Emily’s List released an important report this past week, Women at the Center of Political Change (opens as a .pdf):
Women may be showing signs of “turning away” from the Republicans, but will the Democrats give them a party to turn toward, or will we continue to follow the demands of the center/right, DLC, “third way” Democrats and merely continue to turn our party into a nicer shadow of the Republican Party?
That question isn’t limited to women voters, but also to other traditional constituencies, as Garance Franke-Ruta reports in the American Prospect:
The frustration of some black and Latino operatives raises the question: How much longer can Democrats count on historic loyalties?
In May of 2004, Paul Rivera had an idea. His proposal, based on his experience working in three previous presidential contests: Put staff in every market where Hispanic and African American voters were important and spend $1 million to test different base-vote mobilization strategies so that by July, the best one could be implemented and carried out as part of the overall field operation. Rivera, a Puerto-Rican Democratic operative from the Bronx who was the highest-ranking Latino in John Kerry’s campaign, took the plan up the ladder.
But Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry’s campaign manager, let the proposal die on the vine. Her intentions may have been understandable — she wanted to run a streamlined, centralized field operation, say insiders, not a bunch of different projects — but the net result of the strategy she oversaw was an election-day shocker for the Kerry campaign. Not only did Kerry win a smaller fraction of the Hispanic vote than any Democratic presidential candidate in recent history; he lost a couple of points with black voters, too. And, unlike Bill Clinton in 1996, Kerry lost white women voters, who have by and large remained loyal to the Democratic Party even as their husbands, boyfriends, and brothers grew into a core Republican constituency over the past 40 years.
“One of the biggest problems with the Democratic Party is we don’t know how to speak to the people we claim to represent,” Rivera told me in late May over a plate of mini-burgers and parmesan onion curls at hip downtown D.C. eatery Matchbox. “If we say blacks are for Democrats, Hispanics are for Democrats, women are for Democrats — the data don’t show that any more.”
This is a growing problem, but not beyond repair — yet. However, if we continue to parrot Republican talking points then we fail to offer a true alternative. The “third way” is a way leading to continued political disaster. Minority voters were shown how little value they held with the party in the aftermath of the last two Presidential elections. Now, we are demonstrating, by championing candidates who are hostile to women’s control of their own bodies, candidates like Casey & Langevin, that we are willing to abandon women too.
Some would ask how we can ignore the impact of “moral values” on the last election. As Emily’s List reports:
We can protect abortion as a medical procedure without “celebrating” it, as the Republicans, and sadly too many Democrats, distort a very principled stand. It is time to take principled stands. Fuzzy consensus is not a position. For some time, DC was mired in a sort of policy ennui, until the Reagan campaign showed that political power could be gained by claiming to fight for a vision of the future. THAT is the secret of their success, and in response the Democratic Party has offered only muttered lists of policy positions and spineless echoes of Republican distortions.
It is time for the Democratic Party to tap into the very thing that makes us a truer reflection of 21st Century America — diversity. There is an enormous pool of talent and passion for us to tap, and to empower. Sadly, we fail to do so over and over again, as described by Franke-Ruta:
In the Democratic Party, ensuring minority turnout has always been seen as something best solved through the traditional transactional political relationships that have characterized the Democratic Party’s approach to minorities for decades. Transactional politics means, essentially, that we’ll give you X in return for Y — the “you” often being a high-ranking figure in a given community who can be counted on to deliver votes. It’s a top-down model, and it’s the one the Kerry campaign emphasized, turning to prominent minority leaders to help it out, just as Democratic presidential campaigns have done for decades.
But even in the African American community, where the model was developed, times have changed. During the general election, the campaign had the Democratic National Committee (DNC) pay $86,000 to race-baiter Al Sharpton, who at most can move 140,000 voters in midnight-blue New York City, as well as substantial sums to the Reverend Jesse Jackson, an aging civil-rights leader whose currency among younger black voters is open to question (and whose organization, Rainbow/PUSH, was recently fined by the Federal Election Commission for campaign-finance rule violations during the 2000 election). What that campaign got in exchange for this was an electorate that was just as white as in 2000, even as the country became more diverse.
The transactional model’s opposite is a ground-up operation that involves more direct outreach and financial support for local get-out-the-vote efforts and ethnic media, and a recognition that in immigrant communities, there may not be a leadership or organizational infrastructure capable of moving and turning out voters, no matter how well they are cultivated. The Republican Party, truth be told, recognizes this more than the Democrats do, which has led some younger Democrats to feel that the party is either out of touch or taking minority votes for granted. “There are Democratic decision-makers who ask, ‘How little can I spend on these voters to get them to shut up?’” Rivera says.
