American Prospect's Charles Pierce nails the Dem party powerstruggle

[whometense]

From the pen of the brilliant Charlie Pierce. I think this is one of the most subtle and brilliant pieces of political analysis I've seen in some time. And concise.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/10/post_1639.html#013936

Great things are happening in my onetime adopted home state of Wisconsin. First of all, there was Russ Feingold with the new Air America Morning Zoo crew this morning, talking about how the Democratic senatorial caucus talks big in public, and then folds in private, usually on the advice of consultants "with connections to the previous Democratic administration."

And, well, snap, as the kids say. Even if Hillary Clinton doesn't run herself, the internal fight between people who believe that Bill Clinton was the template for Democratic success, and people who believe that he was sui generis, and that Clintonism has proven to be less a governing philosophy than a cult of personality, is going to the presiding dynamic of the next two election cycles. If the Democrats don't capture either house of Congress this time around, the Clinton side will come back with a vengeance. If the Democrats do manage to gain a working majority in either house, some very famous TV pundits are going to find that their phone calls don't get returned. (And I will bet you cash money that those same people will be the loudest Democratic voices cheering on behalf of the ensuing Broderian Wheatena that passes for "bipartisanship.")...

[blm]

1. Exactly. It's been pretty obvious about the Senate - confirmation hearings

for Rice and Bolton, Alito, Iraq withdrawal - too many Dems just jockeying for political position instead of dealing with JUST THE FACTS ON THE TABLE.

After IWR and Bush's blatant VIOLATIONS of that bill, Dems need to deal with ONLY THE FACTS and NOT the promised behavior.

[Mass]

2. Yes, he really nails it.

[FredStembottom]

3. Clintonism: Cult of the Personality

That is sure how I see it!

Clinton worship seems to embody the TV soaked/Rock star/Entertainment Tonight/blockbuster "thinking" that has come to dominate in America.

He's purty. He's a winner. There was sex. He's famous for being famous to this very day.

Must be an important person!

The fact that he was virtually the only success as the Democratic Party declined, became disabled and finally flat-lined says to me that he is the exception that proves the rule. That the Democratic party's choices over the last 25 years have been self-defeating, craven and possibly corrupted from the inside.

There is no there, there. Clintonism is fluff and nonsense!

:argh:

[blm]

6. The Dem party infrastructure was left to collapse in 1997 and DNC's

Clinton chosen leaders did NOTHING but let it get worse for 2000, 2002 and 2004.

It would STILL be in collapse if Dean hadn't started working IMMEDIATELY to rebuild the party.

For some reason, Terry McAuliffe did NOTHING to secure the election process in 2002 and 2004, even though he promised us all that he would concentrate on that problem with his office of Voter Integrity that was SUPPOSED to work for four years to counter the RNC and its operatives working to suppress Dem votes, purge voter rolls, and control the electronic voting machines.

DNC and Terry McAuliffe failed miserably to secure the election process for Dem voters and Dem candidates.

The election process is supposed to have caretakers in the party infrastructure who deal with its security for the FOUR YEARS between national elections. It is impossible to scurry to secure the process ON election day or AFTER the votes have been cast.

McAuliffe's stewardship of the DNC cost all the Dem voters and Dem candidates, and especially Kerry who lost 5 MILLION votes according to RFKs investigation.

Why? After the hearings about 2000 election fraud, how on earth could anyone at the DNC explain how 2002 and 2004 had INCREASED election fraud?

[FredStembottom]

7. What you said!

Just what you are talking about is what I am thinking of when I say: "possibly corrupted from the inside".

I think there is still some real dirt for us grass-roots Democrats to grok in the future. It won't be pleasant!

[hootinholler]

8. Not the DNC per se

But the DNC listening to the DLC. IMHO, Clinton was able to gain the presidency in spite of the DLC because he's so charismatic.

-Hoot

[blm]

10. Clinton gained presidency because LEFTY Dems kept pounding Bush1 NONSTOP

throughout his entire term with IranContra, BCCI, and Iraqgate headlines.

Big difference.

We wouldn't have had the opportunity to know Clinton much at all, if Bush1 hadn't been broken in half first by the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

And then Clinton came into office, and closed the books on further investigation into BushInc.

[hootinholler]

11. Ok, I'll buy into that.

This must have been before the press was purchased.

-Hoot

[blm]

12. Definitely before the press lost its veneer of neutrality. After 96 there

was no longer any pretense - the fascists had the Telecom bill, and they proceeded to consolidate and make the Dems pay through the nose for trusting their promises to keep the newsrooms neutral.

