!

Hi, Crissy! Welcome, Glenn!

Very punctual today!

It’s a wonderful honor to be here - and especially with Chrissy. I’ve been a longtime reader of Firedoglake, and an admirer of what the community has achieved. Can’t wait for your questions.

Welcome Glenn Hurowitz. I am curious if you have read about Obama’s speech today in Atlanta (it is up at Kos). It was one of the most courageous I have every read: He calls up anti-Semitism, Homophobia etc. How does this relate to some of the issues that you are addressing here?

Glenn, here’s a question: Do you think that a Democratic presidential candidate who runs as an avowed progressive would capture a significant independent and disaffected-Republican vote, and thereby win by a substantial majority (>55%)?

Glenn, Chrissy, Welcome to the Lake.

Welcome, Chrissy and Glenn.

Folks, say hello to our guest host Chrissy, most recently of the Dodd campaign who works for the Mayor of New Haven, CT and was formerly the Political Director for the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in CT.

hi glenn…i wonder if you’ve been following al franken’s senate campaign in minnesota? i think franken would carry on wellstone’s legacy, and in fact build on it. any thoughts on this?

I agree with your analysis of the Kerry cluster f@ck. How much of the blame is on his shoulders? Shouldn’t he have known better?

Nancy Pelosi ushered in a new wave of politicians who were elected not by running on a platform of conciliation but on progressive agenda.

My impression has been that she has not capitalized on any of that as Speaker, and has thrown her weight in a decidedly non-progressive direction.

Hi and welcome.

How do make the democrats stop being cowards? It’s not just how the media shows them. They really do act like cowards.

Remember, folks: stick to the book and the author’s subject expertise. Fire away the questions!

It was certainly - as usual for the course - an inspiring speech by Obama and he, as always, did a superb job of articulating what’s driving the debate in America. It’s speeches like this that make me like Obama more and more. But I also worry that in a time of increasing economic anxiety, whether Obama’s emphasis on changing the tone and focusing on soaring to rhetorical heights could strike people as irrelevant. More to the point - is Obama still willing to sacrifice actual policies on the altar of changing the tone in Washington. He has in the past (voting to let credit card companies raise interest rates over 30 percent, championing liquid coal, voting for Bush’s energy bill, voting to expand Nafta to Peru even as Bush was obstructing the entire Democratic agenda), but in recent weeks has shown that he’s starting to “get it” that Beltway conciliation, while an admirable goal, isn’t worth sacrificing, say, an aggressive solution to the climate crisis.

Glenn, I’m curious about how you’d compare Daschle and Reid. I haven’t given it the kind of careful study that you have, but right now I have the sense that Reid is much worse at negotiations with the GOP than Daschle, especially with regard to judicial nominees and the whole Joe Lieberman mess.

Your thoughts?

Contrary to some elected officials’ popular belief, voters don’t like wimps, we long for leaders.

YES YES YES YES!

Thank you for your answer, and alas, too many democrats have done the same, including the other top contender.

Hi everyone! Thanks to Glenn for being here today.

Great question! It also makes me wonder if that is a reason that Reid is so “soft” and why the Rethugs have not gone after him (i.e. he poses no threat).

Certainly, I think it’s possible. One of the things I write about in the book is that “issues don’t matter (much)”. What I mean by that is that voters don’t vote on issues, but they do vote heavily on characteristics like “strong leadership,” and “integrity” (this is all based on what I hope is a fairly groundbreaking analysis of 20+ years of exit poll data from the National Election Survey and other info). So a progressive who stands and fights for what they believe in - and articulates it in a way that’s appealing to a wide group of people - could definitely win by a big margin. In the book, I talk about Paul Wellstone, who had an ideology considerably to the left of his constituents, but won reelection in 1996 against a well-funded opponent by a 9 percentage point margin. He did it partly because he took unpopular decisions: he was the only Democrat running for reelection that year to vote against the draconian Republican welfare bill. It was an extremely unpopular position in Minnesota, but his poll numbers surged after he took it - and he even won a majority of support of people who disagreed with that position. The same thing happened in 2002 when he was again the only Sen Dem running for reelectoin to oppose the Iraq War. Even though the war was popular in Minnesota, he saw his support surge.

Chrissy and Glenn, thank you both for your time and for joining us at the Lake.

