While Democrats have freaked out about Jerry Brown’s chances against Meg Whitman, there hasn’t been such concern about Senator Barbara Boxer’s re-election.  And while she should prevail in November, who wins the GOP primary in June could make a difference.  Perception in politics can become reality – and if Tom Campbell wins the nomination, there will be “news analysis” in papers across the state that Republicans “learned their lesson” by picking a “moderate.”  Some will remind readers that what “saved” Boxer in 1992 was Campbell losing the GOP primary, so she faced a right-wing conservative in November.  Campbell’s “maverick” stance on gay marriage, Israel and marijuana (the latter will be on the November ballot) may confuse voters into thinking he is to the left of Boxer.  But on the vast majority of issues, Campbell is as conservative as the Party of No in Washington – progressives cannot let the media define the race in terms favorable to him.

I’m going to start off by stating the obvious when it comes to Barbara Boxer’s chances.

If Carly Fiorina wins the primary, it’s over.  Fiorina has made such a fool of herself with online ads about blimps and demon sheep that her candidacy has quickly become the butt of jokes on late-night comedy.  Apparently, her consultants fail to understand that there is such a thing as bad press.  At this point, for Democrats to attack Fiorina is counter-productive – it could just make her lose in June.

As for Chuck DeVore, he’s just another right-wing Teabagger who might be electable in states like Alabama – but not California.  He would suffer the fate of Bruce Herschensohn.

Meanwhile, Campbell is getting away with being a “sane” and “moderate” Republican – one of those who is “fiscally conservative” and “socially liberal.”  California Republicans may be a right-wing bunch, but their party has finally come to its senses and opened their primary to “decline-to-state” voters – a practice Democrats have done for years.  With both Democratic primaries for Governor and Senate a foregone conclusion, independent voters are likely to pick a GOP ballot in June – and therefore, Campbell could win.

But look at where Campbell stands on the issues, and it’s clear that he would be another voice in the chorus of Republican obstructionists on Capitol Hill – should he beat Boxer.

Campbell would have voted against the federal stimulus.  He told the Chronicle’s Andy Ross he opposed its child tax credits for the working poor, extended unemployment insurance, food stamps and Medicaid help. “They may be good, compassionate things, but nobody is going to hire on that basis,” he said.  Would he have supported Senator Jim Bunning’s reckless filibuster of unemployment payments?

Like most Republicans, Tom Campbell wants to repeal the universal health care bill.  On his website, he warns about a “creeping public option” that he calls an inevitable consequence of the legislation (if only!), and urges us not to “destroy the system of private health care and health insurance” that has apparently worked so well.

Campbell’s platform on immigration are identical to the most right-wing Republicans.  He supports building a wall, and criticizes moderate Republicans who won’t crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers.  In a YouTube video on his website, he brags to have been an advocate for the harsh elements of Proposition 187 long before Pete Wilson did.  For a state like California that has moved so far, voters need to know where he stands on this.

Climate change?  In his position paper on the environment, Campbell starts by attacking the 2007 Climate Change Report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  “There is still a lot to be learned about the subject of climate change, especially as it relates to its rate and possible solutions,” he writes.  He strongly opposes “cap-and-trade.”  Boxer is a leader on global warming and chairs the Environment Committee – so the difference is stark.

In her speech at the California Democratic Convention this weekend, Boxer criticized Campbell for having been Schwarzenegger’s chief economic adviser.  It’s clear that her campaign is hoping to tie Campbell to Arnold’s spectacular failure as Governor – where there is a ton of ammunition.  But a critical question for voters in this election will be how the next Senator votes on issues in Washington – and what issues are likely to dominate next year.

We can mention Campbell’s pro-choice stance, that he opposed Proposition 8 (but did not support the federal lawsuit challenging it), or that he’s likely to endorse the marijuana initiative on the November ballot.  Boxer will have her own set of problems if she faces Campbell, because she has never officially come out in support of marriage equality – and in fact has opposed the November initiative to de-criminalize marijuana.

But those are all peripheral issues that should not be relevant in the U.S. Senate race.  An emboldened Republican Congress would want to repeal health care reform – Campbell is wrong on that issue.  When Republicans try to block further unemployment assistance in this brutal recession, Campbell will be right there with them.  As President Obama and the Congress push for comprehensive immigration reform and a climate change bill, we can expect Senator Tom Campbell to amplify the “Party of No” message in Washington.