In May, Rivera, along with Navarro and three other high-ranking former Kerry campaign and DNC Hispanic political operatives, sent the Democratic leadership and potential ’08 candidates a biting 13-page memo. “Instead of developing strategies and political capacity in communities of color to increase the number of voters and votes, the Democratic Party is steeped in token commercial relationships and unaccountable voter-contact methods,” they wrote. “If the Democratic Party does not improve its performance with Latinos, it is doomed.” The memo, which grew out of a series of meetings of more than 30 elected and appointed Hispanic Democratic leaders, as well as political operatives, in November and March, has been understood within the party as the shot across the bow. Nonetheless, there are still those who ask, says Rivera, “How little can I spend on communities of color?”
If we continue to listen to corporatist beltway insiders who have offered bi-partisan cover for policies that damage our country, the Democratic Party will continue to founder and lose. The Party, in fear of the Republicans hanging distortions of policies from the seventies around the neck of the Democrats, continues to fail to offer a true alternative. Merely being “nicer” Republicans is not a recipe for party health. As Emily’s List concludes their report:
Overall, this survey contains three central lessons for Democrats. First, Democrats have an enormous opportunity in 2006 to expand their base, particularly among women, but they can do more to solidify these advantages. Women’s mood for change, combined with their focus on domestic issues—leading with Social Security—has resulted in defections of up to 20 points in some cases, in their support of Bush from just six months ago.
Second, any debate between the primacy of values and economics is irrelevant in reaching women who care about both and combine the importance of both in considering their families’ futures. Democrats need an agenda that addresses poignant economic insecurities among women, but that does so with due respect for the centrality of families and care giving in their values system.
Finally, in recognizing the centrality of families and care giving, Democrats can take advantage of Republicans’ overreaching on issues of intrusion. While Democrats do not have the advantage on values that they do on a prospective economic agenda, Republicans have promoted defections by appearing to endorse government intrusions into family privacy.
Democrats must be the party of change and hope. They also need a clear agenda that makes families more secure and must develop language that respects families and care giving to take full advantage of the opportunity that they have been granted. While women voters have lost confidence in President Bush and the Republicans, Democrats have not
yet closed the deal with women voters.
“Democrats must be the party of change and hope” Yes, and to that I would offer Democrats must be the party of INCLUSION. The Republicans are making the argument that they are the more inclusive party, and it’s very easy for us to chuckle at that, but at least they are out there listening and courting voters:
Democrats often attribute the GOP’s gains among Latinos to such factors as homophobia and anti-abortion sentiment. But in fact, such explosive personal issues are rarely discussed or even mentioned in GOP media for Hispanics (whether outside groups do so is another question). Those subjects, explains Bendixen, are so taboo in traditional Hispanic cultures that when he conducted focus groups to gauge Latino opinions on gay marriage (among other issues), more than 70 percent of one group said afterward that this was the first time they had ever discussed homosexuality with another person in their lives.
Thus, in 2004, Bush ads aimed at Latino voters showed pictures of college students graduating, prosperous-looking families with four kids laughing, and well-to-do-looking Hispanics at the office, while a very sentimental, specially composed Spanish song played in the background. Ads proclaimed that America is our country and Bush is our president. The message: Nos conocemos. We know each other. All told, Bush spent about $5.5 million on uplifting, aspiration-based emotional appeals in Spanish-language media in 2004 — a small cost, due to the inexpensive nature of the media markets in Hispanic battleground states — with a tremendous bang for the buck. The GOP increased its Hispanic margin by 10 percent in the states where 79 percent of Hispanic voters reside and where Democrats declined to target them, and overwhelmed ethnic media markets in battleground states. In New Mexico, which Gore won in 2000 and where Bush won in 2004 by less than 6,000 votes, Hispanics provided his margin of victory; Democratic targeting in the last few weeks before the election simply came too late.