Glenn, thanks for sticking a pin in the “Kumbayah” culture of Dems political messaging. If you have the time, can you talk about how the strategy of unilateral campaign disarmament became so pervasive in the Dems “consultant” class. (Incomptence vs. sbaotage vs ?)

Glenn, is there enough of a counterweight to corporatist defense of the status quo to be effective?

I was not among those looking with great hope or wild optimism about holding both houses of congress, but they’ve even underperformed my jaundiced exppectations.

Assuming we have a Democratic president, will it be much different? How do we keep a progressive agenda from remaining an unwanted political stepchild of the Democratic party?

Mr. Hurowitz, a great honor to have you here at FDL.

Crap. Sorry to misspell your name, Chrissy!

Why don’t people vote more on the issues? Is it because they don’t understand them well enough? Or they don’t understand enough what the politicians want to do?

If you have the time, can you talk about how the strategy of unilateral campaign disarmament became so pervasive in the Dems “consultant” class. (Incomptence vs. sbaotage vs ?)

Yeah, this is a fascinating, and important, question.

Actually, I’ve been somewhat more impressed by Reid than Daschle, though the two are more similar than different. The thing I like about Reid is that despite his many individual accomodations of Republicans and failure to fight for progressive priorities, he at least never shies from identifying proudly as a national Democrat.
In contrast, Tom Daschle ran ads in South Dakota with him hugging Bush and painting himself as a pseudo-Republican at the same time he was fighting Bush in Washington. He painted himself as one thing in South Dakota and another in DC.
In a way, the blame isn’t entirely Daschle’s. His state is legitimately Republican and he didn’t have the kind of courage or temperament that would have allowed him to really organize his state behind a progressive agenda.
It really does say a lot more about the Democrats that they would elect leaders like Harry Reid or Tom Daschle who by the very nature of their situation and their demeanor aren’t willing to fight hard for a Democratic agenda. As the longtime Speaker of the House of the legislature of a major state told me recently, you should always choose legislative leaders from safe districts so they won’t end up serving two masters - and making themselves look ridiculous in the process.

I think Kerry’s organization over ruled him at every turn. It’s the usual suspects, many who believed as Hurowitz has pointed out, that the voters don’t like confrontation and it should be avoided. Most of those guys have moved on to Hillary’s campaign, or will if she gets the nom, and constrain her in the same fashion that they did Kerry, and Gore before him.

The lessons of 2006, that standing up for your core beliefs and representing those in all 50 states, are lost on these guys. Much like neocons, their view of what is distorted by their unswerving belief in what should BE.

The result is an inability to shift and change with the currents of the public viewpoint.

encouraging

As the longtime Speaker of the House of the legislature of a major state told me recently, you should always choose legislative leaders from safe districts so they won’t end up serving two masters - and making themselves look ridiculous in the process.

I don’t know if this is outside the scope of the discussion, so if so, just ignore: When the Democrats won Congressional majorities in 2006, that was the first I had ever even heard of Reid and Pelosi. How exactly did they end up, process-wise and power-wise, the Speaker and Majority Leader?

Great question. There are a number of reasons. First, people just don’t have the time to get familiar with the large number of issues out there. That’s why we have a republican (small r) system where we elect leaders to make those decisions and choose bueuracrats to provide the expertise. For most voters, they have to go with their gut and that means choosing on character (as well as party affiliation, which is an even more powerful motivator). Also, even people who do know a lot about the issues don’t necessarily vote on them. People want someone who will be a good president or congressman and that doesn’t just mean voting the right way. It also means responding well in a crisis. It means providing good constituent services. It means being someone you want to have in your living room via your tv for two or four or six years. Those are qualities not captured by issue positions. I’d be happy to talk more about this and its ramifications if folks are interested.

I heard that Kerry was the ultimate micro-manager and second guesser. He insisted on making every decision (big and small), and then kept going back and forth on them.

This seems like a good area to discuss.

I’ve come to the opinion that people vote on identity and perceived character, and they view issues, to the extent they examine them, as data through which to assess character and identity.

There’s a kind of reasonableness to this, in that no one can predict the future, or what events may bring, so not trying is a reasonable position. Knowing what a potential leaders is made of, and how they will approach new circumstances, makes some sense.