And then they impeached Clinton.

They they impeachmented Gore. Dixie Chicks. Dan Rather. Kerry. Then Katrina came and blew back at them as an unspinnable event.

[KoKo]

13. They also went after Dean....and are still going after him...the DLC'ers.

[blm]

14. in that post, I was referring to media, but, yes, they do target Dean.

But I believe they are hoping something happens or doesn't happen in Nov. to start "IMPEACHMENTING" him, too.

[ginnyinWI]

19. he also had good political aides, IMO

Podesta, Stephanopoulis, Carville, etc. kept his campaign from sinking into oblivion several times because of the "bimbo factor".

[blm]

22. Still wouldn't have happened if Bush1 wasn't getting pummeled for 4yrs

solid at that point.

There was broken trust FIRST, thanks to anti-corruption Democrats and a fairly neutral press - then Clinton was ABLE to be heard.

[whometense]

16. A-freaking-MEN!!!

Why, indeed?

[OzarkDem]

54. Perhaps to someone who doesn't understand policy

Regardless of "personality cults" Clinton had many great ideas and implemented incredibly good economic and public policy when he was in office. Any Dem who is ready to abandon the policies he put in place and ignore the incredible lessons learned in his presidency is doing a great disservice to themselves and the party.

[FredStembottom]

59. I understand NAFTA and GATT.....

both of which had such negative impact on blue-collar workers (such as myself)that we may never recover. The same policies hollowing out America by destroying it's manufacturing base - and now poised to wipe out the "symbolic analysts", the magical job category we were all supposed to take refuge in, just as readily.

The middle class is vanishing and Clinton pushed it off the cliff!

These are the really "really good economic.... policies" you speak of?

[bread_and_roses]

67. And add Wefare "Reform"

which has caused and continues to cause great hardship to the poor. The working class and the poor - and still people here ask why "those people" don't go out to vote. Not to mention doing nothing substantive in eight years about the near Third World conditions of the poor, especially Minority poor, in the Inner Cities.

[Poppyseedman]

4. The democratic party will only find itself after they throw the Clinton's

overboard.

That is not a personal shot that the Clinton's, for I like Bill. He is a former President and needs to act like one. Behind the scenes pushing the party froward but not controlling the party

The party needs to be built from the grass roots up, with fresh faces, fresh ideas, fresh political messages.

The party has changed vastly over the last twenty years, union membership is at a all time low which impacts GOTV, many state parties are weak and cash strapped for lack of a strong grassroots system, the national party is divided and acquiesces to way too many voices, the way political strategies are developed and implemented has vastly changed and we are WAY behind.

Every time we look back to the Clinton model we fail to look forward. It's killing us.

[FredStembottom]

5. Thanks, PSman!

This is the truest thing on DU today, I think

>>>>>the way political strategies are developed has vastly changed and we are WAY behind.<<<<<<<

Thanks for saying that.

Why should party building be immune from the forces that are so radically changing other endeavors - like the music distribution industry - or network TV news.

We are way behind.

[alfredo]

23. Clinton is still valuable to us. His Chris Wallace take down did

invigorate us. It did remind us that we should not take shit from the right wing. Using his example is not looking back. His outspokenness affects us right now. It did give us energy for that final push. Since then we have experienced an uptick of volunteers for our campaigns. I don't know if it is the more feisty attitude inspired by him, or the blood in the water from the many scandals.

If Clinton can rally the troops, I say Hooray for Bubba!! Learn from his example, but don't be over reliant on him for our future direction.

[Greyhound]

25. And what was his follow-up?

"...I love George Bush".
Still can't imagine what the hell he was thinking. Thank Dog Foley came along.

[blm]

28. Before the love Bush, don't forget Carville and Begala screeching that

Bill Clinton is showing Dems what a backbone looks like - - uh.....backbone when Bush is under 40% for 8 months, compared to all the Dems who were pounding away at Bush when he was at 80%, then 70%, then 60%, then 50%. Big FUCKING DIFFERENCE James, you lying piece of crap pushing the clintons in front of the parade that's been marching and growing since the months after 9-11.

Gee - wish Clinton had shown us how to counter Bush on Tora Bora, Rumsfeld's firing, the Downing Street Memos, Katrina.

[alfredo]

33. He had several good reasons for not being before the public.

One was his health. Remember he had some difficult times. Also he didn't want to overshadow his wife. She needed to step forward and make a name of her own. He also has his own life to pursue. This is the first time in many decades that he's been a private citizen. Let the guy get a chance to learn what life is like in the real world.