Is Campbell more moderate than Carly Fiorina – or Chuck DeVore?  Of course, but only because they are so far to the right that the media can’t even pretend they are moderates.  It reminds me of what playwright Tony Kushner told Mother Jones Magazine back in July 1995: “What used to be called liberal is now called radical, what used to be called radical is now called insane, what used to be called reactionary is now called moderate, and what used to be called insane is now called solid conservative thinking.”

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

Candidates for the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) have reported fundraising numbers for the period ending March 17th – and the need for reform is evident.  Unlike other local races in the City (where contributions are capped at $500), there are no limits for giving to a DCCC candidate.  Scott Wiener, Debra Walker and Rafael Mandelman are running simultaneous races for DCCC in June and Supervisor in November – and all three have exploited this obvious loophole.  Other candidates have raised huge sums – with the Firefighters Union giving $10,000 to each of its members running.  Nowhere else in California must candidates for DCCC raise this money – for a job that pays nothing, and whose only power is making Democratic Party endorsements.  Most counties elect their DCCC by Supervisor district (rather than Assembly District), which may be a good start.  But what’s really needed are campaign contribution limits – and it’s unclear which entity could do that.  With the upcoming State Party Convention in Los Angeles this weekend, now is an ideal time to be talking about such reform.

Candidates for the San Francisco DCCC – which governs the local Democratic Party – are not covered or regulated by local campaign finance law.  They are merely subject to state law, so like any other political campaign committee are required to file with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC.)  And besides that, the rules are pretty loose.

While all candidates for local public office – Supervisor, School Board, even Mayor – can only take $500 per donor, there are no contribution limits in DCCC races.  With the state requiring June candidates to report what they raised between January 1st and March 17th, the most recent filing reports for DCCC show a system that has gone out of control.

Candidates for Supervisor Use DCCC Loophole

The DCCC gets to make Party endorsements for local office – such as the S.F. Board of Supervisors – and its current control by progressives played a decisive role as to why they swept the Board elections in 2008.  So it’s no surprise that candidates running for Supervisor – on both sides of the spectrum – are making simultaneous runs for DCCC.  

Candidates running for both DCCC and Supervisor use separate campaign accounts – but let’s get real.  Money raised and spent for DCCC elevates their profile among voters in a District, so they can get elected Supervisor five months later.  And those wishing to give over the $500 limit can just funnel money to their DCCC account – a soft money conduit.

Back in February, I reported that Scott Wiener took two donations from strip clubs for his DCCC campaign – in amounts of $5,000 and $10,000, well in excess of what they could give to his Supervisor campaign.

With the June election in a few weeks, it’s no surprise that the three candidates running simultaneous campaigns – Wiener in District 8, Debra Walker in District 6 and Rafael Mandelman in District 8 – raised more this quarter in their DCCC account (a job with no government power that pays nothing) than their account for Supervisor.  Wiener raised $8,000 for Supervisor – and $12,000 for DCCC.  Walker raised $4,000 for Supervisor and $9,354 for DCCC.  Mandelman: $3,900 for Supervisor and $7,140 for DCCC.

And again, we see each candidate taking large checks for their DCCC account that would not be legal if made to their Supervisor campaign.  Scott Wiener did not get more money from strip clubs, but he took $2,000 from the Plumbers Union.  Smaller donations for Wiener in this period came largely from corporate lawyers, deputy city attorneys, bankers and realtors.

Writer Jennifer Viegas gave $500 to Debra Walker’s Supervisor campaign (i.e., the legal maximum), then gave her DCCC campaign $4,000.  Other Walker donations for this period include the President of Cresleigh Development, California Nurses Association, Albert Urrutia of the construction firm Santos & Urrutia and Tom Ammiano’s Assembly campaign account.

Rafael Mandelman also got money from Tom Ammiano – to both of his accounts, $500 for the DCCC campaign and $500 for his Supervisor race.  Other donations he got in this period came from the California Nurses, Carole Migden and $2,500 from Pinnacle Properties.

Problem Not Limited to Supervisor Candidates

While candidates who run simultaneous campaigns opens up the greatest risk of abuse, there is no shortage of other candidates taking advantage of no contribution limits for DCCC.  Mike Sullivan, who chairs the anti-progressive Plan C, raised $28,500 in the past three months.  A third of his money came from donations of $1,000 or more – including a $1,500 check from BOMA, the commercial real estate political group.

