That's one of the great unanswered questions of our day, a mystery which has stumped just about every rank-and-file Dem for the past 4 years.

My guess is that the party leaders don't really care all that much what happens to the Dems -- not just because they get rewarded whether they win or lose, but because there really isn't that much separating the DLC from the Republicans ideologically. Take a look at what the Clinton administration was saying 6 years ago about Iraq, for an example of what I mean.

Because to a lot of Dems running in those circles, it's not about winning or losing, it's about keeping your job.

Why should I bother going to read another article when your analysis is so good.

Keep up the good work.

Carl there is a difference. The party might have made a better go of it with Iraq if Bill Clinton wasn't such a narcissist @#$%^&*(if you any doubt I'm wrong look out him running to the camera and mike stand to support something the American people would do anyway). Monicagate and the impeachment were errors of commission over the power of the Presidency which crippled the party in the realpolitik goal of not giving it up. To give Clinton his due, he was extremely capable of articulating and making real the goals of government to help people and he was more than capable of presenting the case for Iraq as you pointed out(real problems are still real problems, it is the approach to solving them that is the difference). "Those who work hard and play by the rules" saw he didn't(think the lobbing of missles at the Sudan against OSL or what is the meaning of "is") and thus destroyed the trust in the party he had built(TRUST).

The article points out Clinton's apparatchiks were different and successful in their time. That is what is needed now, a clear concise difference of telling the electorate what Democrats stand for. A good place to start is a restatement of "Those who work hard and play by the rules".

There must be a pony in there somewhere. Are you familiar with that story?

Democrats have become too enamored of their hashed out, watered down, quasi-liberal agenda. To even think of abandoning or altering 'the way things are done' is unheard of. If pouring billions into the NEA education sinkhole produces worse and worse schools, whats the answer? No enough money. Democrats are locked into a viscious cycle, chained down by their special interests. You will never hear a spirited debate about abortion, education, social security, tort reform, or afirmative action in the democratic leadership. And hence no new ideas will emerge. Instead democrats are locked into the Escalation of Failure routine. If something isnt working politically, devote more resources to it. Not wise.

I know the Republicans are anything but perfect on the score of reality testing their ideas, but the fact that Democrats are being hurt by their resistance to accept the market ruling on their consultants is rather ironic.

Follow the money. Check out the links between contributors and consultants. The crucial part of the article is:

"It's important to understand that even for experienced politicians—mayors, governors, representatives—a Senate run can be an intimidating challenge. It involves courting an entirely new world of donors by proving to Washington fundraisers and party leaders that you are a serious contender. Jeremy Wright, who served as the political director for Oregon Senate candidate Bill Bradbury's race in the spring and early summer of 2002, says that candidates are almost required to run two parallel campaigns, “one to get voters to vote for you and the other to get D.C. money by putting together the right consultants to show you're for real.” For Democratic candidates in the few targeted races every cycle that are actually competitive, winning without the financial support of the DSCC (or its sister organization, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is nearly impossible. While the candidates are grateful for the infusion of cash in the form of committee-sponsored polling, fliers, and commercials, the money comes with strings.

Officially, no favoritism exists. “We don't push one consultant over another,” a DSCC spokeswoman told me. “It's more of an informational thing, telling candidates about good people who do a lot of Senate races.” But Democrats who have worked on targeted races describe a reality in which they are strongly encouraged—often with the reminder that precious funds hang in the balance—to select recommended consultants. “The campaign was pretty paranoid about making sure the DSCC was backing us,” explains one veteran of an unsuccessful 2002 Senate race. “We needed the cash. So of course, we were going to go with the consultants they recommended.”

No one was in a better position to take advantage of this power relationship than Hansen. As the first man-on-the-ground, his contact with budding campaigns was early and often. “That person has a very large advantage in being able to shape the team,” one of Hansen's consulting competitors told me. “You bond with the candidate from the get-go at a pretty stressful time when they're deciding whether to run and how to do it.” Another Democrat who has worked with Hansen complains, “Joe is a pretty egregious example of a guy who is sent out as the official representative to help candidates plot their campaign plan, and then when he gets to direct mail, says, 'Oh, by the way, let me switch hats for a second—I happen to do direct mail.'”

The situation puts candidates—who are loath to alienate the campaign committee whose financial assistance they desperately need—in a tricky spot. Even when working with experienced consultants, candidates need to retain some ability to disagree with a proposed idea or strategy. That's hard enough when the consultant is recommended by the party committee. But when the consultant actually is the party committee, the candidate's discretion stays sealed in a tight box."

Dan, do you mean that wasn't the whole thing?

The Democrats' problem is that their's is still Walter Mondale's party -- you get a Presidential nomination by appealing to a specific set of organized interest groups. Zell Miller was essentially correct; "the groups" determine what Democratic politicians stand for. Consultants and strategists are then left with the task of selling the resulting message to an American public most of which does not care what "the groups" have to say. There are at least three problems with this.

First is that it leaves consultants, and candidates, with very little flexibility. Second is that it usually produces candidates who struggle with issues that "the groups" do not have high on their respective agendas -- and unfortunately national security and foreign policy are among these.

