Obama Keeps Dean at DNC

Overseeing a fraught Democratic primary was not an easy task for DNC Chairman Howard Dean. His relationship with key Clintonites was strained from the beginning--a result of their unhappiness with his fifty-state-strategy--and the controversy over Florida and Michigan directly challenged Dean's authority and the DNC's rules.

Dean eventually won that battle and got some long-overdue job insurance as a result, with the Obama campaign deciding today to keep him on as DNC chairman through the election, while putting Paul Tewes, the architect of Obama's win in Iowa, in charge of operational planning inside the DNC. The DNC also announced today it would no longer accept money from federal lobbyists or PACs, in line with Obama's own pledge.

Dean and Obama complement each other in unlikely ways, with many Dean insiders viewing Obama's campaign as Dean 2.0, the next iteration of the grassroots-fueled, people-powered, bottom-up, web-savvy operation that Dean pioneered in 2003-2004. By broadening the Democratic map to include previously ignored red states, Obama became the living embodiment of Dean's fifty-state-strategy. As I wrote in a piece about Dean's legacy in February:

In contrast to Clinton's campaign, Obama's--with its hundreds of thousands of small donors, Internet buzz and red-state appeal--reflects to a great extent the realization of Dean's ideals. Dean's argument for how to rebuild and expand the party base for the long term found its perfect short-term exponent in Obama, whose appeal to independents and liberal Republicans and talk of "unity" is planting Democratic roots in unfamiliar places.

Stylistically and rhetorically, the brash and rumpled Dean and the smooth and graceful Obama couldn't be more different. Yet the link between the two dates back to '04, when the offshoot of Dean's presidential campaign, Democracy for America, supported Obama in the Illinois Senate race. Dean's advisers admit that Obama is a more inspirational and disciplined presidential candidate than was Dean, able to excite the Democratic base while bringing in new voters, energizing a new crop of organizers and expanding the electoral map. This is borne out by Obama's remarkable performance thus far in red states like Idaho, Alaska and Alabama--places where Dean has invested heavily.

In his sprint across the country before Super Tuesday, Obama wisely hit places where the party had barely existed years before. "They told me there weren't any Democrats in Idaho," Obama told a raucous crowd of 14,000 in Boise. "I didn't believe them."

Obama's organizing has been greatly enhanced by new technologies like YouTube, Facebook and MySpace. "We pioneered it and Obama perfected it," Dean campaign guru Joe Trippi says. Obama embraced elements of the new politics, hiring the co-founder of Facebook, for example; but other efforts came from the grassroots--just as with the Dean campaign--as supporters organized themselves online and on the ground. The net effect is Obama's large base of small donors, who are enthusiastic supporters he can tap again and again. Obama has fused a tightknit group of advisers with a mass of ordinary people, creating what Trippi calls "command and control at the top while empowering the bottom to make a difference."

Moving forward, advisers to Dean and Obama hope the synergy between the two will be just as seamless.

Comments (26)

1. Good for him. Obama clearly used a version of the 50 state strategy to defeat Senator Clinton - rather than just focus on a few "key" states, he made her compete in as many as possible (making her waste time, energy, and eventually votes to keep up).

   If he can do the same to McCain, combined with the likely wins in the House and Senate this fall, looks like we'll have a *very* good election year.

   Posted by johnhummel at 06/05/2008 @ 12:59pm

2. This was the unexamined subtext of the Obama-Clinton fight: what kind of party is best? Should it be a collection of beltway gasbags, consultants, big money contributers, lobbyists and the Clinton court? Or, should it be a 50 state organization with millions of involved voters, small donors, and activists? I'm breathing a sigh of relief. Clinton would have won (barely) but nothing would change. Obama will win comfortably, the Democratic Party will regain its health, and things possibly might change.

   Posted by Hamiltonian at 06/05/2008 @ 1:01pm

3. "The DNC also announced today it would no longer accept money from federal lobbyists or PACs, in line with Obama's own pledge."

   Looks like he is already helping to effect some change. This is a HUGE step in the right direction.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 1:25pm

4. >>>The DNC also announced today it would no longer accept money from federal lobbyists or PACs, in line with Obama's own pledge.<<<

   Major, major move!

   Now if we can just get Democrats in Congress to make the same pledge and reign in the "bundlers" who are trying to circumvent the process.

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2008 @ 1:27pm

5. "The DNC also announced today it would no longer accept money from federal lobbyists or PACs, in line with Obama's own pledge."

   Including AIPAC?