But it gets even more blatant when you look at the firefighter candidates.  As I wrote in March, the Firefighters Union is taking an active interest in the DCCC elections – two of their members are running.  Keith Baraka has collected $11,000 – one thousand of that came from himself, while the other $10,000 was a single check from the Firefighters PAC.  Dan Dunnigan raised $10,000 – with 100% of that money coming from their PAC.

Problem Unique to San Francisco

Of course, none of this is new to anyone who follows San Francisco politics.  DCCC elections are always competitive here – whereas in other counties, the drama is getting enough candidates on the ballot so the Lyndon LaRouche people don’t win by default. But I had always assumed it was because in a city like San Francisco, politics is a sport.

So I called Dante Atkins, a friend and fellow Calitics blogger who serves on the Los Angeles County DCCC – to ask if elections are just as crazy down there.  They’re not – San Francisco is unique among California’s 58 counties where you must raise thousands of dollars to win a seat on the Central Committee.  And there are a few reasons why.

L.A. County’s DCCC has over 200 people – whereas San Francisco only has 24 elected members.  So buying one seat on the Central Committee can’t buy a lot of influence for the Party’s endorsement.  But what’s interesting is how they choose to elect members.

San Francisco elects its DCCC by State Assembly District – in a County that only has two.  In other words, half the DCCC is from the East Side – and the other half from the West Side.  Running for DCCC in San Francisco means campaigning in half the city.

That’s unusual, as most counties elect their DCCC by Supervisor district.  Los Angeles chose to do it by Assembly District – because they only have 5 Supervisor districts, and 26 Assembly districts.  But in San Francisco, it makes a lot more sense to elect a DCCC among 11 Supervisor districts – where a smaller electorate makes money less important.

If we want the DCCC to be a “farm team” for future San Francisco Supervisors, it makes sense to do this change.  Electing three per district, for example, would help include more voices.  All that needs to be done is for the San Francisco DCCC to amend its charter.

But Campaign Finance Reform is What’s Really Needed

While changing the way DCCC members are elected is intriguing, what’s really needed is to better regulate campaign finance.  If we have a $500 contribution limit for other local campaigns in San Francisco, it’s time to bring DCCC campaigns under the same rules.

But it’s unclear to me how we could make that change.  Could the City amend its Ethics Ordinance to bring DCCC campaigns into the fold?  DCCC positions are not exactly “local office” – as it’s really an arm of the California Democratic Party.  Passing state legislation might be necessary, or amending the rules and by-laws of the State Party.

This weekend, the California Democratic Party will hold its annual Convention in Los Angeles.  I’ll be attending as a delegate, as I normally do every year.  As this problem appears unique to San Francisco, I hope Democrats from across the state will join me in supporting campaign contribution limits for DCCC candidates.  It’s the right thing to do.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

In a multi-million dollar TV ad blitz that will air throughout the state next week, GOP candidate Meg Whitman will announce that she’s auctioning parts of her campaign platform on eBay to shape her priorities as Governor.  “I’ve been on a listening tour for months,” she explained – in a tightly controlled press conference where reporters were not allowed to ask questions.  “And one thing I have learned over and over again is how California has innovative people with good ideas – who are willing to put their money where their mouth is.  We must tap into that entrepreneurial spirit if we’re going to cut taxes, fix education and balance the budget.”  While her Republican primary opponent Steve Poizner insults East San Jose kids by saying they lack “Silicon Valley ambition and smarts,” Whitman is taking her case directly to the people – who can speak by putting down bids.  Observers also say it will present a good contrast with her Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown.

Whitman explained that she got the idea from Arnold Schwarzenegger – who last July announced that he would cut the deficit by autographing state-commissioned cars, and then auction them to the highest bidder.  “It started as a suggestion that the Governor got from Twitter,” said Whitman, “so it very nicely proves how we use the Internet to solicit good ideas.  But I want to take Arnold’s idea a step further.  When people use money, they get results.”

Citing the Citizens United case which re-affirmed the First Amendment principle that money is speech, Whitman’s handlers told the press that collective bids on particular platform items will shape how her Administration will govern California.  Users can put bids on her proposals they like the most – such as:

* eliminate the state capital gains tax

* reform workers compensation laws

* repeal AB 32 (the global warming bill)

* defend the two-thirds budget rule

* place a strict spending cap

* lay off 40,000 state employees

* deny prisoners health care

* tighten welfare rules

* more charter schools, and

* end Sanctuary cities.