In other words, the Republicans offer visions of hope, while the Democrats offer … what? To fight for people’s votes? To cross the aisle and protect the “right” of usurers to bankrupt American families? To continue to promote free trade over fair trade? To abandon American citizens, especially women, the dying and the sick to intrusions into their personal medical decisions? Too many “Democrats” support these Republican policies, PUSH these policies. Yes, they are Republican policies, but the Republicans do a masterful PR job of putting a happy face on those policies, while at the same time pointing out that Democrats believe them too. No wonder we continue to lose as a political party — we offer NOTHING if we continue to follow the prescriptions of the party leaders who continue to betray large swaths of our voters.
It is important that we support the progressive reformers in the Democratic Party, and the efforts of Howard Dean to tap into the enormous well of talent and passion in our natural constituencies.
It’s going to take action, not just promises, to rebuild a coalition to the future. Continuing to echo the distortions of the right will only drive members of our coalition out of politics, or into the arms of our opposition. Expanding the big tent so far to the right that it leaves women & their doctors, the poor and American workers out in the rain will serve only to continue our string of losses.
The Democrats have to remake themselvs as a party of hope and diversity, in opposition to the Repulican Party of intrusion and irresponsibilty.
(note: kudos to Ramsey’s diary on Wednesday at dailyKos for the excellent summary of the Emily’s List report that brought it to my attention.)
I was posting on DU a lot. I was also working for the Rendell campaign. I remember getting into an argument about Emily’s List with a group of guys who couldn’t understand why the group gave money to a female candidate who they perceived to be less strong on woman’s issues than the guy she was running against. It was the same dopey argument we had on dkos weeks ago about NARAL. THe more things change the more they stay the same…..
Great diary MM. If I ever run for Senate or Congress (fat chance) I want you to manage my campaign. = )
oh, I don’t think my temper and lack of patience with idiots, would be a good combination anywhere near where cameras might be. Thanks for the good word, though …
now if you need someone to help w/ policy papers and speeches …
that was supposed to be a reply to TinPA.
Preview is your friend.
many of the same reasons I will probably never run… my overwhelming urge to tell people they should shut up until they know something.
I’ll tell you what, If I ever RUN someone’s campaign GOTV (much more likely)I will put in a good word for you.
… would for me have to be meaninful support for what I’m going to call “pro-family” positions. I see this as umbrella that covers things like
. universal health care
. policies that provide support to families, especially the working poor
.. support for pre-school programs
.. support for public education
.. more financial aid for college students
.. adult education and training
.. support for day care and for stay-at-home parents
.. improved housing options
.. support for improved public transportation
. reproductive rights
. SSM
Thank you so much for writing this. This is the most important thing we have to get straight in the Democratic party if we are going to win elections.
That’s it. Bottom line. We will not win if we have nothing to offer to our natural constituency. Let the Republicans have the selfish privileged classes – those who were, like George W. “born on third base and think they hit a triple.” (–Ann Richards) All they want is a party that will protect their wealth and lower their taxes. We don’t want, and don’t need these voters.
We must be the party that truly believes in something more. That says to poor and and middle and working class people, every ethnic minority, women, gays, the disabled, and all of those wonderful well-off white men who know how lucky they are to be born with their privileges and who care for others not so lucky.
When you add all of US up – guess what? There are more of us than the selfish privileged class. The Democratic party has got to quit wasting time on trying to get those die-hard “protect my wealth and prejudices” Republican voters to switch their votes. It needs to quit taking their core constituency for granted – “Where else are they going to go? They’re not going to vote Republican!” Well, some are – (and you very eloquently explained why) and some will just stay home.
One thing about being part of a group that has been given the shaft over and over by politicians that promise whatever to African-Americans, women, etc. and then forget all about them until the next election – is that we develop excellent bullshit detectors.
If we aren’t ready to fight for every single American – every group that has been left out and marginalized in our flawed society in the past – every day, year in and year out – we will continue to lose elections. Simple as that.
One of the best diaries I have ever seen is the “not like us” diary over at kos. That is what we have to avoid within the party as well. The problem with the party is that many DLC types are trying to shut out the left and saying they’re not important, or “not like us.” And many people would make blanket statements condemning our soldiers as a whole because they’re “not like us” and don’t do enough to stop the war.
We need to include as many people as possible, from pacifists and feminists to libertarians and true Conservatives who feel that Bush is not really a Conservative — and everyone in between. Otherwise, we will not be able to take full advantage of the GOP’s struggles.
