let me see if i have this straight:

you attack us behind our backs. mischaracterize our criticism of matt y. and jmm. call our arguments "stupid" and condescendingly declare that our suffering from a "victim complex" so bad it's enough to make you gag. but then you come over here and chastise US for not healing divides??
niner | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 4:13 pm | #

Ezra: First, I want to thank you for your well-written, and thoughtful post.

Second, I want to humbly apologize for having offended you, and anyone else.

What troubled me about Marshall and Yglesias was how they seemed to have "gone native," becoming though-going Washingtonians who, in my eyes, had the power to bestow blessings or, in denying them, deny democracy.

It was an attack on "Washington Democrats," but obviously I didn't consider my targets carefully.

So to you, and to all, I'm sorry. And to you, as well as to all, thanks for setting me straight.

As to Niner's criticism, I think I should take some of the blame there, too. I opened a can of worms that shouldn't have been opened. We need all the friends we can get.

This includes Niner, especially. Let's resolve, even when we disagree, to stay together.

The liberalism of the last generation, the liberalism that was so easy to criticize, was tribalist. It divided itself into special interest movements of every description, for every race, color and creed.

Our country is being destroyed by that, because it's so easy for our advertsaries, by staying united, to impose their full will upon us.

That's a lesson I will remember for the rest of this year. So thanks again.
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 4:38 pm | #

That's it. The "Heathers" issue has now officially crowded poverty off the page.
Conan Dean Carey | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 4:57 pm | #

I certainly hope that this issue between the unofficial bloggers and the Democratic pundits like Yglesias and Marshall gets resolved. I really don't see this ensuing argument as a priority in a general sense of the issues we should be covering and discussing. Granted, it is primary season and we face an opportunity for the Democratic party to have a national and state-by-state discussion on who would be the best nominee. As a massive understatement, there are going to be and there have been disagreements among us. And in the coming months, I hope to all that's good and holy that we close ranks and support the nominee. And I personally hope, expect, and will work toward Dean's nomination.

But what I've seen little of on this website lately, which I have been reading and loving on a daily basis for months on end, is substantive discussions and posts about Dean's policy proposals. At the grassroots summit that I attended in St. Paul, Mike Ford asked us to keep watch for five major speeches outlining large portions of Dean's policy portfolio. Some of these have been rolled out, but I wouldn't know it because it isn't getting covered on this site. The quality of this blog suffers when we let these bitter squabbles rise to the surface. Look at this U-blog front page and tell me that you notice an eruption of posts about Heathers, Marshall, Yglesias and this whole fracas. At the risk of being petulant myself, the average reader does not care about this clique-y fighting because policy gets obscured. Substance takes a back seat to back-biting and petty attacks. What does it say about us as a community of Dean supporters that we need a Clark supporter to come over to the U-blog to ask us to play nicely? It's absolutely unbecoming. I urge everyone involved to please shake hands and and please let it go. We have a lot of real work to do.

I appreciate the apologies where they were given. To those who have expressed their feelings, I thank you for your consideration of others in this community. It shows that, like Dean, we can recognize when something just isn't working. We can and we should be pragmatic and analyze our positions based on facts, not ideology. Whatever happened to winning over the opposition -- be they reporters, pundits, and congresspeople -- with our charm and persuasion, with our encyclopedic knowledge of who Dean is, his record, his proposals? Remember when even Rush Limbaugh was so conciliatory when Dean supporters would call to correct misstatements of fact? And as for final cliches in this statement, we need know when to kill 'em with kindness and when to go on the offensive. We all need to learn to choose our battles more carefully.

It's a New Year and a new beginning for politics, government and leadership for America. It's January 1st, 2004. Spend today licking your wounds, swallow your pride, and nurse your hangovers. Let's get back on message by talking about the real issues again. And if those who operate th
harveythechainsaw | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 5:39 pm | #

I don't read this blog much anymore. a bunch of white male bloggers and their ego wars don't interest me. Dean's urban city policy (which came out last week), as a female person of color living in the inner city does.
IHL | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 6:22 pm | #

All this talk about "healing the rifts in the Democratic party," seems like a lot of horse manure to me. Who is the DLC? The DLC doesn't represent anybody--it's just Al from, Bruce Reed, Joe Lieberman, and their big money backers. We don't need them. Likewise, we don't need to be doing anything to kiss Josh Micah Marshall's ass either. We're going to win through the greatest grassroots campaign in American history, not by flattering the inside the Beltways types. We should all study James Carville's #10 on his 10 rules for progressives to live by, from his new book:

10. Stop Brown-nosing the Elites. I believe that in the 180 days prior to any election, candidates should be required to stay away from cocktail parties, dinner parties, or any social event that occurs in the following areas:

Georgetown
Foxhall
Spring Valley
Bethesda
Old Town Alexandria (where Mary and I live)
McLean
Chevy Chase …
… and other bastions of stupidity inside the Washington Beltway.