   Posted by sloper at 06/05/2008 @ 1:28pm

6. >>>Including AIPAC?

   Posted by sloper at 06/5/2008<<<

   See my comment above!

   AIPAC very rarely gives money "directly" to candidates and the party, as this money is "bundled" by their operatives and doled out to candidates who fill out their questionare "correctly" (eg., suppoprt illegal settlements, bombing Iran and Syria, no negotiations with Hamas, increased financial and military support of Israel, etc.).

   Bundling reform is the next big challenge in campaign finance reform, as this loophole was created by McCain-Feingold, along with 527s.

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2008 @ 1:35pm

7. Okay, but remember...

   this is the same Dean who gave us the recent debacle with MI and FL.

   If he truly was as smart as they claim, couldn't he have foreseen SOME possibility that it might be tight and the Florida and Michigan primaries might be a wedge to be used by a certain candidate who might be behind?

   And maybe WELL BEFORE that, have made the RBC make a decision so we wouldn't have gone through the crap we did last week?

   Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 1:49pm

8. Howard's hands off approach made a lot of folks nervous and if it costs Obama the election cause the Hillary bitters can't get over their antipathy (though calling it such is probably overstating) he's gonna be in the hot seat major. But I'm encouraged by the restructuring. Even if Obama loses he will have an effect for years to come.

   Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 2:07pm

9. Note to Ari: quoting yourself is generally something to avoid. A link, a sentence or two? Fine. But a full four paragraphs to match the four you have written this time? Too much.

   Posted by Mask at 06/5/2008

   Was is it that you want to blame Dean for enforcing party discipline?

   I think having the Democratic nominee chosen on the last day of the primaries was anything but a debacle. Obama's been vetted, the spotlight has been focused on Democrats for months and states are going to think long and hard about giving the finger to the respective party's national committee before they try to assert that they are big enough to be special and that they don't have to follow the rules.

   And yes, I know the argument that the calendar was set in Florida by the Republican legislature - but you and I know that's bullshit. Florida did it because they thought they could get away with it. It's good that they had their feet held to the fire a bit - at least by the Democrats if not the Republicans also.

   Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2008 @ 2:20pm

10. Okay, but remember...

    this is the same Dean who gave us the recent debacle with MI and FL. --- If clinton had played BY THE RULES, like she said she would, this disaster would have never been an issue. The DNC is going to have to make some changes in their election process to correct this.

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 06/05/2008 @ 2:22pm

11. srjenkins

    true, true. let's also remember that the struggle in the dem party took up the headlines for a long time, to the detriment of McSame.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 2:30pm

12. "who are enthusiastic supporters he can tap again and again."

    ••••••••••••••••

    who are enthusiastic supporters he can tap dance again and again.

    make sure you get what you pay for.

    Thursday, June 5, 2008 2:50:32 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 2:50pm

13. And realize that the victory of the grassroots campaign will only further embolden these small donors. At least I know I'll be able to spare one more tank of gas' worth of a donation for my candidate.

    Posted by agentweez at 06/05/2008 @ 2:51pm

14. The DNC also announced today it would no longer accept money from federal lobbyists or PACs, in line with Obama's own pledge.

    •••••••••••

    except under plan 17B.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 2:52pm

15. I think having the Democratic nominee chosen on the last day of the primaries was anything but a debacle.----Posted by srjenkins at 06/5/2008 |

    SRJ, Obama would have gotten vetted regardless. What it did was allow the Clinton cohorts to start coming up with various scenarios where by "she could STILL win it, folks" and allow further rifts to develop between the two camps.

    If in late April, it was apparently clear that MI and FL would only get half votes and the delegates split as they were...she would have been mathematically out of it well before the first of June BUT well after "Rev. Wright" and "bitter" had come out (as they should, so McCain wouldn't have them for the Fall).

    And it would have meant no screaming Hillary fans at the RBC meeting, nor another six weeks of Hillary flunkies talking about how "the nomination is being HIJACKED" and "Why is the DNC not counting every vote".

    It would have been settled. MI and FL's punishment well past us and Dean wouldn't have looked like he couldn't control his own Party.

    --- If clinton had played BY THE RULES, like she said she would, this disaster would have never been an issue.----Posted by lvdragonlady at 06/5/2008

    So Dean trusted the Clintons?!?!?

    That really a resume enhancer for him???

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 3:27pm

16. BTW, once again...got Time Warped to top.

    Thought maybe they fixed that with the "new and improved website"?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 3:47pm

17. Ya know I kept hunting for the number 15! I just saw you signed and you had the first comment and glossed right over it. D'OH!

    Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 3:55pm

18. Posted by Mask at 06/5/2008

    I see what you are saying, but in reality, the Democratic race was the race for President this year. McCain is the Dole, McGovern, Dukasis, Mondale - pick your presidential failure of choice - of 2008.

    The only good thing about the general election is that Barr might get enough votes that the Republicans will have to start thinking about Ron Paul Republicans and whether they really want to be the party for limited government again or not. That's going to be the interesting part of the race this year, and I look forward to all the Democratic-lite commentary from our right wing friends, when I come back in September.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2008 @ 4:54pm

19. Assume nothing Srj. There are far too many Republican vested interests that will do all they can to stop an Obama administration. They will be fighting tooth and nail to maintain as much of the status quo as possible. The battle in their eyes has just begun.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 6:26pm

20. In regard to MASK's "HRC in 2012" theory of intra-party sabotage . . .

    If that were her real objective, she's mucked it up good now. By hanging in so long & whining & taking all the cheap shots so late, if Obama loses, the blame will fall mainly on HER head, rightly or wrongly.

    But cheerily, my friends. All is not lost. Team Clinton is busy working behind the scenes to hijack the convention & pull this thing out at the last minute.

    Don't give up on them yet.

    Posted by goyadad at 06/05/2008 @ 6:57pm

21. Posted by yutsano at 06/5/2008

    Oh, I don't count them out. But the bottom line is that personality wins Presidential elections and McCain doesn't have one. They might be able to hang in there and try the Nixon strategy. But Obama isn't McGovern, and he's not likely to hang himself while McCain waits in the wings.

    The bookies agree with me, too. Try looking for places that are offering to take wagers on the election. Obama has McCain beat.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2008 @ 7:16pm

22. Posted by goyadad at 06/5/2008

    I'd place more credence in her sabotaging Obama as the candidate, to win 2012...

    than her making a move at the Convention. She's burned a LOT of bridges, and if "something" were to happen with Obama before Denver...

    HSUB would be right and it'd go to Gore before Hillary, even with her 2nd place showing. The conspiracy theories alone would get McCain elected by 100 electorals and 10% of the popular.

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 8:36pm

23. "The bookies agree with me, too."

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/5/2008

    Those "bookies" wouldn't happen to be the Scapone brothers? Better not bet with those guys, they're bad news.

    Posted by ACook at 06/05/2008 @ 9:10pm

24. Dean is impotent. Every interview I read/see involving him begins with him telling us how powerful/important he is. He is a weasel, get rid of him.

    He's like the yap yap yap drunk in the bar that goes down after the first punch. Spineless mf'r.

    Posted by bleedingheart at 06/05/2008 @ 9:34pm

25. I have a 110 pound golden retriever that sniffs the air to track things in her environment. I have a sense that there is a generational shift occurring. In the immortal words of dr./gov. Dean yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/05/2008 @ 10:08pm

26. I may not like either the GOP or the Dems, but I can appreciate a good job of party building, and if the Democratic ranks let Obama act all Imperial President on them and dump Dean, they're idiots and deserve what they get, especially if Obama's margin of victory is narrower, as I think it will be, than the depth and breadth of the Dems' victories in Congress and at the state and local levels.

    Whatever you want to say about his personality, and although the whole Florida/Michigan situation took a while to solve correctly - forseeing as tight a race as this going all the way to June would have been a miracle, but, yea, one should alway prepare for worst-case scenarios - his strategy of building the party on a national basis from the ground up has set the Dems up to take advantage of the exhaustion of the Reagan Revolution at all levels. The grossly selfish strategy of the Clintons, which drained the Democratic Party in the 90's to serve only Bill's electoral needs, would have been aimed solely at electing Hillary, and while the Dems would have still made gains in November, they would have been nowhere near as widespread nor as heavy as they are likely to be following Dean's strategy and with Obama (centrist though he is) heading the ticket.

    How much good a Democratic victory on the order of 1964, 1974, 1980 or 1994 will do for the working class, I'm not sure. Probably only a bit, depending on which laws get pushed, and how much the legislators at all levels are willing to push decent legislation down the throats of their more corporate-friendly executives. And, how much the working class and the rest of the public are demobilized by their "leaders" into just trusting our "friends" in the White House, the Congress, etc., etc.. I'll gladly dance on the GOP's rotting, undead corpse come Election Night, but I don't expect the Democrats to sweep me off my feet.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/06/2008 @ 3:58pm