One thing we need to avoid is using Rush’s arguments. I call it “Rush’s Law.” Similar to Godwin’s Law, if someone uses Rush Limbaugh to make a point, they have already lost the argument in my book. Yet how many people even here and at kos fall into the trap of sounding like Rush when making an argument?
excellent points. i want to read it again too. i’m certainly no expert at all on any of this but as i understand it the last election was won by a better base turnout from the other side. selling my autonomy down the river in an attempt to appeal to conservative southern males that don’t share my interests and don’t vote for democratic candidates anyway seems counterproductive to me. it alienates part of the democratic party’s base too, Me.
There should be an option on the poll “Split party in two.” It may sound like a losing approach, but as it is the Democratic party is trying to play to both progressives and at the same time to conservative labor and minorities. This conflict can’t be resolved.
A better approach would be to confront the conflict, split the party, and have a strong three party system. It’s better to have two parties that agree on at least some range of topics, and that can hold a joint majority in congress, than two parties where “our” party is perpetually in the minority.
It’s crossed my mind, and if the party runs shitty Republican-Lite campaigns the next two times I think it will happen naturally.
I think the solution to this is simple. The Democratic party needs to present a simple, progressive vision of the future and stick to it. Remember that many people who vote Republican don’t actually agree with many or any Republican policies – they vote because they believe the Republicans have a plan, and the Democrats don’t.
Yes, this means the party has to come out for same-sex marriage, for women’s rights (including the choice to have an abortion), for progressive taxation, for sane environmental regulation, for research into alternative energy, and many other things. And while this may drive some voters away, I have to wonder how many of the “disenchanted 50%” it would draw in?
especially since polls have shown for years that Americans want those progressive things for THEMSELVES, the trick is to convince them that we should ALL share in them.
Basically. The Republicans have built their empire on telling people that the best way to get things is by denying them to others. We can fight back by telling them that the best way to get what they want is to make sure everyone has it no matter what.
— sticking to something you honestly believe in, that is. The reality is that most Americans don’t have a clue what Democrats stand for, but they know what Bush stands for. To me (and I assume a fair amount of the left blog-reading crowd like me) it should be so simple, how can you vote for this buffoon (Bush)? It shouldn’t have even been close!
Blast Kerry’s campaign all you want, there are plenty of areas to improve including Kerry’s statements directly. We also have a huge problem with the media, and I don’t even know how many get their information from the “media” anymore anyway, or how many will be by 2006 or 2008.
Reid and Dean are huge improvements over their predecessors, I believe they are saying what they mean and meaning what they say. That goes a long, long way in small town USA (that’s my impression, anyways — based on Sirota, etc.) Reid is a Mormon, but he also knows how to uphold the law and a woman’s right-to-privacy.
We need to decentralize, in two ways — both of which I see Dean doing an excellent job at:
This is going to be a long-term, but I think successful, strategy. But the way the Republicans keep lying about Iraq, Social Security and ignoring healthcare and schools, we will quickly and naturally regain the strengths of the Democratic Party — and it isn’t writing checks out to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or Bob Shrum.
As a computer scientist with an (amateur) interest in the social aspects and applications of networks, Dean’s approach to politics really interests me. The real test will be how it works out in practice, but it looks like he’s trying to put a lot of the stuff we geeks have been theorizing about for the past twenty-plus years into practical use. Bottom-up distributed politics, as it were.
I think it’ll be a winner, but I’m predisposed towards liking nifty ideas.
Another reason I like it is that it works well with my political beliefs – that government should be permissive, generally. This allows people in “red” states to say “Well, the Democratic party may support these things – like same-sex marriage – that make us all uncomfortable here. But really, I think that it has many benefits, and banning it is worse because, among other things, …” followed up by a reason that will appeal to their listeners. It focuses on the positive and the local
I really doubt that, with a properly-executed strategy, even in the presence of a hostile media, support for women (pro-choice) or same-sex marriage would be bad for the Democratic party. Especially not if coupled with healthcare, economic, and environmental initiatives.
You’re right about the media, by the way. Most people form their beliefs based not on what they say on TV, but on what their friends say. Yet another reason why having Progressive Democratic office-holders everywhere is a good idea…
If you’ll allow, I’d like to continue the network-based model a bit further. This is not meant to take away from the subject of the diary, nor the work done by Emily’s List or their piece “Women at the Center of Political Change”.
I Googled “Open Source Politics”, and came across a story in The Nation, dated November 4, 2004.