One name I expected to see in your book, Glenn, got no mention at all that I noticed: Rahm Emanuel. Rahm is probably the fiercest of the DLC fear-mongers in the house, urging freshmen members (and new candidates) to placate the middle — especially with regard to the war in Iraq and the 2006 election.

If Daschle was a failure as a party leader in the past, I’d nominate Rahm as the one fulfilling that role in the current congress. What’s your opinion of him and his role in the party? Where do you see Rahm (and his allies) moving in 2008 and beyond?

In the book, I describe this as the “wimp love myth.” Democrats have gotten the idea that voters don’t like confrontation and as a result they shy away from it. But even a cursory look at the polls (and common sense) shows confrontation works. In the book, I talk a lot about Bill Clinton and the general pattern of surrender and capitulation that characterized his dealings with the Republicans and corporate lobbyists that left his enemies emboldened and his closest friends betrayed. But on a few key occasions, even he was forced to fight back, and saw his approval ratings surge as a result. The first was when he fought back against severe Republican budget cuts in 1995 and 1996. It was the first time he really came out swinging in a sustained way and saw his approval ratings climb relative to the Republicans. The second time was when he fought off Republican efforts to impeach him - causing his approval ratings to surge above 80 percent, the biggest increase in his presidency. I have a graph in the book that I think you might find interesting tracking how Clinton’s approval ratings were affected by his fighting or not (and by other major events). Even for confrontation-averse Clinton, confrontation worked.

I agree 100 percent.

One note: a lot of my conclusions and data are really only applicable to general elections not primaries. That’s not to say that voters in primaries aren’t looking for strong leadership and integrity in candidates, but that they’re also looking for things like electability and fealty to issue or organizational agendas to a greater extent than general election voters. Nevertheless, I think much of it still holds true.

This is probably aq hangover from the late 60’s early 70’s when many of us rejected “working through the system” and went to real confrontation.

The second time was when he fought off Republican efforts to impeach him - causing his approval ratings to surge above 80 percent, the biggest increase in his presidency. I have a graph in the book that I think you might find interesting tracking how Clinton’s approval ratings were affected by his fighting or not (and by other major events). Even for confronation-adverse Clinton, confrontation worked.

In this regard, do you address Gore’s campaign strategy decision to distance himself from Clinton?

I have a graph in the book that I think you might find interesting tracking how Clinton’s approval ratings were affected by his fighting or not (and by other major events). Even for confrontation-averse Clinton, confrontation worked.

Very interesting.

Glenn,

Do you have any thoughts on why current Senate leadership (Reid) is so determined to capitulate to Repubs on the Telecom Immunity issue?

Glenn, I regret I haven’t yet had the opportunity to read your book - I’m looking forward to purchasing and reading it. Thank you for educating me.

The graph is on page 58, for those looking for it in the book — very, very interesting.

It seems like “electability” is something that the media talks about a lot, when THEY are the ones who decide candidates like Kucinich are “unelectable” early on. And then the media doesn’t give them any coverage at all and THEN the voters don’t vote for him.

I think I did write about Rahm Emmanuel, but I think that that piece ended up getting cut (there’s lots of great stuff on my computer about loads of topics but in the interest of readability and focus, a lot got cut). As you all probably know, Rahm has been the leader of telling freshmen Dems in particular to “vote their district.” That’s making a lot of the frosh Dems who slavishly follow this advice look like spineless tools. I remember interviewing Rep. Jason Altmire this summer for The American Prospect about whether or not he support higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. I don’t have my notes in front of me, but he said something along the lines of, “Well, on the one hand I’m supposed to be seen as a pro-business Democrat for my district, so I’m not sure if that’s something I should support. On the other hand, it could help national security.” The Dems just watch the polls in their districts and make up their policy positoins on that basis. It makes them look weak, and they do it even on the lowest-profile issues that almost no one votes on. One conclusion from my book is that general election voters don’t even really vote on Iraq policy, so you can imagine the extent to which they don’t vote on minute policy issues like fuel efficiency (having said that, voters definitely do vote on performance - so if you totally screw up the war in Iraq or response to Katrina, or are corrupt, you will pay an electoral price. It’s just not the policy positions that draw votes.

Great post Chrissy. I really enjoyed the post until the second to last paragraph. The 110th congress may have started out strong and optimistic with a progressive agenda but the capitulation has turned conciliatory. That progressive agenda has turned into a stay on topic “message control” without the strong voice and stance.