“All these proposals are in my platform already – and can be viewed at my campaign website,” said Whitman.  “But I want to know what should be my priorities – and people who can put their money down can show which issues will matter the most.  I’m excited to see how high the bids will go, and how much money it will raise for my campaign.”

Executives at Chevron in San Ramon expressed great enthusiasm for repealing AB 32, and expect to donate several thousand dollars for that platform item.  Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association is excited about protecting the two-thirds budget requirement – and will be asking its members to submit their bids to target that priority.

BeyondChron sent an e-mail to the Jerry Brown campaign to ask for a reaction to Meg Whitman’s proposal.  As of our deadline we had not yet gotten a response, and there is no public statement about it on his website.

First published at BeyondChron.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has entered the race for Lieutenant Governor, a job he ridiculed while running for Governor – and his supporters include San Francisco progressives who figure it’s an opportunity to get rid of him.  Nonetheless, an endorsement list that includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Teachers Association and Sacramento’s legislative leaders (along with an opponent with unimpressive fundraising totals) should make Newsom the front-runner for the Democratic primary.  But it won’t be pretty – given that Garry South (who ran his gubernatorial campaign) now works for his competitor, L.A. City Councilmember Janice Hahn.  The Hahn campaign has been vicious on Gavin so far, using the kind of scorched-earth tactics that South is famous for.  Newsom may win the nomination on June 8th, but he could end up suffering the same fate as Garry South’s last victim.  Phil Angelides had much of the Democratic leadership behind him when he ran for Governor, but only won the primary after a bruising fight with South client Steve Westly.  And it left him so bloodied that he went on to lose the general election by a landslide.

As a student of San Francisco politics, I’ve found the local chatter in the past few weeks surrounding Gavin Newsom’s run for Lieutenant Governor to be just plain bizarre.

His allies in the business community are incensed that he’d abandon the city to become Jerry Brown’s bridesmaid – and (God forbid) allow those crazy lefties on the Board of Supervisors to pick the next mayor.  Chuck Nevius’ column in the SF Chronicle last week read like it came from a jilted lover.   “Newsom wasn’t supposed to be the average career politician,” he lamented.  “Now he’s Gray Davis.”

Meanwhile, progressive are all too eager to show Gavin the door.  Supervisor Chris Daly, who once suggested at a public meeting that the Mayor was a cokehead, has endorsed him – and I’ve heard from tenant activists who now say that they will walk precincts for Newsom.  How in the world could any politician win statewide office, when your closest friends don’t want you to run – and your rivals are delighted to see you take the plunge?

But believe it or not, Newsom is poised to win the nomination on June 8th.  State Senator Dean Florez dropped out of the race the minute he got in, saying Gavin “commands a formidable lead that would be hard to surmount.”  And the Newsom camp sent out a list of endorsements that includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Assembly Speaker John Perez, State Senate President Darrell Steinberg, the California Nurses Association, the California Teachers Association, the UFCW Western State Council and Dolores Huerta.

The fundraising totals of his sole Democratic rival – Los Angeles Councilmember Janice Hahn – are also worth considering.  As of December 31st, Hahn had only raised $421,000 – and reported a cash-on-hand total of $341,000.  For comparison’s sake, at this stage of the Lieutenant Governor’s race four years ago John Garamendi had raised over $1.37 million – while his Democratic rival Jackie Speier was at approximately $1.28 million.

But Hahn has something Newsom lacks – Garry South, who was the Mayor’s chief strategist until he dropped out of the Governor’s race.  South, who worked for Gray Davis in 1998 and 2002, is the sole Democratic consultant in California to have run a successful campaign for Governor in 25 years – something not to be sneezed at.  And it was viewed as quite a coup when Newsom initially retained him in 2008.

And while Hahn’s fundraising leaves much to be desired, Gavin has the same problem.  The Mayor can transfer his defunct gubernatorial campaign account to the race for Lieutenant Governor, but there isn’t much left of it – only $40,000 as of December 31st.

Granted, Newsom raised over $2 million last year – and can now go back to his donors and ask again.  But while state law lets contributors give up to $25,900 to gubernatorial candidates, the Lieutenant Governor’s race limits donations to $6,500.  A quick look at Newsom’s campaign for Governor shows that over $1 million came from donations exceeding that amount, and half a million from contributors who gave over $20,000.  In other words, he won’t be able to raise $2 million from those people.