Nice opening:
Sometimes I have to think in BlogTime and realize how short of a time ago the election and the immediate aftermath were — it seems so long ago. (Mental Note to Self — must remember Republicans took 30 years to take over)
After a long discussion about how prolific internet usage is, and how genuine conversation that takes place in blogs makes corporate, top-down messages seem so stiff, another paragraph stuck out to me:
More writing and the following observation popped out:
The well-written article goes on to discuss what these changes will bring about, and leaves little doubt that the changes are here to stay. The rates of internet usage amongst younger Americans is skyrocketing, and many have their own websites and are already participating, even down to Kindergarten. They may have to be motivated to follow (or even better get involved) in politics, but I think this trend strongly favors Democrats.
The article does go on to caution that the affluent, white demographic may disproportionately expand their overrepresentation as the internet divide continues to exist, but does note that Hispanic usage now almost equals whites, with blacks sort of stuck at current levels.
Okay, so we have the internet/blogging/alternative media available as our tools, now these are the tools available for water-cooler or hardware store conversations. I worked managing farm databases for many years, and was shocked at the levels of home computer and internet usage (this goes back 15 years). A modern farm cannot run without tight management of money, time, and materials — right down to satellite images of farmsites and weather to manage pesticides and planting schedules. And the female head-of-household, stereotypically at home running the books and the business, is extremely active on the internet — perhaps not regarding politics, but certainly not “hillbilly-esque” either. What I found in my computer database work was probably higher than U.S. average computer and internet usage amongst farm households.
So, we have Dean forming 50-state strategies, and making sure there are two persons per state to coordinate LOCAL activities that will work best within the state. Not some dictate from a think tank in Washington that focus-grouped the idea. That appears to have worked well for Republicans during their 30-year takeover, but us Democrats — we are a different lot and like to live in a reality-based world. For this Democrat, telling me God said such-and-such carries as much weight as Rumsfeld telling me such-and-such, or in reality Kerry telling me such-and-such. I want to see facts, check sources, and come to my own conclusions. God does speak to me, but I listen a lot more to Jesus’ teachings of helping the poor and the least amongst us than worrying about gay marriage.
If Dean can pull this off, we will have our two state coordinators decentralize out the authority and resources, so local decisionmakers feel empowered and able to sort out what ideas work for them. Those ideas that work should not be kept to themselves, but trickled back up through the channels — it might work elsewhere as well (that ‘network’ thing). This is new stuff, and I know there was resistance to well-intentioned, well-meaning folks flying into Ohio to knock door-to-door. There is value in spreading information, there is value in that being face-to-face. There is much greater value in the social networking that exists outside of politics from people seen every day — PTA, little league games, beer night at the saloon. Democrats being competitive in every precinct in every state, from school board to county supervisor to state legislature to governor to … will make a great, great difference in reversing the tide that has led to creationism being even thought of again, and corporatism and anti-unionism taking hold. The communication tools available to all of us are greater than ever, it will not take us 30 years to reverse the Republican takeover.
and fits indirectly w/ what I was pointing out … offering a method to help everybody to find common ground.
You really should do a stand-alone diary. good stuff.
I feel that in the last few elections, the dems have have lost interest in the unsexy local and state legislature elections. The intense focus on federal elections has, I think, taken away from local efforts. Local elections, in particular, can be tremendously affected by the presence of just a few dedicated people. I hope there will be emphasis on winning municipalities and state legislatures.
It’s this emphasis on the ‘big’ elections that has led to the willingness to trash the base — it’s easier to take these ‘framing’ positions that compromise progressive values when from up high, everybody looks like ants.
I absolutely agree with most of what you are saying. Local politics is crucial – as BooMan pointed out in a comment some time ago, the actions of local and state bodies affect people’s lives profoundly and directly, and we ignore them at our peril.
Last year, not a single penny that was donated to the DNC by Texans was spent in Texas – it was all sent to swing states to try to get Kerry elected. We got nothin’ from the party – no money, no support, and we lost several key state legislative races by razor thin margins, where even a minimal level of support could have changed the outcome.
My quibble is with your reference to ‘framing.’ If you mean that from on high, some are trying to craft an ‘electable’ message for the party that, as you put it, trashes the base – then I agree with you 100% – and I think Lakoff would agree with both of us.
The essence of his work is exactly the opposite. He is saying – what is it that makes us progressives? We seem to be all over the place, fragmented, fighting among ourselves. But if we start by examining why we are progressives – in our own minds and hearts, with our friends and neighbors, we find that we have much in common – we have common values. Values such as fairness, freedom, empathy, responsibility, community.
