HOME / politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

The Doctor Is InHoward Dean isn't getting tossed from the DNC.

Howard Dean. Click image to expand.If you can handle only one internal Democratic Party squabble at a time, you might have missed the dustup between Howard Dean and James Carville. It happened while the larger battle for House majority leader was taking place between Stenny Hoyer and John Murtha, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's failed pick. What you missed was Carville, a former Clinton adviser, charging Dean with "leadership that was Rumsfeldian in its incompetence" and arguing that if it hadn't been for Dean, the party would have gained even more seats in the midterms. At a gathering of the Association of State Democratic Chairs in Wyoming, Dean responded: "This is the new Democratic Party. The old Democratic Party is back there in Washington; sometimes they still complain a little bit."

This is the place in the narrative where the writer usually starts with the jokes about the Democratic Party's historic infighting. My gosh, the Democrats won, and they're already fighting. But this argument isn't about the party's direction, ideology, or platform. It's a practical argument about whether it can get more bang for its buck. The big complaint about Dean is that his strategy to build up the party in all 50 states wastes resources on noncompetitive parts of the country. This conflict erupted in August at a meeting on Capitol Hill, when House Democratic Campaign Chairman Rahm Emanuel, and his Senate counterpart, Chuck Schumer, asked Dean to match the Republican National Committee's expected outlay in the fall campaign. Dean refused to budge from his long-term strategy. This led Emanuel, who can exfoliate with expletives, to spit out a few before storming from the room.

So, now that we've had an election, who was right? When I dialed around looking for strategists to take sides, I got plenty of bile about both Carville—"hasn't run a real race in a while"—and dislike of Dean—"he's naive and Napoleonic"—but people went floppy when I tried to get them to choose sides. They said things you'd expect to hear in therapy sessions: "Where you stand depends on where you sit."

There are at least two debates taking place. The first is about resources devoted to specific races in 2006. Could more money from the DNC have tipped those 14 or so House races where Democrats lost by a razor-thin margin? It's impossible to say, since the correlation between dollars spent and success is murky. Josh Kraushaar at Hotline makes a good case that only four of those races could have been saved by a late dose of cash. To knock off Dean, Carville would have to make the case that he bungled egregiously, and that's an impossible case to make. Unlike with Rumsfeld, the result on the battlefield looks good. Carville's case mirrors the argument made by Republicans who say Karl Rove shouldn't be blamed for the GOP's poor showing because the party could have lost more seats without him.

The larger philosophical battle is over whether Dean's plan for a 50-state campaign makes sense as he's designed it. The lines of attack aren't much clearer there, either. Even Dean's detractors say they want to compete everywhere in America. They say the debate is about how you go about doing that. Sure, spend money in Ohio, but don't waste it in Nebraska. Dean was right in arguing that even if you have a good candidate in an area that's not traditionally a Democratic stronghold, you need resources on the ground. If there had been a better Democratic Party machine in Tennessee, Harold Ford might have won. Campaign chairmen like Emanuel and Schumer always want more money for television ads and get-out-the-vote efforts, and it's Dean's job to know when to save some for the larger goal of building infrastructure for the presidential year and the future. He, like all party chairmen, has to know when spending more money is wasting it.

But those who attack Dean also use Harold Ford's senatorial race in Tennessee to make their case. Spend time and money finding ideologically diverse candidates like Harold Ford, and the ground organization will form around them. You build a party by winning races, not by hiring party staffers and opening offices.

While this argument continues, Dean isn't following Rumsfeld out of town. He would have to be voted out by the members of the National Committee, and they all like him. The bureaucratic shrewdness of his national strategy is that it lavishes cash and attention on the state party officials who elect the chairman of the DNC. Dean is also beloved among the party's bloggers and liberal activists. Carville's attack only strengthened Dean in their eyes as a man of the grassroots fighting against Washington insiders. Dean could be ousted by the 2008 Democratic nominee, but doing so would alienate a core constituency of the party that the nominee will need. This is why rumors that Carville was secretly working on Hillary Clinton's behalf are strained—Hillary is trying to build support among liberal activists, which means hugging, not attacking, Dean.

The better case against Dean is that he's a blowhard who says the wrong thing repeatedly in front of cameras. We know that's true, but Dean has gotten better at behaving himself—his mild response to Carville being a case in point. Even his detractors point out that while Republicans tried hard to make Dean an issue, they couldn't. This time, it was John Kerry who provided the late-in-the-election radioactive gaffe. Dean has been so disciplined that most people don't even know he's there. In a recent Pew poll that asked people to name the leader of the Democratic Party, only 3 percent named Dean. More people named Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi as Democratic leader. Sixty percent of respondents don't think the party has one.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at . Follow him on Twitter.
Photograph of Howard Dean by Joe Raedle/Getty Images.
COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

The disappointing factor in Dickerson's story was it remained focused on the national level and the silly arguments between Dean, Carville, Schumer, and Emanuel. All of these folks deserve some credit for the Democrats success this year. […]

Emanuel and Schumer for the quality of the candidates they recruited, and Dean for funding the organization. And the real proof of the wisdom of Dean's effort was at the state level. The press has paid some attention to the Democrats taking the majority of governorships, but has not looked beyond that.

Dems did very well at the state legislative level- taking several majorities, significantly narrowing the gap even in places like Idaho, and even widening the gap where they already had comfortable majorities. Here in Washington state, the Dems have a majority in the State Senate that hasn't been equaled in 40 years.

The good news even extended to the county level in many states. This success had nothing to do with Schumer or Emanuel and everything to do with Dean. It is important to remember that these county and state officials will have significant roles to play in presidential politics at the state level and, if the DNC is smart enough to keep following Dean, they can keep control through the critical redistricting efforts. There is enough good news for Democrats to spread around the glory for a while.

--randall

(To reply, click here.)

James Carville is a study in the original "good old boy". These comparisons of him and Howard Dean are almost like comparing apples to oranges. Carville is a thoughtful but spontaneous character. I was embarrassed by him several times while Clinton held the reins in Washington. He gave the appearance of the stereotype "redneck". James, it seems to me is an anomaly in the DC scene. I see him at home with a wad of 'bacca' in his cheek, watching his bobber as he sits beside a pond drinking his 'Bud'and trying to catch "sumpin to fry up for supper". That is where he probably would best fit.

Howard Dean is a polished "typical" politician. He belongs in a bus with huge "vote XXX" on it's side leading a bunch of Rah Rah types to a rally somewhere in middle America. You can see him with his "rally smile" spread across his face as he whispers to an aid "have you guys found a place to eat in this dump that I can safely get something eat?"

He is a hard worker, probably somewhat honest, and dedicated to his cause. He whittled out a winning formula in the recent midterms and is most likely the best man for the job he holds. His own bid for President was foiled not by any flaw in his agenda or performance by none other than "dirty tricks master", Rove. One overly enthusiastic show of happiness was all it took for Rove to hammer out a picture of Dean as a weak little girl jumping on a stool to escape a field mouse.

Dean has found his niche.

---Cherokee-

(To reply, click here.)

(9/27)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The Berlin Wall.4/091109_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on guns and shootings.2/091109_TC.jpg
Ins and outs.73/091109_TD.jpg