I don't care that he was beating his own path. It gave us a chance to stand on our own instead of looking to him for leadership. I'm just glad that he is finally standing up. It is important that he is one of many voices, not the only voice.

[blm]

35. That's what I wanted to believe, then I read his book.

Sorry, but he completely covered Bush1's ass.

[alfredo]

39. I haven't read his book, so I can't comment.

[blm]

42. Not ONE mention of BCCI - not one.

Read this transcript at CNN shortly after 9-11. The dots were being connected and then this line of questioning never happened again.

And never popped up in Clinton's book either.


Kerry brought up BCCI immediately after 9-11 and this one report came of it - then no follow up from a media willing to accept Bush's word on everything reTerror issue.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/27/se.10.ht...

America's New War: The Money Trail

Aired September 27, 2001 - 06:34 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: To learn more about Osama bin Laden, take a look at his finances. That's what the Senate Finance Committee is doing right now, and their search has led them to what they call a fraud riddled bank, which belonged to bin Laden, but was shut down 10 years ago.

Here now is CNN's Allan Dodds Frank.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALLAN DODDS FRANK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At a Senate banking committee hearing, revelations that after the closure of a notorious money laundering bank hurt Osama bin Laden, he started his own bank. Senator John Kerry investigated the Bank of Credit and Commerce International a decade ago, and says Osama bin Laden had a number of accounts there.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We've learned since, through law enforcement and intelligence, that when we shut it down we dealt him a very serious economic blow.

FRANK: Senator Carl Levin highlighted reported relationships between western banks and the Al Shamal Islamic bank, a bank in Sudan believed to have been established by Osama bin Laden with $50 million in 1991.

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: As of today, the Web site of that Sudanese bank shows that they still have correspondent banking relations with Western banks, including American banks. Now, we think the American bank accounts are either closed or no longer operative.

FRANK: The correspondent banks, 15 in all, operate in financial centers ranging from Germany, France and England to Indonesia, South Africa and China. Senator Phil Gramm, who last year blocked some tougher legislation, cautioned against laws that would allow treasury to freeze assets indiscriminately.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM (R), TEXAS: If a guy named Bobby bin Loden from Iran, Texas, has his assets frozen, then he has an opportunity on a timely basis to come forward and say, "I'm from Iran, Texas, my name's Loden. You made a mistake here."

FRANK (on camera): Senator Gramm notwithstanding, the mood on Capitol Hill almost certainly means a broad package of legislation governing banks, brokerages, money exchanges and other financial institutions will soon be passed.

Allan Dodds Frank, CNN financial news, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARRIS: Author Jeffrey Robinson thinks authorities have little chance of shutting off the money pipeline to terrorists. His two books are eye-opening studies of worldwide organized crime and money laundering.

Jeffrey Robinson joins us this morning from London once again -- good to have you back. How are you?

JEFFREY ROBINSON, AUTHOR: It's always a pleasure. Good to talk to you, Leon. Hi.

HARRIS: Let's start off with the report we just saw -- Allan Dodds Frank's report about this BCCI bank that was shut down here in the United States, and even though it was actually started with terrorist money, if you will. Now, that really presents just how big this problem is, does it not?

ROBINSON: Does it indeed! BCCI was nothing but a toilet of dirty money. I mean, the whole thing was a money laundering sink. That was a bank that had more branches in Medellin, Columbia than, I think, any other city in the world. It was a real piece of work. It was a Pakistani bank that was invented to launder money.

The interesting thing about that is that when the CIA was busy inventing Mr. bin Laden and supporting the rebels in Afghanistan, they were laundering money through BCCI. The Iran-Contra scandal went through BCCI. There's an awful lot of very dirty linen in that bank.

Now, those records still exist someplace, somewhere, somebody can get a hold of the money trail through BCCI.

HARRIS: And as it turned out, that bank did not collapse -- it didn't get shut down because of any anti-terrorism activity. It just got shut down because it collapsed actually. But there are other banks out there. As a matter of fact, I read a report this morning about a bank in Sudan that Osama bin Laden is said to have started with some $50 million.

How do you actually find a bank that's been started by dirty money in a case like that?
>>>>>>>

[alfredo]

49. What was Clinton's book about? Was it about his life or

what?

[blm]

52. Both - his life, his political life before and during his presidency.

.

[alfredo]

57. I might have to read it someday, but It will wait until I knock

down the stack that is building. Like I said, I am not a big Bio reader.