When we are clear in our own minds about the values we have in common, we can stop fighting among ourselves and start building coalitions – environmentalists will work with gays, African-Americans with civil libertarians, pacifists with anti-poverty groups, religious progressives with environmentalists – more and more strands coming together at the grassroots to form a web that is unprecedented in its strength and power and which will then bubble up from the roots of progressivism to shape city councils, state legislatures, national offices . . . .
He also, of course, has some advice for how to communicate our values – basically, say what we are for, what we believe in, what our values are – and quit spinning our wheels and wasting our time on nothing but “But, but, but . . . we are NOT (insert right-wing smear of the day)!!!”
I fear that Lakoff’s work is being dismissed because his “how to communicate” message is drowning out his more fundamental point: Let’s clarify what our values are, then use what we have in common to start building those powerful grassroots coalitions. If we do that, no group will get trashed, we will finally become the “party of inclusion” that Madman is calling for.
Here’s a summary of what I’m trying to say.
I rarely say this, but, I wish I could give you a dozen 4’s for your comment. That is an excellent article to bring to our attention – I’ve bookmarked it and will be passing it on. And your thoughts on it are an awesome “value added” to the quotations from it. I’ll be passing those on too. Thank you.
I’m absolutely loving the threads, meaningful discussions, range of issues — and perhaps most importantly, mutual respect I have found here at Booman Tribune.
A tip of the hat to BooMan, and those around that really put together a nice place to hang out. Many names I recognize, some are new — I don’t think I’ve found a post that was disrespectful, though I have dismissed some as not as well thought out or productive. But that’s okay, sometimes it just takes a nugget to spark a whole dialog — sheesh, I’ve had, well for lack of a better phrase, diarrhea of the (fingers?) around here — I have managed to take a simple thing and expand it into five-plus paragraphs of thoughts. I’m not sure if people won’t suspect I’ve heavily invested in caffeine supplier’s stock! (or at least wish sometimes I’d knock it the hell off, after they woke back up and hit refresh)
Another great concept: creating subsections on regional US and Europe — for different reasons. The regional US works great on things that are motivating me for the next several months, such as resisting the change via initiative that Governor Schwarzenegger is trying to do in California (in coordination with Karl Rove) to turn California from a Blue state to a Red one. If we can stop these initiatives, Schwarzenegger’s political career will be mortally wounded. That is very important to me, but maybe someone that peruses the “South” section is heavily involved in something in that region that wouldn’t have the time to wade through California issues, as well as Montana, NY, MD, etc. In much the way that this thread has discussed grassroots-up, I believe this will lead to a sort of Darwinian effect — the best ideas will trickle up.
As for Europe, my goodness we need the help over on this side of the pond! European journalism has been indispensable in getting as much traction as we have on the DSM and it seems crazy to me, but I’ve learned more about housing bubbles and the economic follies of “Bubbles” Greenspan from our European friends as anyone else.
Well, there I go again … your five sentences EXPLODED into five paragraphs (had to count twice). I’ll close by thanking you, Janet Strange, and also Madman in the Marketplace, TheresaInPA, AndiF, bayprairie, EternalHope, asdf, Gooserock, and with particular note Egarwaen — you really got my noodle spinning, must be the mutual computer science thang.
Glad you like it here. And we’re very glad to have you.
(Succinct is not something I do very well, either. The comment you are replying to is a rare example of it. But see my other comments on this thread.)
It’s also dangerous, though. I think both Dean’s primary campaign and Kerry’s general campaign were (in part) sunk by a failure to understand the tools they were using and the forces they had unleashed. Both attempted, to a greater or lesser degree, to use these tools to run a traditional top-down campaign, issuing orders and directives from on high.
There still is a place for high-level management, but it’s quite different from before. One thing this gives them is a much better way to get a sense of what’s going on on the ground. Something neither Kerry nor Dean appear to have taken advantage of in their campaigns – anyone who was reading Dean’s primary campaign blog knows all the complaints they were getting about the ineffective advertising, and how they absolutely refused to change their strategy.
I think Dean looks to have learned his lesson, though…
It’s going to take action, not just promises, to rebuild a coalition
I wonder if somebody could think of a way that would allow diverse people to communicate and work together on projects?
has some good ideas about that in another post in the thread.
I dislike Shrum move everyday. And Kerry for taking his advice. Arrggh.