Thanks for all your work with Dodd, I was sorry to see him leave the race and really valued his contribution as a candidate.

I didn’t read the book yet so I’ll just follow along for now.

Exactly. I don’t like the fact that the media chose the candidates for the Democrats across this country. It’s so wrong! Oh, but will the Democrats of this nation take a stand against it? Nope. None are willing to take a risk and scribble outside the lines out of fear.

There is no such thing as, “the feel of the nation” anymore. The “feel” is brought to us through the media. Darn tired of it!

I don’t know how much that actually affected the election. There’s a lot of division of opinion on this. Clinton was really unpopular in some parts of the country. I do think Gore suffered, somewhat unjustly, from Clinton’s repeated betrayals of the progressive agenda he had run on. For a lot of progressives in the 1990’s, Clinton was just as often opponent as friend. It was he who backed Nafta, expansion of the WTO to China etc., and backed off his promises to, for instance, fight hard for universal health care (as I write about in the book, part of the reason he lost that fight was that he so quickly started compromising as soon as there was any sign of opposition, causing Republicans and corporations who had thought a universal system was inevitable and who had been just trying to influence the shape of that system to embrace instead William Kristol’s argument that they should just outright oppose it; Clinton blinked, and they saw the possibility of total victory). People took that anger out on Gore by either voting for Nader, staying home, or just not volunteering or giving money (one big reason Bush outspent Gore by $60 million).

Thanks for all your work with Dodd, I was sorry to see him leave the race and really valued his contribution as a candidate.

Please note my correction on Chrissy’s background, above. She did not work for Dodd, but rather works for the Mayor of New Haven, CT and was formerly the Political Director for the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in CT.

The two Democratic candidates who are taking the approach you recommend - taking strong progressive positions and standing by them - have been made to pretty much disappear from public discussion of the race by a press that’s not interested in covering them. It’s hard for voters to join a revolution they’ve never been told about.

How do you recommend that candidates get past media gatekeepers who are increasingly not bothering to hide that they reserve the right to choose our candidates for us?

What I mean by that is that voters don’t vote on issues, but they do vote heavily on characteristics like “strong leadership,” and “integrity” (this is all based on what I hope is a fairly groundbreaking analysis of 20+ years of exit poll data from the National Election Survey and other info).

I’m wondering if voters vote on a perception of characteristics like “strong leadership” and “integrity,” meaning that what the press or the other media says about you that sticks also may mean a lot. And we voters can be relatively easily fooled, I fear. Look at the whole swiftboat controversy, or what was done to Max Cleland.

Great post, and I was wondering, Glenn, if you could steer me in the right direction for stats on percentage of the electorate that considers themselves liberal/progressive, and the breakdown of which party they belong to, and the same information on centrists and conservatives. Also, how do they define each category and are there differences in the way an Independent progressive defines him or herself or their issues from the way a Democratic progressive defines her or himself. You get the picture.

Is that National Election Survey, available to the public for instance, and where would I find it? Are there other materials with complementary or supplementary information?

I think there’s a combination of reasons Dems are so willing to capitulate on telecom immunity. First, I think there are a few people who truly believe that these companies shouldn’t be blamed for following government request/orders. That’s bogus, but that’s what they believe. But more broadly, I think dems are just terrified of confronting Republicans in general, and especially when it comes to terrorism. Nobody wants blame for the next attack. Of course, a better strategy would be to talk about how Bush’s failures (as well as how his policies have led to ridiculously high oil prices) have put America at greater risk of terrorism, but that’s not the way Dems operate. Indeed, I would say a great deal of what Democrats do is an attempt to respond to the latest Republican talking point. For instance, when Republicans say ‘Dems aren’t getting anything done,’ Dems cut mediocre to terrible deals on energy, Iraq, wiretapping, immigration etc. just to show that they can get things done, even if the things they’re getting done aren’t good. It’s really not a politics of principle and has really not paid off for them politically (witness very low poll ratings).

The two Democratic candidates who are taking the approach you recommend - taking strong progressive positions and standing by them - have been made to pretty much disappear from public discussion of the race by a press that’s not interested in covering them.

Yep. Today’s mainstream journalists–with few exceptions–are friends (or wish they were) with many of the political figures whose actions they are supposedly investigating and analyzing. They run around in the same social circles, go to the same parties, went to the same schools, and are from the same socioeconomic class, and have a common interest in maintaining the Beltway (and its New York City outpost) social status quo.

