Don't these people have calendars?

NOTE: I'm re-posting this at the top, as a few people are linking to this post, and stupid (but free!) Blogger doesn't allow good permalinks.

So, Daily Kos Tuesday pointed us all to another in a series of articles trying to make a connection where none exists, between the 2004 presidential race and some race of the past. The article in question yesterday said that 2004 is like 1980, and Howard Dean is the Democrats' Ronald Reagan. (Although I like John Nichols--he's a Wisconsin boy and very smart. I just think he's wrong.)

Let's get one thing straight: It is not 1964, and Dean is not Goldwater. It is not 1968, and Dean is not McCarthy. It is not 1972, and Dean is not McGovern. It is not 1976, and Dean is not Carter. It is not 1984, and Dean is neither Hart nor Mondale. It is not 1988, and Dean is not Dukakis. It is not 1992, and Dean is neither Tsongas nor Clinton. It is not 1996, and Dean is not Dole. And it's certainly not 2000, either, and Dean is not McCain.

The fact is that it's 2004 (okay, 2003) and that this year's (okay, next year's) election will be unlike any other, period. Why? Three things.

1. The world has changed. < cliche >September 11, 2001, changed a lot of things. < /cliche > One of them is that many Democrats lost their backbones. Another is that Republicans saw an opportunity to turn this country into a one-party state. Howard Dean is the only candidate taking a stand against both of those things, and I believe he will win because of it.

Mary Landrieu, in her run-off election in 2002, defied conventional Democratic wisdom that said she shouldn't go after the Whopper and his failed policies, that she shouldn't attack. You know what? She did attack, and she won because of it. Look east a few states. Max Cleland, decorated war hero and accomplished Senator, opted not to go on the attack against the "popular" president. That left the game wide open for his opponent, Saxby Chambliss, to do the attacking; Chambliss portrayed the veteran Cleland as weak on defense and implying he supported Osama bin Laden and Saddam Houssein. Cleland lost.

What we see in California, Texas, Colorado, and Georgia right now are more extensions of what we saw in Florida in 2000. The Republicans are absolutely trying to subvert the electoral process; they're trying to do an end-run around democracy and make this nation a one-party state. Howard Dean recognizes that--he was very clear the other night on Larry King's show--and he knows what we're up against. I want my country back from those power-hungry fascists, don't you?

Especially once the recall gets going in California, this issue will get major, major play. A Democrat like Howard Dean who recognizes this kind of electoral arrogance and calls the Republicans on it will be successful.

2. The primaries this year are horrendously front-loaded. Within six weeks (January 13 to March 2), there are primaries in DC, IA, NH, SC, AZ, OK, DE, MO, NM, MI, WA, ME, VA, TN, WI, ID, UT, CA, CT, GA, MD, MA, MN, NY, OH, RI, VT, HI, ND, and TX. That's 30 out of 51, folks. We will know on the morning of March 3 who the nominee is. Period. There is no time for anyone not building momentum and pulling ahead now to win. A candidate has to have broad and deep support in money and volunteers, and it has to all be in place well before January 19, when Iowans gather to caucus, as there will be no time to rest or build momentum after that.

That gives Dean a leg up in the primaries, sure; but what about in the general? So many of these previous-year comparisons area about the general election, not the primaries, right? Good point, but . . .

3. These changes have brought a new way of doing things. Okay, the cliché was that 9/11 would bring us all closer, make us nicer and stuff. No one can say that Dean's campaign is any nicer than any of the others' (except maybe Carol Moseley Braun). But Dean's campaign does demonstrate something about that change: The people are moving his campaign, not so much vice-versa.

I've written about this before, but it bears repeating: The exciting thing, to me, about Howard Dean's campaign is empowerment. Howard Dean is doing that better than any other candidate.

They're calling Dean's success "People-powered Howard," which has a nice ring to it and all, and it's very, very true. Dean is not being made by the media, he is not being made by high-powered advisors and spinmeisters; Dean is being made by the people who are falling over themselves to join up with his campaign. That has never happened before. If you can name one instance, tell me, please.

But what draws me again and again to Dean--even when I wince at a misstatement or puzzle over some questions about his record--is the empowerment. I'm a Howard-powered person. Dean's campaign allows me--hell, encourages me--to take a leadership role, to take initiative, to suggest ideas and campaign strategy. Dean's campaign is not top-down. While it's not fully bottom-up, either, it operates in a way that gives people true ownership of the campaign, a real sense of belonging, and a feeling of importance.

Kerry wants me to vote for him. Edwards and Lieberman, too. That's the old model. Howard Dean wants me to work for him, and he wants to hear about it when I'm successful, and offer me help when I need it. That's the new model.

Yeah, I know, every candidate for however far back you want to look has inspired people to quit their jobs and hitch-hike, if necessary, to campaign headquarters to work for the guy. But we have never seen anything like what Howard Dean has done. We're not talking about a few dozen or hundred people hoping to be interns; we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people taking leadership in their own communities and running a real grass-roots campaign.

However, I think that the non-top-down-ness of Dean's campaign is exactly what's got so many of his opponents--including the Democratic Leadership Council--so worried.

The DLC thinks they have the right answer; You can hear again and again how successful the DLC has been and may still be. But that success is predicated on presenting candidates who follow a script both in their policy initiatives and in their performance. Some win (Jennifer Granholm); some lose (Max Cleland).

But Howard Dean does not follow the script for performance, even if he almost entirely does for policy. And he's having success at it--greater success, in fact, than any of the DLC's candidates in this race.

Lieberman and Edwards--who are probably the DLC's most prominent guys in this race--are really running old-model campaigns. Raise a lot of money. Don't be too negative. Wait until you buy TV time to get your name out there. And what's happening? Lieberman's falling like a rock and Edwards is spinning his wheels.

Gephardt's running an old-model campaign, as well, but not DLC-style. He's chasing unions and raising money instead of doing his job. He's not failing the way DLC candidates are, but Dean's new way has Gephardt on the run in Iowa, which should be a lock for him.

Kerry, too, is running an old-style campaign. He's trying to capture the feeling of RFK's 1968 run, but he's stuck in the 1990's, instead. And, again, Dean has him on the run in New Hampshire, a state that should be a lock for Kerry.

When the way you do business gets threatened by a new business model, you fight back. I am not surprised to see the retaliation against Dean. But that retailiation confirms what I've been saying: Dean is the new way; everyone else is running on an out-dated plan. If you don't get that, you won't get Dean, and you will be shocked when he takes it all.

UPDATE with reposting: I did not originally mention how Democrats' electoral calculus is changing, too, and how we can now win without the South--something we may have to do whether the nominee is Dean or not, and something we couldn't have doe eight years ago. Some people are calling it the Gore Gambit--maybe the Gore Gamble would be a better name--but if Gore had won New Hampshire in addition to all the states he did win, and he would have pulled off the victory without a single southern state, even without his home state of Tennessee. The electoral numbers changed with 2000's redistricting, so New Hampshire plus West Virginia (which really ought to be Democratic) is a 269-269 tie. We need AZ, NV, or CO. AZ and NV are definitely in play. Call it the Dean Gambit (though Dean does not plan to write off the South): the Gore states plus WV and NV. A winning 270, without the South.