[alfredo]

32. He was talking about his relationship with Poppy Bush, not the

shrub.

[blm]

36. He was talking about the architect of IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning

which all led to the funding and rise of global terrorism - and Clinton knows it, because he covered most of it up. He never even mentions BCCI one time in his book. And he completely downplayed the CIA drugrunning operations discovered in his term.

Yeah I like Bill. For what he could have been. But I loathe what he has done in an effort to "move on" and get along with people who should be strung up as traitors to this country.

[alfredo]

37. That's politics. But there is another message. Bill is

showing that Republicans and Democrats together can do great things. This draws a stark contrast to the chimp and his take no prisoners style of governing.

Poppy is all that, but he is useful in that he has connections that can help fund charitable organizations. Clinton is giving him and his cronies a chance to rehabilitate their image.

Bono had to deal with some unsavory characters because lives were in the balance. Some times you have to bite the bullet.

[blm]

41. And sometimes you do the right thing, open the books, let chips fall

where they may.

[alfredo]

45. At that time I had a huge backlog of books. Other books

were more important to where I was at the time. I was reading things like "I Didn't do it For You" by Michela Wrong, "Imperial Hubris", and some non political books by Hanna Arendt, Salman Rushdie, and Sarah Vowell. I'm not a big Bio reader.

[femrap]

47. Remember that nice little air field in

Mena, Arkansas. Don't tell me Bill Clinton wasn't involved in bringing drugs into the US. No wonder he doesn't mention BCCI....too close to home.

[blm]

27. But the attacks about 9-11 started immediately and 8 books popped up

blaming him between 2001 and 2004. Why did he wait till fall of 2006 to defend himself on this when all the Dems running in 2002 and 2004 were necklaced with the memes - Dems are weak on terror. Bill Clinton did nothing for 8 years - repeated everyday in the media.

Does anyone believe Clinton didn't notice the import of this at the time?

[alfredo]

34. That is the job of the DNC leadership. They should have been

standing up to the GOP.

[blm]

38. McAuliffe would have been all over it if Clinton directed him to do so.

I don't believe he waited five years to counter the charges out of stoicism.

[alfredo]

40. Clinton was not his boss.

[blm]

43. They were and are very close. Clinton didn't shy away from all politics,

he was very active behind the scenes with McAuliffe.

alfredo, you're one of my favorite posters, and I think you need to understand how I feel - I loved Clinton like crazy, and originally believed he closed the books for the right reasons, to save the economy. But, after reading his book, and his inactions for Dems before 2002 and 2004, and his refusal to defend himself on the lies against him for 5 years when it was obvious the meme weak on terror was hung on the whole party, and the closeness to Bush1 while publically supporting Bush2 for four years, and a book not even mentining BCCI, and then claiming he never even heard of the Downing Street Memos in July 2005,....WELL...... it was all just too much.

The revelation that Carville was passing info to Matalin on election night, and then trashing Kerry immediately after it is all too much to chalk up to coincidence.

[alfredo]

44. thanks for the good words. I haven't read Clinton's book

so I can't comment on what was or wasn't in it.

All I know is if Clinton had taken a public stance he would have sucked all the air out of the room. Other voices within the party would not have stood a chance.

We have to stand on our own. I think we will be a stronger party because we are relying on ourselves, not on Bill.

[blm]

46. Those other Dems were being BURDENED with the meme BECAUSE of Clinton

and his silence.

Clinton WAS the big voice for the Dems up until there was a Dem nominee in 2004, and he KNEW he could put a stop to the lies about him with just one major press conference - or even during his BOOK TOUR. He chose not to.

[alfredo]

50. My feeling is what is happening now has nothing to do

with Clinton, it is what we do on the ground. What Clinton should have said or did has no relevance to the races I am working for.

Woulda shoulda will not make one bit of difference in my lit drop tomorrow morning. What Clinton should have said in 2004 will have little bearing on the radio buy this week, or whether the poster proposed for our ballot initiative sucks or not.

[blm]

62. Yes - that is what party infrastructure does do in every state, county...

and another major issue - by 1997 the party infrastructure was left to collapse in too many states, and too many counties. By 2000 it was apparent. By 2002 it was worse. By 2004 it was in the worst condition of the last 50 years, even as the DNC promised they were working to secure the election process - - how did it fail so miserably, especially in securing the vote tprocess, before and after?

[alfredo]

64. The 15 state strategy, and abandoning grassroots organizing.

[blm]

66. As per the strategy set in the mid90s. After the 2000 election hearings

we were promised that the infrastructure would be rebuilt specifically with voter integrity issues targeted. Four years of raising lots of money and doing LESS of the structural work needed.