[On the following page, Carville provides a helpful map of the Beltway.]

One of the reasons Tom DeLay is so successful is that he doesn’t give a damn what any people in any of these neighborhoods think. Democrats tend to become completely paralyzed by it. I can’t tell you the number of times in a Democratic meeting where someone says that such-and-such was said at so-and-so’s dinner party, and that the deputy assistant to the associate editorial page editor at The Washington Post rolled her eyes. Everybody freaks out. For reasons not completely understandable to me, the effect is far greater on Democrats than on Republicans. This is a disease we must cure ourselves of.
Gabriel | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 6:42 pm | #

what gabriel said.
IHL | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 6:58 pm | #

How the hell does IHL know the race and gender of the posters here - is there some icon she gets on her computer that identifies this?

And it's so interesting how virtually everyone on both sides of the Party divide seems to be in agreement that the electorate is split 50-50 and that it will be a very close election, and that it will be unquestionably difficult to unseat a popular sitting President.

And yet some of the people on this blog seem to have actually convinced themselves that they can toss away all kinds of support like it's bad lettuce - and still win with a huge margin to spare - even if they rely only on voters to the Left of Josh Marshall, and excise everyone who isn't.

Aren't we supposed to stop thinking that things are a certain way sipmly because we want them to be that way once we pass the age of 9? What planet are you living on that you think you're going to win with this sort of "fuck all you impurists - we don't want or need you - we'll win only by courting purist Liberals" attitude?
Jesse's Slave | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 7:13 pm | #

Niner - When I link to something and critcize it, it's called blogging, not going behind anyone's back. Get familiar with the medium before you toss out accusations. Also, you're right, I'm saying the post was wrongheaded and you can't afford to be divisive. E-mail me if you need further clarifications.

Gabriel - Your grassroots campaign hasn't given over 25% in the
Ezra Klein | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 8:03 pm | #

continued:

And if those who operate this blog can't do that, then perhaps it is time to hand the reins to those who will. Thank you.
harveythechainsaw | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 8:13 pm | #

well the crazyman believes that we really need to plan a proper endgame. When will Dean and [Kerry|Gephardt|Clark|Lieberman...] announce the [Kerry|Gephardt|Clark|Lieberman...] for dean campaign that will be partially funded by their previous campaign and the Dean for America campaign to get out the most amount of votes. We need that sooner rather than later.

The Dean campaign can NOT afford for them to quietly slip away in the night. It must be able to get those campaigns redirected into getting Dean elected.

(and if come after super Tuesday that it is Clark on top then we need to have these campaigns redirected toward Clark)
crazyman in NY | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 9:20 pm | #

In the spirit of Aziz's post below about "friends of Dean," as well as a different perspective on attacking Wash. Dems, I think Sydney Blumenthal's piece in the Guardian is very important. Here is someone often described as the quintessential good Clintonite soldier forcefully making the case that Dean not only has the make-up to prevail against his opponents attacks, but also a strategy that recreates Clinton's triangulation. Instead of reading Clinton's New Democrat movement as a set of centrist policies (ala Lieberman), Blumenthal understands how Clinton rose to power by criticizing the twin establishments of the Republican administration and the stale Democratic party of his day. Certainly, the candidate best doing that today is none other than Dean. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commen...1114376,00.html
RMB | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 10:27 pm | #

I think that the "Heathers" phenomenon is real, but I don't think that putting JMM in that camp is quite fair. Just by virtue of what he does, he has one foot in the Washington-establishment camp and one in the outsider/blogger camp. He's done plenty to push stories that were getting coverage in blog-land but ignored by the establishment media, like Trent Lott, Valerie Plame, Texas redistricting and the like.