And with Garry South now running Hahn’s campaign, the attacks on Newsom have been brutal.  Gavin had disparaged the role of Lieutenant Governor before opting to run, even publicly admitting he had no idea what the job does – a point the Hahn campaign has fully taken advantage of.  But South has gone so far as to betray the confidence of his ex-client – divulging private statements Newsom made when South consulted him, where the Mayor had told him he was no “Gray Davis.”

Of course, we can expect nothing less from Garry South.  Known in California politics as the “King of Mean,” South has a long history of running scorched-earth campaigns – the most recent example being in 2006, when he ran Steve Westly’s campaign for Governor.  

In that race, Westly’s rival – Phil Angelides – had the endorsement of Senators Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and most of the Democratic Party establishment in the primary.  But in what can only be described as a muder-suicide pact, South waged an intensely negative effort against Angelides – leaving the bloodied front-runner limping past the finish line in June when it was all over.  

South then spent the whole summer and fall denouncing Angelides as a “weak nominee” who could not beat Governor Schwarzenegger, rendering it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Many Democrats (including myself) will never forgive South for that conduct.

Could the same happen to Newsom if he beats Hahn?  The likely G.O.P. nominee – Abel Maldonado – lacks Arnold’s celebrity status, but has cultivated a moderate image that will make him tough to beat – especially in a year where Democratic turnout could be dangerously low.

Newsom could and should win the primary on June 8th, but his progressive rivals in San Francisco shouldn’t be celebrating a new Mayor just yet.  Gavin will still have to face a Republican in November, and if Garry South has his way he might not win that election.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of BeyondChron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

There’s been a lot of analysis about why Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate race, because it was so obvious.  Failing to accomplish what you campaigned on depresses your base, emboldens the enemy and convinces independents that you’re a loser.  The lesson is not that Democrats went “too far” – but that they didn’t go far enough.  If I had faith in President Obama and the Democratic Party, I would be hopeful that they learned that lesson.  But only one person seems to get it – former DNC Chair Howard Dean – who was unceremoniously kicked to the curb last January.  It was Dean who gave Democrats a backbone in the run-up to the Iraq War.  It was Howard Dean’s “Fifty State Strategy” (as opposed to Rahm Emanuel’s recruitment of Blue Dogs) that won Congress in 2006.  And it was Dean’s playbook that Barack Obama used to beat Hillary Clinton in an historic campaign.  Beltway Democrats resent Dean, because he cares more about helping progressives win than stroking their ego. And – what’s most unforgivable – he’s been proven right.

Every two years after an election, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call publishes a large, beautiful color map of the United States featuring the results of House and Senate races.  Dark blue stands for “Democratic take-over,” and dark red stands for “Republican take-over.”  I first saw the map in 1996 on my college roommate’s wall, and resolved to buy it after an election where the Democrats win big.  What’s really pathetic is that I had to wait ten years.  Today, I’m proud to have the maps from 2006 and 2008 on my wall.

It’s not a co-incidence that both of these elections happened when Howard Dean chaired the Democratic National Committee (DNC.)  Dean had electrified the grassroots with his 2004 presidential campaign, because he said it was time for Democrats to be tough.  His campaign was about taking on Republicans in every part of the country, but it was also about empowering the Party’s grassroots.  Supporters were told to take ownership of the campaign, and small online donations allowed him to stay competitive with corporate-funded candidates.  In many ways, Howard Dean was the first “netroots” candidate.

Dean took the helm at the DNC, and set out to do the work to win in 2006.  He instituted reforms in the Party that devolved power from the well-heeled donors to the grassroots activists.  These “heavy hitters” were not real Democrats – most are corporate types who give money to both parties, as opposed to small donors who actually believe in the Party.  Dean proved that small online donations can compete with the “big boys,” which did not endear him to the old guard.  But activists could finally feel good giving their fifty bucks to the DNC.

He also implemented a “Fifty State Strategy” – investing Democratic resources in places where the Party hadn’t existed for years.  It may not help flip districts in one cycle, but it laid the groundwork for Democrats to seriously contest races in the future.  It also helped Democrats seize opportunities when the winds favored them.  Momentum favored Democrats in 1998 (due to disgust at the Clinton impeachment), but they failed to re-take Congress because they were not competing in enough districts.  That was not a problem, however, in 2006.