I think I did write about Rahm Emmanuel, but I think that that piece ended up getting cut (there’s lots of great stuff on my computer about loads of topics but in the interest of readability and focus, a lot got cut).

As a preacher, I’m quite familiar with that too. I have many such pearls of wisdom that didn’t make it into a final version of whatever I had been working on (sermon, article, etc.). I have great sympathy for you.

But your editing made your book into a very readable, very powerful description of the political players and the landscape of 2008. Thanks!

Having said that, don’t let that piece linger on the computer — find a place and way to get it out!

Thanks tw3k. I agree that the 110th has not been all it could be or all that it was elected to be…

I wanted to address the Harry Reid issue a little more. I was writing an article about the border wall that will be a disaster for the environment and international relations (and crime) for Grist. I interviewed Harry Reid’s spokesman about the issue and he said that the problem with a 10 foot wall is that it doesn’t stop anyone with an eleven foot ladder.” It’s very true and a great way to explain it, but then Reid went ahead and supported a bill to provide over $1 billion in funding for the wall so as to show Democrats were “doing something ” about immigration. It’s a real cop out and insults people’s intelligence. If you want less illegal immigration, that means enforcing immigration laws, adding more border security guards, and high tech monitors at the border, not a wall that people climb over, tunnel under and that really makes Mexicans mad and much less willing to cooperate with Americans.

Thanks and will do!

You could always start a blog!

Do you have a blog of your own?

(as well as party affiliation, which is an even more powerful motivator).

Fine words, but now maybe you can tell me what our party affiliation means now? In other words, with Dems being as they are, what does being a Dem stand for these days, because I don’t know if that can be defined?

Welcome Chrissy and Glen - what great guests for today! and what a perfect topic as we try to survive primary season!

Sounds like you’re gonna be in demand, Glenn!

Yes! www.dcourage.com/

Glenn, have you read Schaller’s Whistling Past Dixie, and do you see an overlap or complementary insights to be drawn from looking at the two works in tandem?

Thanks - Ann. I’ll try to answer as many of your questions as possible here. The NES survey data is free and publicly available, but not easy to interpret without some statistical expertise and a decent stats program: http://www.electionstudies.org/

For stats on partisanship, it’s best to track the latest polls - they generally include a question on party id of respondents. Pew has done a bunch of great studies looking specifically at partisanship trends.

You have an interesting question about how people define themselves as liberals or progressives. This is almost always asked as a self identification question. And there definitely is issue variation within groups (not all libs, conservatives, or independents believe the same things, also true of Dems and Repubs.)

The DLC usually argues that because more Americans have traditionally said they were conservatives than liberals that means progressives can’t play to their base and you have to shift your issue positions to the center to have any hope of winning. Problem with that argument is 1) people don’t necessarily associate particular issues positions with a particular or the correct ideology or party (in 2004, for instance, large numbers of people didn’t know whether it was Kerry or Bush who favored making the Bush tax cuts permanent!). 2) Shifting issue positions doesn’t help you that much anwyay and 3) saying things you don’t believe does hurt you on the characteristics that people really are voting on - strong leadership and integrity.

Also, I think it’s important to note that some of these conclusions are true for centrists and conservatives as well. A sincere centrist will likely do well at the polls, all things being equal. But the problem with the Dems is that most centrists don’t even believe in a lot of what they’re saying.

My blog and other writings and news etc. are all available at www.democraticcourage.com. You can also buy my book there!

“Nobody wants blame for the next terror attack” seems a rather illogical position for the Democrats to take, considering the fellow on whose watch the 2001 attack occurred got re-elected by running on keeping us safer.

Isn’t it really that Democrats are afraid of being blamed by scorched-earth Bushies for the next attack? Why not realize that GOPs will criticize mercilessly regardless of what we do, or whom we nominate? Why is so hard for our DeeCee Democrats to bang the drum every day about Bush’s failures to keep us safe? Why don’t Democrats “operate that way?”

Thanks, Chrissy and Glenn, for this great chat today!

Thanks. I don’t buy books though. Maybe in a few years.

But we certainly welcome our under 18 contingent here, Cassie. Maybe a library!

