Question concerning Democratic strategy and who would fit best the profile

[Mass]

Dionne is describing?

E.J. Dionne has a column today in the WaPo concerning censure. Among other things, he brings out the qualities he expects from a Democratic leader who could lead the fight.

- Being able to talk to the activists and the grassroots and netroots.

- being able to do real political strategy.

It is clear from what he writes that he thinks that neither the Democratic leadership not Feingold have these qualities, and I would agree with them on that. Some of Feingold's remarks that I have quoted from the column are probably totally true (and my guess is that Kerry would somehow agree with that), but Feingold has trouble to get his colleagues around him, including liberal stalwarts as Kennedy, Reed, or Kerry. People like Clinton, Bayh, Reid, or others ... probably would do better at making a coalition, but can they stir up the activists.

So the question that Dionne is asking at the end is: who can do that? I guess everybody knows who I am thinking at, but do you agree he could, and why?.

Can Democrats Play This Game?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, March 17, 2006; Page A19

...
"We were going to sit back as Democrats and say, 'This is too hot to handle' -- well that's outrageous." He warned that "the mistakes of 2002 are being repeated," meaning, he said, that Democrats should never again "cower" before Bush on security issues, as so many at the grass roots saw them doing before the 2002 elections.

...

Here's the problem: Feingold and the activists are right that Democrats can't just take a pass on the wiretapping issue, because Bush's legal claims are so suspect -- even to many in his own party. The opposition's job is to raise alarms over potential abuses of presidential power.

But Democrats, unlike Republicans, have yet to develop a healthy relationship between activists willing to test and expand the conventional limits on political debate and the politicians who have to calculate what works in creating an electoral majority.

For two decades, Republicans have used their idealists, their ideologues and their loudmouths to push the boundaries of discussion to the right. In the best of all worlds, Feingold's strong stand would redefine what's "moderate" and make clear that those challenging the legality of the wiretapping are neither extreme nor soft on terrorism.

That would demand coordination, trust and, yes, calculation involving both the vote-counting politicians and the guardians of principle among the activists. Republicans have mastered this art. Democrats haven't.

Turning a minority into a majority requires both passion and discipline. Bringing the two together requires effective leadership. Does anybody out there know how to play this game?

[karynnj]

1. Unsurprisingly, I think Kerry

Activists: Kerry has a past as an activist that has probably colored how he does things. Recently reading his floor speech from 1997 on clean elections, there were sentences on activism that sound like his post 2004 emails and speeches. He is using his email differently than anyone else as a diologue. (Speaking of which, I hope he sends something on ANWR explaining what happened - it looks like they tried to defeat an amendment, rather than amend an amendment - and lost.) Feingold is adored on dKos, Kerry scorned - but Kerry was able to actually get people motivated. Feingold seems to be the loner that Kerry was supposed to be - but wasn't. (Edwards and Clark seem to also be trying to use netroots - but so far Kerry has been most successful.)

Principle: Kerry or Feingold clearly are quardians of principles. At the worst ant-Kerry times on DKos and other liberal boards - there were people who wouldn't have objected if he resigned and disappeared from political life altogether who would always add that he was a good, honorable man. (I know the Clarkies and Edwards fans would add their man here but I really don't see the same lifetime committment.)

Vote counting: Kerry's capture of the nomination - with the support of neither the party or the media - is pretty unheard of. (Carter may have been similar) Also, Kerry has managed to get bits and pieces of legislation passed, even in this hostile environment. That Kerry is trustworthy and not a back stabber has to useful here. His willingness to discuss and negotiate things is good. He is also a very good spokesman as he has a very broad range of expertise. (I think he would be used more as a spokesman if he disavowed interest in 2008.)

[TayTay]

2. Well, if what I saw a couple of weeks ago is a hint

then I think some people learned the lesson. I think that the Democratic Party was fundamentally broken and has to be put back together, one voter at a time. There has to be actually human outreach and a strong desire to get out in the field and really talk to people.

We lost the voters one at a time. That is also the only way we will get them back. I think that lesson has been learned by some. We shall see.