Compare this strategy with the “old-school” tactics that Rahm Emanuel employed at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC.)  Rahm focused on a small number of districts, recruited conservative Blue Dog Democrats and told them to run against their own party to co-opt the Republican base.  At worst, these candidates lost.  At best, they won – but would then go to Washington with an anti-progressive mandate.  

Howard Dean is the reason Democrats won in 2006 – and got nothing but grief for doing so.  The media started pushing a lie right after the election that Democrats won because they had run “conservative” candidates.  James Carville went on CNN to throw a tantrum about how Dean should be kicked out of the DNC, and that Harold Ford – the only serious Democratic Senate contender that year to lose, and an anti-progressive DLCer to boot – should replace him.

Dean’s transformation of politics also made it possible for Barack Obama to win the White House.  Hillary Clinton was the establishment choice (and in party primaries, the establishment always wins), who raised money the old-fashioned way – through big donors.  But Obama adopted the Howard Dean playbook of a grassroots campaign with a compelling message, and fundraising from small online donors.  As the primaries dragged on, Obama outpaced Hillary because his donors – unlike hers – hadn’t maxed out and kept giving.

One would think that such a track record would have kept Howard Dean at the DNC for another four years.  Instead, President-elect Obama quickly replaced him with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine – and didn’t even invite Dean to the announcement ceremony.  As far as anyone can tell, Kaine has abandoned Dean’s “Fifty State Strategy” – bringing the DNC back to the old days of raising gobs of cash, dissing the grassroots and not investing in resources that lead to long-term viability.

The result?  Democrats lost the governorship in Virginia (Kaine’s home state), couldn’t save Jon Corzine in New Jersey and even blew Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts.  We can’t blame Tim Kaine for all of this, but it’s telling that just after the DNC stopped pursuing what Howard Dean had done they started losing elections.  What’s galling is that Obama would not have been President without the groundwork Dean laid.  What’s infuriating is that Obama was supposed to be about “change we can believe in.”

Howard Dean has returned to Democracy for America – where he’s provided instrumental leadership on the health care debate.  Unlike Obama’s Organizing for America, which refused to target conservative Democrats who have given us nothing but trouble, DFA has aired TV ads in Nebraska that targeted Ben Nelson on the public option.  When Democrats caved to Lieberman’s extortion (because Obama sent Rahm Emanuel to Capitol Hill, urging the Senate Democrats to do so), Dean accurately read the public’s pulse and said, “kill the bill.”

For standing on principle, Dean got nothing but grief.  He was called “unstable” by White House aides.  The “screaming” Howard Dean meme was again repeated in the media.  He had committed the unforgivable crime of being right, and they resented it deeply.  And in a few weeks, Dean’s prophecy would be proven right again by voters in Massachusetts.

Now, the Democrats have managed to fumble Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat – losing to a right-wing Republican who once posed nude for Cosmopolitan. Evidence shows that Martha Coakley’s numbers went down after the Senate passed the health care bill.  Shouldn’t the Party leaders listen to Howard Dean?  At least, they owe him an apology.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

There’s been a lot of analysis about why Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate race, because it was so obvious.  Failing to accomplish what you campaigned on depresses your base, emboldens the enemy and convinces independents that you’re a loser.  The lesson is not that Democrats went “too far” – but that they didn’t go far enough.  If I had faith in President Obama and the Democratic Party, I would be hopeful that they learned that lesson.  But only one person seems to get it – former DNC Chair Howard Dean – who was unceremoniously kicked to the curb last January.  It was Dean who gave Democrats a backbone in the run-up to the Iraq War.  It was Howard Dean’s “Fifty State Strategy” (as opposed to Rahm Emanuel’s recruitment of Blue Dogs) that won Congress in 2006.  And it was Dean’s playbook that Barack Obama used to beat Hillary Clinton in an historic campaign.  Beltway Democrats resent Dean, because he cares more about helping progressives win than stroking their ego. And – what’s most unforgivable – he’s been proven right.

Every two years after an election, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call publishes a large, beautiful color map of the United States featuring the results of House and Senate races.  Dark blue stands for “Democratic take-over,” and dark red stands for “Republican take-over.”  I first saw the map in 1996 on my college roommate’s wall, and resolved to buy it after an election where the Democrats win big.  What’s really pathetic is that I had to wait ten years.  Today, I’m proud to have the maps from 2006 and 2008 on my wall.