The real "Heathers" are all the folks who get to appear on cable news and talking-heads shows and give their opinions.
Joe Buck | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 11:03 pm | #

Look...quit this meaningless pissing match...the fact is we are gonna need the DLC, the Greens, Blue Dog, Yellow Dog and even three legged dogs if were gonna Beat Bush. I look to see Clark making a real challenge to Dean come Feb 3-17th and I welcome it. The trick folks is whether we as a party are gonna be able to close ranks behind whomever emerges. And I mean WHOMEVER. I for one am a longtime Dean supporter, contributor and activist (Sept 02) and will go down with the ship in the primaries if thats our fate. However this campaign I hope is more than just a campaign for Howard Dean. At least thats what we say we are. As much as I support and work for Dean, I will hold my nose and vote in the general for whomever is our party nominee is because the stench coming out of the White House is far worse. But we don't want to make enemies of our primary contenders or their supporters because we will need them as much as they will need us in the general. If we don't make it in the primaries, at the very least this campaign has been a huge wake up call
for the Party. If Dean doesn't win the nomination we will still be a huge force within the Party that will have to be reckoned with, and that alone is worth every dime and every hour I have donated to the campaign. But for God's sake lets get off this petty "Heather" thing and talk more substantive things like maybe...how are we gonna win the nomination without tearing up the very party that we need to beat Bush....
MG | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 11:17 pm | #

I agree that this campaign is about bringing people--not pundits--together. The "DLC" is a small number of people. This campaign is NOT about the pundits and the insiders, and that's one reason they're so scared by him.

What's underlying this is that the Democratic party has almost no existence anymore as a grassroots organization. Under Clinton, it became almost entirely an empty shell with some DC operatives at the top and shoveling in soft money, and very little else. So even if the operatives go their own way and take their corporate lackeys with them, we won't have lost anything in terms of actual votes. But we won't lose them--once Dean's the nominee, they'll jump on board. That's already happen as the smart ones realize that the nomination is inevitable.
Gabriel | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 11:36 pm | #

Here's Marshall the Heather in action:

********************
I don't care if Dean says he'll endorse whoever wins. He's playing the defection card. And that crosses the line.

I don't doubt that it would be hard to reconcile some Dean supporters to another Democratic nominee. But that's not the point. By saying it, he's leveraging it, and encouraging it.

The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats' support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can't sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party's nomination.
********************

The Heatherish crap here is the idea that Marshall has any business saying what the "price of admission to the Democratic primary race" is. Dean has heard a lot of people tell him over the last year what they think the "price of admission" is--starting with support for Bush's Iraq war--, and if he'd listened to all those inside-the-Beltway types, he'd be a nobody now. And by the way, where was the scolding Marshall when NONE of the other candidates raised their hands in the debate when asked if they believed Dean could beat Bush?
Gabriel | Email | Homepage | 01.01.04 - 11:41 pm | #

Oh please, Gabriel. Marshall was 100% right on that, the price of admission to the Democratic Primary should be some sort of loyalty towards the party. Dean's comments were a thinly veiled defection threat which I don't believe he ever thinks he;d carry out or he'd encourage, they were ill considered and probably came out wrong. nonetheless, that's hardly Heather behavior from marshall -- it is the anger of a committed Democrat seeing a candidate he doesn't support threaten to screw the party if he doesn't win. Like it or not, it's a damn valid position.
Ezra Klein | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 1:27 am | #

we'd feel better if marshall walked his talk. let's see him measure up to his own standard. let's see him issue a public pledge promising to support dean if he turns out to be the nominee.

what do you think his response would be to this challenge? from steve gilliard's piece that aziz posted below:

The media in America lives in a dual world, one where they want to hold people accountable, yet flip out when people do the same to them.
niner | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 1:48 am | #

http://www.haloscan.com/ comments...12557944#154072

Marshall was 100% right on that, the price of admission to the Democratic Primary should be some sort of loyalty towards the party.

Ezra, now is a time when we need a candidate whose loyalties lie with his country over his party.
Native Son | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 7:11 am | #

Reposted for clarity:

Exra Klein

Marshall was 100% right on that, the price of admission to the Democratic Primary should be some sort of loyalty towards the party.

Ezra, now is a time when we need a candidate whose loyalties lie with his country over his party.
Native Son | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 7:13 am | #

Yeah, you know it's *really* scary when some Dean supporters start talking about people we don't "need". I wish Burlington would slap them upside the head at that point. Look, maybe if we were comfortably ahead of Bush in the polls we could talk about that (and even not then, considering how polls change). Here, how about looking at the issue this way. When Howard Dean sets about uniting the party, of course he needs the DLC (maybe not From himself, but the members, with which he was associated when he was governor) and he'll need left leaning to moderate pundits and bloggers to be with him. But if he's the nominee, he can set the terms and deal with them in a position of strength. Do you think Tom Delay has power by ignoring everyone? No, he has power by setting the terms and making everyone else fall in line. We don't need to get into too much of this, but let's not forget that Howard Dean can't do everything he wants to with regard to poverty or foreign policy or healthcare IF HE CAN'T GET ELECTED. /rant
JMS | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 7:56 am | #

I know there are some who are reading this thread and getting upset over a lot of people arguing over what appears to be nothing.

