonstrations" and they were polite but applauded when they liked what they heard.  The DNC members were very animated--got a little call and response thing going at times.  The audience seemed to respond best to Dean, Webb, Rosenberg, and Fowler.  Very cool to Roemer and lukewarm to Frost.  Much like me.


Display:


What I find interesting (none / 0)

Is from watching the candidates myself and reading all the reports from these events, it is interesting that we all read them pretty much the same way.

Dean is the original who is a reformer that will cut through the crap and say original things that resonate with the base.

Simon surprises everyone by how good he is, but he sounds like Dean so why not Dean first.

Roemer strikes us as arrogant and turns us off.

Frost make most of us feel like he's been a good Democrat and got screwed, but is just too whiney for the position and not the right guy for DNC chair. Senator?

Everyone likes Webb as a speaker, but doesn't think he has anything really original to say or that he gets it.

Fowler comes off to us as not ready for prime time, a real go getter with a easy speaking style, but one that leaves you feeling like you're being conned.

Leland seems nice. Nice is not what we are looking for.

I think we are in agreement around here more often than not. Why is that? Group think? Cool Aide? Heads in the game?

Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:31:44 PM EST

Re: What I find interesting (none / 0)

Heads in the game is my guess. I think our analysis is accurate. The question is whether the DLC power structure is listening. I attribute Frost's hysteria to desperation. He and Roemer are both sincere in their belief in which way the party needs to go, the grassroots just doesn't see it that way.
by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I find interesting (3.00 / 1)

What bothers me about Frost and Roemer is their indignation at being challenged by those of us in the Blogosphere. Both seem really unaware that politics as usual is over. They seem almost bitter about it. The DNC chair used to be a coronation and slam dunk by the Party elite.

That model worked so well for us.

Statements like that they seem to resent. They don't get it. We are in the minority in all three branches of government. The GOP owns the media and the courts. The don't see just how close to being out of power for the rest of my lifetime the Democratic party is.

They are concerned that common bloggers are sending out emails daring to hold them to account for their past actions and openly criticizing them. How dare we!

This is the attitude that's got to go. They may be good Democrats with good voting records, but the attitude will not work anymore. Politics has changed for good, and they can either accept that change or go the route of the dinosaurs.

Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I find interesting (none / 0)

They both have the DLC sense of entitlement, because after all they know best. I don't see that elitest sentiment in the three top runners, which is a hopeful sign. It's hard to read the tea leaves, because you have to assume that there's a whole lot of politicking going on in the back rooms; offers, counter-offers, probably threats and dire predictions of doom as well.

For some reason they think their sincerity and strongly held beliefs are more important than the sincerity and strongly held beliefs of the grassroots. It's time for the dismissive DLC to move to the rear and give the Democratic wing of the Democratic party a chance challenge Bush on principle instead of conciliation.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:41:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I find interesting (none / 0)

I say it's "heads in the game."  I went with an open mind.
by wishful thinking on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:02:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (none / 0)

Totally agree about identify politics being turned into a GOP talking point.

Roemer should just go join the repubs, except he won't because he is being paid to undermine the Dems.

by Alan S on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:34:16 PM EST

Re: Thanks. (none / 0)

I think Roemer may actually just be playing for a seat at the table. He and Frost both have a legitimate and genuine belief in the direction the party needs to move. I'm sure Feinstein thought she was doing the right thing by building bridges with our new Sec. of State.

I still prefer Dean, simply because I would like to see a more liberal and populist face on the Democratic party. As long as either Dean or Rosenberg is the choice, I can be comfortable that the core beliefs of the party will have an opportunity to re-emerge. I don't think we need to insist on ideological hegemony in the party. All I ask is a reasonably liberal voice at the top.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just hope (none / 0)

that the delegates are getting the same impressions.
by sam89 on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:57:24 PM EST

Re: I just hope (none / 0)

This is an interesting thought that I agree with completely.
Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just hope (none / 0)

yeah I mean the thing thats missing from all these reports are interviews with DNC delegates. I mean when the say "the general reaction" that might probably just be the bloggers.
by sam89 on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 06:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Webb's comments about criticizing Rice (none / 0)

Your absolutely right wishful thinking. Here are three examples of conservatives using the mantle of anti-semitism to insulate neo-conservatives from criticism:

Joel Mawbary apparently started the ball rolling with a Weekly Standard article that ran in the December, 2003 Weekly Standard that is archived at Townhall  General Zinni, what a Ninny

David Brooks followed suit with an editorial in the New York Times on January 6, 2004: The Era of Distortion. This is a standard think tank tactic of accusing your opponents of doing exactly what you are doing.

This editorial, by Ms. Gorin, a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com, performs with RightStuffComedy.com ran in the September 23rd, 2004 WSJ: Blame it on Neo

There was a diary at dkos about this:  What's up with Little Green Footballs?

Apparently there are large segments of the Democratic party that aren't up to date about this tactic.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 10:33:49 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.