There has to be a reason why....and why they pointed the blame for their four years of further collapsing that infrastructure on the nominee who only came forward in the last 6 months before the election with his own part of the job to deal with.

[alfredo]

68. I think we were in disarray, disillusioned, and outspent.

We were not ready to fight on such a dirty level as what Rove brought to national politics. Dean was smart. Don't get dirty, get busy.

When I jumped into party politics in 2004 I was confronted by a social club local party. There were some young turks, but they were outnumbered. When our group of insurgents took over the street level, the young turks joined us, and the establishment had no choice but to follow us. The Deaniacs joined us and after the election they became the cornerstone of rebuilding our local and state party.

It appears that the grassroot insurgents popped up all over the country. When Dean won his post it was validation of our methods.

In our area two groups seem to be making the most noise, Change For Kentucky (DFA) and Kentuckians For The Commonwealth. Kentuckians for the Commonwealth is issue oriented. They do a lot of great voter registration work. They can mobilize a lot of enthusiastic volunteers, and are not adverse to making their members aware of what other groups are doing.
CFK finds and develops candidates. We do a lot of teaching how to campaign. Today we put about a dozen members on the street for Chris Frost our fine 88th LD candidate.

[femrap]

48. I get the feeling that a small group of extremely wealthy

give Bill his orders...maybe, they give everyone their marching orders.

[alfredo]

51. Bill is too powerful to be ordered around.

[blm]

53. Sure, he's powerful, but he was coopted the moment he chose to close the

books on IranContra, BCCI, and CIA drugrunning. He may have had good intentions, but that decision dragged him in as part of the cover up, whether he realized it at the time or not.

[alfredo]

58. It isn't him, but congress that does the investigating. Sure he

could sic the Justice Department on them, but he had WTC, Waco, Oklahoma City to keep them busy. He also lost control of congress and that would have made his job even harder.

[blm]

60. For some reason, George Mitchell turned down further funding. I doubt

he would have done that with so many questions out there and finally having a DEm president with a Justic Dept. that should have started HELPING instead of blocking - instead, they wanted to move on.

And it's more, alfredo, read those questions left pending in 92 - there was NOTHING more important facing the world than what was in those questions. Yet, Clinton can't even mention BCCI one time in his book? A book written AFTER 9-11, when the import of the growing terror networks DID impact the entire world.

[alfredo]

61. When Clinton wrote his book he talked about what

was important to him at the time of writing. I have no insight into why he included or excluded historical events.

[OzarkDem]

55. Of course he is, very valuable

He's he most brilliant Dem politician of our generation to date and a master at public policy. Any Dem who is willing to throw all that away will find themselves struggling to govern.

[Totally Committed]

9. Funny... when I say this:

...the Democratic senatorial caucus talks big in public, and then folds in private, usually on the advice of consultants "with connections to the previous Democratic administration."

I get lots of criticism... and, I've been saying this for a VERY long time now. I'm glad someone with a public platform has had the guts to print it.

TC

[madfloridian]

18. Me, too.

Same thing happens to me.

[Totally Committed]

21. I agree...

They just aren't listening, are they?

Maybe this'll open some minds for us!

TC

[OzarkDem]

56. I've been saying it too

My beef has been with Harry Reid, who seems to be not much more than an empty suit.

[ItNerd4life]

15. hmm, It's all Clinton's fault?

Even though I somewhat agree, it's a fight between the left wing and the moderate wing. Clinton considered to be the moderate wing.

[whometense]

17. I'm not sure I'd put it that way:

"it's all Clinton's fault."

And I don't think that's what Pierce is saying here. I think Clinton wants his voice to be the voice of the democratic party. Casting aside as much paranoia as I can manage (and that leaves plenty of paranoia still ;-)), it seems very clear that the Clintonians' (Harry Reid, Hillary, of course, and Carville and Begala, to begin a list) main agenda may very well not be the best interests of the american public. It seems to me that they are much more excited about preserving Clinton's legacy and making way for President Hillary.

I wasn't reading much of the reaction here to Clinton's Chris Wallace moment, so I may be somewhat alone in this, but I was underwhelmed. What does it take to get Clinton roaring? Questioning his role in not catching Bin Laden, and his role in 9/11. Six years of Bush criminality, and ol' Bill is buddies with Bush senior and a regular lunch companion of Bush junior. I'm sorry, but I don't see him as the sterling voice of the people. To my mind, he is compromised. His personal interests apparently outweigh ours.