It’s not a co-incidence that both of these elections happened when Howard Dean chaired the Democratic National Committee (DNC.)  Dean had electrified the grassroots with his 2004 presidential campaign, because he said it was time for Democrats to be tough.  His campaign was about taking on Republicans in every part of the country, but it was also about empowering the Party’s grassroots.  Supporters were told to take ownership of the campaign, and small online donations allowed him to stay competitive with corporate-funded candidates.  In many ways, Howard Dean was the first “netroots” candidate.

Dean took the helm at the DNC, and set out to do the work to win in 2006.  He instituted reforms in the Party that devolved power from the well-heeled donors to the grassroots activists.  These “heavy hitters” were not real Democrats – most are corporate types who give money to both parties, as opposed to small donors who actually believe in the Party.  Dean proved that small online donations can compete with the “big boys,” which did not endear him to the old guard.  But activists could finally feel good giving their fifty bucks to the DNC.

He also implemented a “Fifty State Strategy” – investing Democratic resources in places where the Party hadn’t existed for years.  It may not help flip districts in one cycle, but it laid the groundwork for Democrats to seriously contest races in the future.  It also helped Democrats seize opportunities when the winds favored them.  Momentum favored Democrats in 1998 (due to disgust at the Clinton impeachment), but they failed to re-take Congress because they were not competing in enough districts.  That was not a problem, however, in 2006.

Compare this strategy with the “old-school” tactics that Rahm Emanuel employed at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC.)  Rahm focused on a small number of districts, recruited conservative Blue Dog Democrats and told them to run against their own party to co-opt the Republican base.  At worst, these candidates lost.  At best, they won – but would then go to Washington with an anti-progressive mandate.  

Howard Dean is the reason Democrats won in 2006 – and got nothing but grief for doing so.  The media started pushing a lie right after the election that Democrats won because they had run “conservative” candidates.  James Carville went on CNN to throw a tantrum about how Dean should be kicked out of the DNC, and that Harold Ford – the only serious Democratic Senate contender that year to lose, and an anti-progressive DLCer to boot – should replace him.

Dean’s transformation of politics also made it possible for Barack Obama to win the White House.  Hillary Clinton was the establishment choice (and in party primaries, the establishment always wins), who raised money the old-fashioned way – through big donors.  But Obama adopted the Howard Dean playbook of a grassroots campaign with a compelling message, and fundraising from small online donors.  As the primaries dragged on, Obama outpaced Hillary because his donors – unlike hers – hadn’t maxed out and kept giving.

One would think that such a track record would have kept Howard Dean at the DNC for another four years.  Instead, President-elect Obama quickly replaced him with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine – and didn’t even invite Dean to the announcement ceremony.  As far as anyone can tell, Kaine has abandoned Dean’s “Fifty State Strategy” – bringing the DNC back to the old days of raising gobs of cash, dissing the grassroots and not investing in resources that lead to long-term viability.

The result?  Democrats lost the governorship in Virginia (Kaine’s home state), couldn’t save Jon Corzine in New Jersey and even blew Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts.  We can’t blame Tim Kaine for all of this, but it’s telling that just after the DNC stopped pursuing what Howard Dean had done they started losing elections.  What’s galling is that Obama would not have been President without the groundwork Dean laid.  What’s infuriating is that Obama was supposed to be about “change we can believe in.”

Howard Dean has returned to Democracy for America – where he’s provided instrumental leadership on the health care debate.  Unlike Obama’s Organizing for America, which refused to target conservative Democrats who have given us nothing but trouble, DFA has aired TV ads in Nebraska that targeted Ben Nelson on the public option.  When Democrats caved to Lieberman’s extortion (because Obama sent Rahm Emanuel to Capitol Hill, urging the Senate Democrats to do so), Dean accurately read the public’s pulse and said, “kill the bill.”

For standing on principle, Dean got nothing but grief.  He was called “unstable” by White House aides.  The “screaming” Howard Dean meme was again repeated in the media.  He had committed the unforgivable crime of being right, and they resented it deeply.  And in a few weeks, Dean’s prophecy would be proven right again by voters in Massachusetts.

Now, the Democrats have managed to fumble Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat – losing to a right-wing Republican who once posed nude for Cosmopolitan. Evidence shows that Martha Coakley’s numbers went down after the Senate passed the health care bill.  Shouldn’t the Party leaders listen to Howard Dean?  At least, they owe him an apology.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.