Again, the party affiliation question is a matter of self identification. But if voters don’t feel that Democrats are either fighting for what they believe in or delivering on their promises, it’s likely that they won’t turn out to the polls. So far, that doesn’t seem to be happening (if the presidential primaries are any evidence, which they may not be), in part because of the excellent organizing being done by both Obama, Edwards, and Clinton and because the massive Republican failures and relatively weak Republican candidates helps make people enthusiastic about the “change” represented by the Democrats.

We’ll see how good the library is when I get to El Paso. There is a library right on the base!

“But the problem with the Dems is that most centrists don’t even believe in a lot of what they’re saying.” ~ Glenn Hurowitz

Bingo, Glenn! This is why “centrists” scare me. They really don’t have a defined ideology, just kind of go with the flow and will say things to make the person or people they’re talking to at the moment happy. I can’t stand that! If you believe in something, you believe in wholeheartedly and aren’t afraid to say it…even if it’s unpopular. That said, George Bush had his jackboot lickers that agreed with everything he said and did, but truly…it was effective in a sense. I would like to see this kind of Democrat using this same kind of tactic by standing up for the Democratic ideals and not be afraid to say it either.

I wondered why google only turned up two hits. Both to FDL.

Still an inspiring post Chrissy, thank you.

I know this is a wistful question, but had Wellstone not perished in the plane crash, how would things be different today? I think of FISA for instance.

While I think it’s true that Dems can win presidential elections without the south, I don’t think that we as progressive or as a party can or should ignore the South or any other region. We’ve seen Montana, Nebraska, and many other formally red states starting to trend Democratic and the 50 state strategy paying dividends in some unlikely places in 2006. When you organized in red states, you realize they’re not that different from purple states. Victories will be harder there, but not impossible, and southerners are certainly persuadable. Indeed, in the seventies and eighties, southerners often held significnatly more progressive views on issues and elected significantly more progressive candidates than they have more recently - which means change is possible. Also, this is the exact moment we have to be rushing into these states and organzing behind a progressive agenda and Democratic candidates. We can’t expect Republicans to always have the reputation for failure and corruption they do now - so this is exactly the time that we can make an alignment happen.

Also, in a federal system, with so many decisions made at the state level, we’ve got to be working to build progressive majorities in the hardest states, unless we want to write off the environment, health care, justice etc. in all those states except those that “matter” in presidential elections.

Finally, electoral maps change - and if you’re not building a movement in a state, you may not be able to take advantage of deeper socio-economic changes that may have an impact on party balance.

Glenn, what say you about a challenge to Reid for Majority Leader in the next Congress? I’m confounded that our Leader is anti-choice; can you imagine the GOPs having a tax-raiser as their leader? Taxcuts and choice are defining issues for the parties. It’s wrong for the Democratic leader to be anti-choice, but perhaps the Senators are happy with his leadership?

Glenn, this is fascinating and you’ve convinced me I should buy your book. :) I’ve long said (and written) that strength is as strength does and that Democrats will looks strong when they stand up and fight — even if they were to fight against, say, a big military (something Dems are scared of tackling because they think it makes them look weak). People respect people who fight for what they believe in, even if they don’t agree.

The Clinton graph, in particular, sounds like a very good way to make your argument.

One thing I’ve been heartened by that many others hate is the way Obama and Clinton have been playing hardball with each other. I like that, but I wonder if they’ll be willing and able to do it against Republicans. It seems like Dems are great at (as Pach likes to say) going for the jugular against other Dems, but going for the capilliaries against Pubs.

Do you think either Clinton or Obama will be able to keep the hard edge in a general?

Glenn, please pardon my perseveration…

I’m trying to puzzle out what stiumli reinforce the Dems’ adherence to the Wimp Love Myth. You quite clearly describe the Dems’ success when they ignore the myth; the losses accrued in following the myth are staggering and self-evident.

So - and I apologize if you’ve covered this precise question in your book - what keeps the Dems’ consultant class enthralled by the Wimp Love Myth - and why do the Dem candidates ignore their career self-interest (and testable hypotheses/ verifiable documentation) and continue to join the consultants in the delusion of Wimp Love?

Courage is like knowledge in a sense. Each, when used properly and in tandem, leads to something essential, precious and vital to humanity. And will of consequence propel one to good and forthright actions. Paul Wellstone was a man who very much knew what this concept meant. Sometimes confrontation means the same thing as telling the truth. I miss Mr. Wellstone. Terribly.