[blm]

20. That shouldn't excuse the tactic of actually undermining the left. If

centrism is the better policy then make the case for it HONESTLY and it will rise anyway. But ARTIFICIALLY making it happen by undermining the left is chickenshit behavior adopted from the RW machine.

[Greyhound]

26. See the Democratic Revolution of 1968, repeated in 1972.

The Democratic power brokers torpedoed our own candidates to hold onto their power.
If anything, the reich-wing stole it from us.:kick: & R

[whometense]

29. I guess there's a reason

for my bottomless paranoia.

I have to say, having tried to puzzle out for myself all through 2004 why the democrats didn't get out in front screaming about the Swift Boat liars. If Kerry learned anything from that experience, it might have been not to rely on his own party for his defense.

They are such backstabbers. Every time I watched a talking head show featuring Donna Brazile during the campaign I'd want to scream at the tv as she nodded in sage agreement with the repukes that were trashing him.

Except for Wes Clark, the wonderful Max Cleland, and Howard Dean, Kerry got precious little cover.

[Greyhound]

30. At least we will win this cycle, so we can look forward to a kinder,

gentler police state.:banghead:

[whometense]

31. I sure hope we will -

I've been freaking out a little, quietly, the past week or so. Polls are too close - I want to see blowout numbers.

The repuke-licans are freaking out too, though not at all quietly. Caught a few minutes of *Tucker* this afternoon - it's all Clinton's fault, and Hillary is going to be the dem nominee, and anyway, Georgie isn't a real conservative. Is anyone still listening to these creeps?

From my own personal experience of how hard it is for some people to ever admit they were wrong about something, I'd guess the never-apologize types are still gulping down the kool-aid.

[WildEyedLiberal]

65. And notice:

"Except for Wes Clark, the wonderful Max Cleland, and Howard Dean, Kerry got precious little cover."

All of them outsiders to the traditional Clintonista Democratic power structure (unlike Brazile, Carville, Begala, and most of the party's other "surrogates").

It is beyond clear to me that they are not Democratic party surrogates, but Clinton surrogates. And, sadly, there is a big difference.

[ProSense]

24. Excellent post! n/t

[ProSense]

63. How about the "non-partisan"

Concernocrats: Charlie Cook, the Morton Kondracke of "non-partisan political analysis".

Charles E. Cook, Jr.

Charlie Cook is Publisher of The Cook Political Report, and political analyst for the National Journal Group, where he writes weekly for National Journal magazine and CongressDailyAM. He also writes a regular column for the Washington Quarterly, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and is a political analyst for NBC News.

Widely regarded as one of the nation’s leading authorities on U.S. elections and political trends, Charlie has appeared on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news programs, as well as on "Good Morning America," the "Today Show," "Nightline," "Meet the Press with Tim Russert," and "This Week…." He has also appeared many times on CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, CNN and National Public Radio.

Before joining the National Journal Group in June of 1998, Charlie wrote for 12 years a twice-weekly column in Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill. Charlie also served as an election night analyst for CBS in 1990 and 1992, and for NBC in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004.

The New York Times has called Cook, "...one of the best political handicappers in the nation" and noted that The Cook Political Report is "...a newsletter that both parties regard as authoritative," while Bob Schieffer of CBS News has called the Cook Political Report, "the bible of the political community." The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt once referred to Cook as "the Picasso of election analysis," while David Broder of The Washington Post has written that Charlie Cook is "perhaps the best non-partisan tracker of Congressional races."

Updated January 2005

January 20, 2006

All Venom, All the Time

By Charlie Cook

I am deeply troubled by the tenor of current political discourse in this country. More and more Republicans don’t just disagree with Democrats, they despise them—and vice versa. People don’t just challenge someone’s views—they challenge the other person’s integrity. Enjoyable, informative, and civil discussions between people with different points of view are becoming rare.

The most recent episode to deeply offend me occurred after Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s wife left the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in tears. An Alito opponent soon asked on a popular liberal Web site, “Do we want a judge who would marry such a weak-willed bitch?”

On the same day, I happened to watch The War Room, a documentary about the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign. In one scene, Clinton strategist James Carville fielded reporters’ questions arising from allegations by conservatives that Clinton had been brainwashed or recruited as a Soviet agent while he backpacked across Europe during college.

There may well be plenty of reasons to oppose Alito’s confirmation or to have opposed Clinton’s candidacy, but aren’t these attacks out of bounds for a civil society?

more...