But this medium can handle it. This medium can take it. That's what this medium is really, really good for.

This medium, however, is not the campaign. I hope we understand that.

On the campaign trail, we're united behind the candidate. We'll get Dean the nomination in a couple of months, the party will be 100% behind him in April, and then the real work begins, with the money-raising power of the whole Democratic Party grassroots matched against the GOP distortion field.
Dana Blankenhorn | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 9:37 am | #

Native son --

So then how do you feel about fellow Democrats explicitly stating that Dean is not suitable presidential material?

To me that's just as out of bounds as what Dean has said.

Lets say Gephardt says that Dean is not suitable for the presidency, and yet he expects his consituency to vote for Dean if he's the nominee.

The only logical conclusions are as follows:

1. Gephardt doesn't think his constituency cares what he thinks.

2. Gephardt assumes his constituency knows he's being dishonest.

3. Gephardt assumes his constituency doesn't think that a candidates suitability is a factor in who should be president.

So which is it?
sobko | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 9:37 am | #

Ezra, thanks for a great post, and putting it much more eloquently that I could or have tried to in the last few days. A fresh outlook different from the status quo that has stalled and stifled this blog is most welcome.
Joe | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 10:52 am | #

Ezra, you worked for Dean - do you really think that campaign is going to defect? All I have read about Howard Dean suggests he is a LOYAL Democrat. What people see a "defection" threat is just Howard Dean's confidence. Howard Dean TRULY believes he is going to be the nominee, so I feel he finds all these "loyalty oath" ideas rubbish and foolish.
Carlton Nettleton | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 11:04 am | #

Ezra's remark about Bayh's comment is innacurate and importantly so. Bayh's comments were understood and purveyed by the media as what they were: yet another attack on Dean. You know, that complainer who's so incapable of governing. There have been almost NO voices of reason among Dean's rivals, their surrogates, and yes, the establishment (both party and media establishment). The notion that Dean and his supporters should make nice to candidates who have lost my respect for their character is simply wrong-headed. I'm mad as hell, and it sure isn't ANY of Dean's rivals that have shown leadership, courage, restraint, or party loyalty. In other words the observations Ezra makes are true, but they only make sense when applied as criticisms of the other candidates. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
John in upstate NY | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 11:57 am | #

I laughed when I read what Ezra wrote in his post about "Marshall being the driving force behind Trent Lott's fall."

Does anyone think the GOP wasn't thrilled to rid themselves of Trent Lott as Majority leader and replace him with Frist?

Frist is a Doctor who helped give legitimacy to the GOP's first stab at dismantling Medicare, oops, I mean what they and the unbiased media call "reform" of the program, ending single payer, a phony prescription drug benefit, and tougher controls on drug buyers instead of drug companies.

Anyonne who thinks Marshall brought down Trent Lott without the GOP's privately pleased consent is living in a dreamworld.

If Tom DeLay said the same thing Lott had about Strom Thurmond, no one in the GOP would've even dared raise the idea he be removed.

They would have cared less what marshall and the rest of the harumphing heathers, sure they were okay to attack on this, one,( I mean after all, Strom Thurmond, Darth Vader and Neo Nazis are still far enough right for the "liberal" media to say they aren't main stream, right?) had to say.

This sort of "victory" is the kind of thing that only inside the beltway washington cares about.

Outside, the only resonance it had was to make white males in the deep south hate the Democratic party just a titch more for our "PC" attitudes.
James Kennelly | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 12:05 pm | #

Dean's comments re: defections were a warning for the Dem party to wake up and pay attention. if you follow the o-blog, you'd know it was high time he sai something - this is way out of hand, and people are pi$$ed off! even if Dean doesn't get the nom, the rest of the "frontrunners" look like whiners and losers, and with that the entire party loses. saying anything less would have gone unnoticed by all.
Jo in Vermont | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 2:14 pm | #

sobko

I'm not a Democrat. I'm one of the independents that makes up some 30-40% of the electorate.

I view the Democratic "establishment" in the same light as the GOP. Dean is saying what needs to be said to get voters like me who otherwise wouldn't give a damn.
Native Son | Email | Homepage | 01.02.04 - 2:56 pm | #