Kos: Taking a bow

[Coexist]

THIS says it all. True inter-party bi-factionship. Thanks Kos. You said it perfectly:

by kos
Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 11:33:05 AM EST

The new people-powered progressive movement and the establishment party have had some growing pains. We're not the Right Wing, we have never been content to fall in line and do their bidding a la Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman. It's just not our style. And it shouldn't be.

On top of that, there were conflicting goals even within the DC committees. Dean is committed to the long-term building of a truly national 50-state party, while Rahm and Chuck were tasked with taking control of Congress NOW.

Throw in that those of us in the states were busy trying to expand the playing field while the party committees focused on the races they considered most competitive (narrowing the playing field), so of course there would be tension. Of course there would be disagreements.

But in the end, none of this would've happened without the effort all of us made. Those who think that the DSCC and DCCC don't deserve credit are idiots. Those who think Dean doesn't deserve credit are idiots. Those who think the netroots and grassroots don't deserve credit are idiots. We all had our roles to play, and we wouldn't be where we are today without all of us doing our part.

In some DC circles, there's a lot of chortling about Lieberman. But we did what we set out to do -- to make clear to the party leadership that the war was going to be this year's decisive issue. Until Lamont won his primary, that obvious point wouldn't pierce the DC bubble. So we had to make our point in a dramatic fashion.

Furthermore, Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats. That's fine. Hopefully he's learned his lesson and will actually go back to representing the people of Connecticut. If he does, he'll be fine in six years. If he doesn't, he'll be right back where we started and will face an even more mature people-powered movement. And all he has to do is look at the 2008 Senate calendar, and the almost dozen serious Democratic pickup opportunities, to realize that any thoughts of switching parties would be a short term power-play at best.

Lieberman has been neutered. He leaves the caucus, he loses all leverage and power. Yet he doesn't stay as a Democrat, but as an independent. And in that capacity he can criticize the Democratic Party all he wants without it being a story of "Democrats versus Democrats". He can flirt with Bush without it being a case of "bipartisanship".

In any case, Lieberman is the old. An artifact of a bygone era. Let him sunset in the Senate as we look to our future leaders -- people like Tester, Webb, Klobuchar, Brown, McCaskill, Whitehouse, and so many exciting new faces in the U.S. House.

But none of that would've been possible without a DC party that is close to closing the GOTV-gap with the Republican Party. In fact, in places like Montana and Missouri, they exceeded it. No amount of netroots activity would've meant a damn without our crack GOTV field ops putting together their GOP-slaying plans.

And even Rahm, who's early plan was perfectly encapsulated by Columnist Joel Connelly at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, was key. Rahm's original strategy was as follows:

Emanuel was clear on strategy. House Democrats didn't have as many bucks as their Republican counterparts. The limited coffers would be focused on just 25 to 30 races, which, he hoped, would produce the 15-seat gain needed for House control.

Connelly then talks about our grand strategy, which he heard when Jerome and I spoke at Seattle's Labor Temple during our Crashing the Gate tour:

Moulitsas called for a radically different approach: Contest seats everywhere, including "safe" GOP districts; fuel self-starting long-shot challengers; and move the battle onto the Republicans' turf.

The 34-year-old blogger talked with absolute self- assurance, insulting the corporatist Democratic Leadership Council, even making a scathing private crack about New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.

I came away thinking Emanuel was much more realistic. Moulitsas was, however, right to think big -- and move the battleground. In bloggers around the country, he had a constituency ready to walk its computerized talk.

The "net roots" of the Democratic Party jump-started challenges to seemingly entrenched Republican incumbents.

Yeah, we absolutely helped expand the playing field. But all that would've netted us would've been a whole basketful of moral victories had the DCCC not realized late that -- holy shit! -- we could expand the playing field and go for broke. They dumped over $1 million into early netroots favorite Paul Hodes in NH-02 (with spillover likely into Carol Shea-Porter in NH-01, since the anti-GOP/Bush ads they were running where in the same Boston media market as NH-01). They dumped several hundred thousand into CA-11's Jerry McNerney, who then ousted the odious Richard Pombo. With an unlimited budget they would've hit more races, but they still played in more races than in recent memory, moving quickly to take advantage of a rapidly improving political landscape. Without that late effort, some of those longer-shot candidates might not have been able to pull it off.

And Rahm (and Schumer) were able to expand the playing field because they could raise the serious money. I mean serious money.

So I'm ready to get beyond the "who gets credit" conversation, because we all do. You guys too. Take a bow. The bloggers. The grassroots activists. The field ops. The party leaders -- from all three committees. The guys at the forgotten Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, who did their part to see big gains at the state legislative level.

And most importantly of all -- my biggest bit of gratitude goes to the candidates who ran, even the long-shot ones who made it possible to expand the playing field. Truly, without those who make the sacrifice of running for office, knowing they'll get slammed and slimed and dragged through the mud -- those are the real heroes this election cycle.

--------

Others who who have recently chimed in on the "credit" front -- Atrios, Jerome Armstrong in the CSM, and Chris Bowers.

[lcordero2]

1. there are too many people trying to take credit

But credit isn't issued to where it should really go and that's to the people that made it to the voting booth. These are the people that dared to dream of a better America.

[KittyWampus]

2. My concern is that the media (except Jon Stewart) refuse to give Dean credit

and this contributed, I think, to resentment here on DU against Rahm etc.

All the mediawhores' focus on was Rahm and Schumer.

It isn't accurate, it isn't fair.

[Coexist]

4. Jon to Dean: "is that a grin of the shit-eating variety?!"

and "you said, no, we're going to hand out these door-hangers. You were right, sir."

That was nice.

[wisteria]

3. Problem is, Kos may give credit to everyone, but our Dem leadership

is content to take all the credit and acknowlede no one. With this, Kos almost seems to be cozying up with the likes of Schumer and Emanuel.

[On the Road]

5. "Bi-Factionism" Is Sometimes Harder Than Bipartisanship

but this election it worked beautifully for Democrats.