Thank you for coming to chat with us today, sir. I will be adding your book to my wish list. Do you think there is a snowballs chance in hell of the Dem Leadership ever learning how to stand up and fight back?

It’s amazing how much one more senator can do - especially when it comes to gumming up the works on preventing bad things. Having said that, I’ve got to be honest about Wellstone here. While it’s impossible to know, I doubt he would have led on that fight. He focused his energies more on domestic issues and broader foreign policy issues - and left fights like FISA to his very good friend Russ Feingold.

But overall, not only would we have had a Democrat in Coleman’s seat, and a passionate voice for progressive issues, but also someone who saw his Senate seat primarily as a place from which to build a more powerful progressive movement. So while senators like Barbara Boxer have largely filled Wellstone’s shoes from a policy perspective (in part, inspired by his example), no one has come close to filling his shoes from a movement building perspective.

As I write about in the book, Wellstone reimagined the entire purpose of a Senate office. Here’s an excerpt that The Politico published from my book (it was adopted for The Politico, so there are some slight differences):

He came to the conclusion that if you could change the relative strength of those competing forces, or movements, you could change politicians’ choices and voter attitudes way more than by giving a powerful speech or even mastering the art of the political deal.

For that reason, he concentrated his efforts as senator not so much on directly passing good legislation or providing quality constituent services (though he did those things, too), but rather on using the power and prestige of his office to build a powerful progressive movement. He believed the movement would provide a backing to achieve almost anything: whether electing good leaders or providing the political support necessary to pass major progressive legislation.

On the most mundane level, that meant reimagining the purpose of a Senate office as an organizing machine. Wellstone frequently took time out of his schedule to do things like recruit workers to join unions.

His staff also handled constituent calls very differently from other offices.

For instance, veterans who called seeking help obtaining government benefits didn’t just get advice or assistance. They also got invited to a meeting in Minnesota with Wellstone and all the other veterans who had called in to the office, where the group would come up with a plan for collective action.

Veterans organizations were grateful for the influx of activists working on their issues, and the veterans themselves felt a lasting bond with the peacenik professor Wellstone. As a result, these veterans stood ready to leap to his defense when he came under attack for implementing the other half of his movement-building strategy: confrontation.

Perhaps “ever” is a long time. The fight for good Democratic leadership may perhaps be just beginning.;0)

thank you.

what you tell is an inspiration.

Glad to be here. I think we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that things are getting a lot better and the Democratic party is a lot more courageous than it was just a few years ago. Compare Nancy Pelosi to Dick Gephardt. I have a lot of criticisms for Pelosi and I often wish she wouldn’t just pass mediocre or bad legislation so Republicans couldn’t criticize her for not getting enough done, but she’s also an effective behind the scenes warrior for progressive change. She’s brought a lot of votes with her on key issues. And I can’t imagine her ever doing what Gephardt did, which was to cut a private deal with Bush and stand in the White House Rose Garden and passionately back giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq, putting loads of pressure on Tom Daschle and other Democrats to follow suit. I also think a lot of the freshmen senators are considerably more courageous than their more senior colleagues. I may not agree with them all the time, and they’re certainly not uniformly courageous, but Webb, Tester, Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown give me a lot of reason to hope.

That’s a very important point to make, Glenn, and thanks for making it.

First, I think there are a few people who truly believe that these companies shouldn’t be blamed for following government request/orders. That’s bogus, but that’s what they believe.

But, but, the very people who are probably going to be willing to capitulate on this issue are attorneys who know the consequences to the rule of law, who know the effects on the separation of powers. These are experienced lawmakers, many with years of experience who have in the past been required to look very carefully at the legal and constitutional repercussions of the legislation they proffer and have many times in the past risen to the occasion. Leahy, Schumer, Whitehouse, Cardin, Durbin, Kohl? What excuse could there possibly be?

I’m not going to give this all away here: why the Democrats embrace the philosophy they do is one of the big things I expose in the book (and a lot of it surprised me when I was doing the research. Suffice it to say that it’s not a coincidence that so many of them embrace this “spectacularly and obviously” misguided strategy. It’s the product of an effective and wily campaign by the DLC and their allies to get Dems to embrace a centrist agenda. How they did it is really amazing.