WaPo has balanced, informative, and relevant article about the fight between the DCCC and the DNC over how to spend the DNC's money. (I can only imagine how the article would have turned out if the byline had read VanDeHei.) From my quite biased perspective: Rahm, you've got your own committee. If you want to spend money in a certain way, raise it. Send out a letter or an email, or call up supporters, let them know how your committee is rightfully focused on short-term gains (in contrast to the DNC's long-term interests) and see how much money you collect. Stop being jealous of Dean's and Schumer's abilities, and start typing those emails to your small-dollar contributors (since your big donors have hopefully maxed out).
The fight between Dean and Emanuel is emblematic of why so many Democrats lined up behind Dean during the primary (and, Washington insiders take note, this has nothing to do with the Iraq War). As DNC Chair, Dean will be judged primarily by the results of one night: November 7, 2006. When we elect (or fail to elect) a Democrat as President in 2008, the credit (or blame) for that campaign will fall on the candidate and his/her staff, not the DNC chair. If Dean only cared about his legacy, and not the future of the Democratic party, he'd spend money exactly how Emanuel recommends--to maximize midterm election gains. The groundwork that Dean is currently laying will payoff in the future and when that time comes, Dean's successors will be showered with praise. We saw this sacrificial spirit and gumption early in the 2003 primary -- it's why Dean would have made a good President, but is making an even better party chair.
Moving from substance to process, Edsall (similarly to VanDeHei) continues to violate WaPo's policy on unnamed sources. In this article alone, he references "Many Washington Democrats", "one Democratic operative", and "another [Democratic operative]." Hey, Tom and Jim, next time you're writing an article, please give me a call. I no longer fit that first description, as I've moved to NJ, but I think we could go with "Democratic operative" as a label for my "expert" opinion. Hey, for all we know about your sources, the extent of their resumes is interning on the Joe Lieberman for President campaign.
RNC spending NOTHING in California, the biggest country in the US. Why should we be wasting money in ID?
Short answer: because Democrats get elected in Idaho. (Dems dominated the ID Gov's office in the 70's through 1994.)
Longer answer: Let's stick with Governors for the moment. Democrats have had a decent track record of getting elected to and staying popular in the chief executive's office in several very Republican states: Wyoming, Montana, and Oklahoma come to mind. In fact, according to SurveyUSA, ID's GOP Governor (Kempthorne) is over 10 points more unpopular than either Freudenthal, Schweitzer, or Henry. In 2002, Kempthorne only garnered 56% of the vote, and had to go deep into debt to pull off that win. This year the seat is open and -- depending on results of the upcoming primaries -- potentially winnable.
Moving from Idaho, let's take a look at Oklahoma. We both know the sad state of Sooner Democrat's finances. If we have *any* hope of retaining our majority in the state senate, they'll need cash, and that cash probably needs to come from the DNC.
Simply put, we have Democrats running and winning in all 50 states; they all deserve the support of the DNC.