I have been pushing two special elections, one in Ohio and one in Virginia. Both were in traditionally DEEP red districts. The very fact that we seemed to have a shot at EITHER of them was a big surprise.

What happened in the end was the Republicans held their own. They performed pretty much as expected in both districts easily winning both. But what did happen was the strength of the Democratic challenge forced them to fight harder than they ever had to for these two districts. They had to fight harder than ever to stay where they were.

In and of itself this would be meaningless. But as part of a broader strategy (an extension of Howard Dean's contest every district philosophy) the Democrats did something pretty smart. The DCCC has far more money these days than the NRCC. This is unusual. Generally the NRCC does far better at fundraising. But people are so fed up with Bush that the Republicans are having a really hard time fundraising while the Dems are doing great.

Howard Dean in many ways brought the Democratic Party back to life. Although others share in the 2005 and 2006 success stories, Howard Dean in 2004 recreated the Democratic grassroots and since then has forged an alliance between progressives and moderates that has been winning big. He did this not by creating a rival force to the Democratic Party the way Nader did. He created a force WITHIN the party that led him to the head of the DNC. And under him the Democratic Party, with help from Rahm, Pelosi and Schumer, among others, has prospered.

Last night was the beginning of a wonderful event in politics.... "The fake debates".

As I watched last night a couple of things came to mind.

1. Clinton, Obama, and Biden were for the most part strong throughout the process.

2. I want Mike Gravel at every debate and he must get more questions and air time. Then get his own show and I would watch.

3. John Edwards looked so pretty last night I thought he was posing for GQ not running for President. Not to mention he long pause as he looked toward God when they asked who is moral leader was. I though he was expecting God to come down and say" Oh that is me Brain, John looks up to me."

4. Bill Ricardson did a poor job overall. Too much hand movement and body movement. At times long winded and overextending his time. He needs to fine tune for the next debate.

5. Why were people in the audience fanning themselves with their programs? You would think a large great college like that would have the AC on?

6. If anyone gained or lost undecided people it would look like this for each......

1. Gravel: gained.... Why well if he went from 2 votes to 4 he still gets my vote as most entertaining and needs a position in the next administration anyway.

Well, that didn't take long: The Plank, the blog of the right-leaning DLC organ The New Republic, has an item titled "Putsch at the DNC".

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, "Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager."

Notably, Dean is closely identified with the netroots and the fifty-state strategy; both are intent on devolving power away from the Beltway aristocracy, of which Carville is a starring member, besides being a loyal retainer to the Clintons. It's also worth pondering that present conventional wisdom has it that the main obstacle to a Hillary candidacy will be, you guessed it, the netroots and those newly energized state parties.

Carville has been a useful surrogate for the Clintons before, as when he wrote an article for WaPo laying out a rather threadbare case for her electability. It seems reasonable to see the same dynamic at work in this case.

What's truly disgusting about this is this: we lost the Congress in 1994, when you-know-who was President. For the rest of his tenure, no serious effort was made to reverse that defeat; this in part because the Democratic Party was fully focused on saving Bill Clinton's posterior from the republican jihad. In part as a result, the party out there in the country withered, a process that has not been undone until just now. Not to be unkind - or hell, why not - but James Carville's fingerprints were all over that withering.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the rank and file aren't going to be too friendly to this newest Beltway power grab. We've seen what it's like when D.C. runs things, and we don't like it, Mr. Carville. Back off.

Bouldin just reported on a fundraising letter from the DCCC by James Carvelle where the gloves came off. Well, looks like the Dems are trying for a double punch because I also got an fundraising email from Howard Deam on behalf of the DNC where the gloves also came off.

The Democrats, angry at 5 years of Republican lies, scandlas and failure since 9/11, are coming out swinging, making national security a prime issue.

Here is Howard Dean's message:

You can't trust Republicans on national security -- and two things proved it yesterday:

1) In a powerful interview that aired yesterday, President Bill Clinton took on the extremist Republican propaganda about 9/11 -- and Fox News tried to cover up the fact that the Bush administration downgraded terrorism as a priority before September 11th and has failed to eliminate Osama bin Laden since the attacks.

2) An explosive report on the still-classified National Intelligence Estimate states that the "invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks" -- and Republicans have been trying to cover it up.

This is what we're fighting against every day -- an administration covering up of the Bush failure of 9/11 and covering up an honest look at the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

Last Monday I was at a fundraiser for Fernando Ferrer and I got to meet or should I say, I got to be blown away by Howard Dean. I'd never heard him in the flesh; which, btw, is very ... na-IZE (said with Monty Pythonesque french inflection).

Yeah, Howard Dean is a hottie AND he has a sense of humor. At a moment during his "reasons not to vote for Bloomberg" --which ranged from the a more than 10% increase in poverty in the city, lack of affordable housing, more than 200,000 kids without medical insurance and the still problematic school system-- he added maybe the #1 reason (and the cheekiest) a true New Yorker would not vote for Bloomberg :

The Yankees have lost every single World Series since he took office in 2002.

Bad Bloomberg, baaaaaaaaaaaad.

I don't know you but the business of this new slogan leaves me cold. I do have to say that the other night, when Howard Dean and Fernando Ferrer used it at a fundraiser, it caught my attention. But I feel it was the context in which it was being used. All by itself though ... urgh. It does not make me moist and squooshy.

Slogans have to make you moist and squooshy. They have to stir you and want to say it over and over and over again. I know it's hard to beat the genius of "Just Do It"; but ... together, can't we do better than this slogan.

Heh.

Shakes doesn't like it.
Taegan as usual is neutral about it.
J at Pandagon finds Shakes response amusing.