But the most serious problem is that American voters want their President to at least look like a strong leader. It's very difficult to look like a strong leader if organized interest groups are so obviously determining what you can say and what you can't. Obviously, to the extent Democratic consultants and strategists themselves constitute an organized interest group they compound this problem.

One way around these difficulties is to wait for an opportunity. The Depression made Franklin Roosevelt's election possible; the end of the Cold War meant that Bill Clinton's disinterest in foreign policy was not the disadvantage it would have been four years before he got elected, or ten years later. But this is a passive approach; it was essentially what the Democrats hoped would happen last year, and it didn't.

Another, better option is to look for a candidate with a vivid personality. This was what Reagan, and to a lesser extent Eisenhower, used to bridge divisions within the Republican Party; Theodore Roosevelt -- facing much greater divisions -- transformed both the Presidency and much of American campaign politics through the force of his personality, and so did FDR.

This approach will look fraught with risk to just about anyone active in Democratic party politics today. Suppose this "vivid personality" repels more people than he (or she) attracts? Suppose he generates so much public enthusiasm that he doesn't need my group's support or feels free to reject my group's agenda? Suppose -- if I am a political consultant, strategist or pollster -- he is disinclined to treat me as an oracle, or at least as an equal, and looks on me merely as hired help?

Political observers will recognize all of these objections from the 2000 Republican primaries. The Republicans then took the safe course from the standpoint of their own interest groups and campaign professionals, and they won. From my point of view they got lucky, and were foolish to reject a candidate who would have beaten Al Gore easily. But we're talking here about the Democrats -- and it's the Democrats who have the bigger problem, because they are the ones losing most elections.

Maybe what Democrats need to do is stop fretting so much about positioning and fundraising and all the rest of it -- the mechanics of the permanent campaign. Instead, they should focus on finding a candidate who is more like the Democratic Presidential candidates of the past who have won than the ones who have lost -- not ideologically, but personally. Look for a candidate who has made some enemies and beaten some, and not just in election campaigns either. Look for a candidate whose positions on issues you can mostly live with, rather than one who promises to be your champion on everything you care about. And look for a candidate who has some ability to manipulate people -- that means the media, interest groups, and even his closest supporters -- rather than one whom you think you might be able to manipulate.

This suggestion doesn't have anything to do, really, with who runs the DNC or manages which campaign. I confess that I really do think of campaign professionals as the hired help; I think they make a difference mainly on the margins, in very close elections where everything else is equal, and as a rule I don't think they have anything to contribute to what happens in government once the votes are counted. I will not be running for President anytime soon.

Zathras,

Major contributors to Democratic candidates, and the fundraisers themselves, are now the Party's most important "organized interest group". Consultants have learned to play to that group. Candidates are now merely the vehicle by which consultants obtain money from contributors/fundraisers. Democratic candidates' interests are secondary.

Interesting discussion. I think at least one very important point was made - that the GOP is way ahead of the Democrats in policy development and arguments to support those policies. I think the democrats need to work a lot harder at this.

Problem is this takes years of work. A start can be made in four years but the GOP experience indicates that it may take as many as 12 to 20 years for this to take hold. This doesn't mean that the Democrats are doomed to lose every time - I personally believe they will win a close election in 2008. But it means that they are playing on the enemy's battleground and responding to his issues.

The second important point that was made is the use by the GOP of fresh, young talent in most elections. In the 2004 election it was Karl Rove (unknown until 2000) against Bob Shrum. Shrum loses serially - it's time to give someone else a chance. Someone young - unknown.

A good start would be a plausible newcomer for DNC chairman.

Interesting discussion. I think at least one very important point was made - that the GOP is way ahead of the Democrats in policy development and arguments to support those policies. I think the democrats need to work a lot harder at this.

Problem is this takes years of work. A start can be made in four years but the GOP experience indicates that it may take as many as 12 to 20 years for this to take hold. This doesn't mean that the Democrats are doomed to lose every time - I personally believe they will win a close election in 2008. But it means that they are playing on the enemy's battleground and responding to his issues.

The second important point that was made is the use by the GOP of fresh, young talent in most elections. In the 2004 election it was Karl Rove (unknown until 2000) against Bob Shrum. Shrum loses serially - it's time to give someone else a chance. Someone young - unknown.

A good start would be a plausible newcomer for DNC chairman.

Interesting discussion. I think at least one very important point was made - that the GOP is way ahead of the Democrats in policy development and arguments to support those policies. I think the democrats need to work a lot harder at this.

Problem is this takes years of work. A start can be made in four years but the GOP experience indicates that it may take as many as 12 to 20 years for this to take hold. This doesn't mean that the Democrats are doomed to lose every time - I personally believe they will win a close election in 2008. But it means that they are playing on the enemy's battleground and responding to his issues.

The second important point that was made is the use by the GOP of fresh, young talent in most elections. In the 2004 election it was Karl Rove (unknown until 2000) against Bob Shrum. Shrum loses serially - it's time to give someone else a chance. Someone young - unknown.

A good start would be a plausible newcomer for DNC chairman.

Robert M posts that the dems are losing because they don't follow the "Those who work hard and play by the rules" rule.

Robert, is there any political figure in the last 100 yrs who has worked less hard and played less by the rules to get where he was than George W. Bush? Puhlease.