Dennis Kucinich will be doing a web-streaming chit-chat thingamabob after the debate tonight on his new web video domain name, kucinichr.com, which I imagine is named along the lines of Flickr, Tweetr. and othr such things? Hey, a lower tier punk's gotta do something to get a little attention these days; there's only so much Rahm Emanuel to go around.

Seriously, WTF kind of name is Rahm? No wonder.

I will try to comment over at Tondee's but I found the whole exchange in a word, counter productive.

As with all these kind of gripe sessions, what's the point? Seriously, it's like the old saying, either get busy living or get busy dying..

I have frankly bristled at any number of conversations about "those democrats" and sweeping generalizations about our party. When I disagree or grumble, it's at a specific action or person. We are "them" after all.

I have real issues with some recent actions at the DNC, and with Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer. They are not helping to build our brand with some of the tactical blunders, and for that matter neither is our own minority leadership.

In regards to the bench, I'll lobb out a few more names Rob Teilhet, Alisha Thomas Morgan, some of our freshman folks like Stacey Abrams and Margaret Kaiser.

For many folks the politics of politics isn't for them, and that's fine but please remember that as we say all the time 99% of us are volunteers, we have other things we could do, a steady stream of negative vitrol will only push even more good people away, and I doubt that is what is really wanted.

~end morning rant~

I found the whole "you can't bitch about the actions (or inactions) of a party because you're not in the party" line of reasoning to be, well, stupid.

I'm a web developer, and I wouldn't say people shouldn't be able to bitch about how a website works just because they don't know to develop one themselves. In fact, I often consider that criticism to be more valuable than that from another web developer.

The koom-by-ya routine rings a little hollow from Flack, considering the vitriol behind some of the things he's said about Dale Cardwell, Jim Marshall, et al. They deserved criticism, sure, but if he is going to call for civility, maybe he ought to look inward first.

Um... No.

I've said very pointed things about Cardwell and Marshall based on specific actions and positions they have taken, and the relative impact those actions have on the the Party. That is called an informed opinion (and people disagree), and I've got no problem with that. I also have no problem with folks not "in the party" commenting about it if they, well, actually know what the hell they are talking about.

There is a difference.

A lot of us have taken the editorial views of mainstream journalists to the woodshed when we think they are wrong. Should I hold this podcast to a different standard because it has a panel of kool kidz from new media? Especially when they represent that they do know what the hell they are talking about.

Jon,
Catherine was sitting right there. Would you say she doesn't know what she's talking about?

I'd wager Randy Lewis spends more time at the Legislature than you do, considering he lobbies and/or does PR for the landscaping and gas industries.

Griftdrift is in constant contact with several legislators.

Joseph is a regular fixture in Doraville city council meetings.

You can continue to attack the messenger instead of the message, but it just makes you sound like a whiner.

Ahhhh. So it's the kool kidz versus the not kool kidz. I guess the whole Atlanta vs. the rest of the state isn't just limited to the water wars.

Maybe I'll just start taking the LBJ stance, "let em deny it."

You know, the more I think about this the madder I get.

So because I made a crass comment about people wanting to make some real money, not that you've noted I said it right after Catherine commenting about how Cathy Cox is enjoying hear new job, and might I add something which I have now clarified twice was merely an opinion, not fact, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about?

And the riposte for the short Democratic bench is, no offense intended because I am sure they are fine people, people no one outside of the insider have heard of?

But you are right. I probably should have mentioned Baker and Thurmond. They are two fine men and I like them very much. Maybe I would have remembered to mention them if they would ever decide to crap or get off the pot about running for higher office.

Disagreement is fine. I welcome disagreement. But this moral certitude is beginning to chafe just a bit.

Thanks for addressing the substance of the matter fellas. That’s revealing.

First, I was very clear in the first freaking paragraph to except Catherine. I did so because she actually tried to slap down some of the nonsense. Perhaps you need a re-read and re-listen.

Second, those are all very fine credentials. We should all be proud. That doesn't exempt them from omitting, ignoring, or are plain getting certain facts wrong in their "analysis".

I called b.s. Answer the freaking substance of my gripe.

I think it is a woefully ignorant to leave unmentioned Democratic constitutional officers when discussing party leadership. I think it is a gross simplification to suggest Dubose is the only person the "bench". I think it is a mistake to think that the book is written on any political election a year before it is held.

I'm making a critique based on the substance of what they said.

You have it backwards, Rusty.

I'm critical of parts of a podcast, and now I take a fisting from the new media folks because they don't like what I said. That is what I call attacking the messenger.

Excuse me Jon but I think I'm fairly certain I just did address the substance of your criticism includig my omission of the Constitutional officers. I also address your criticism of my remarks regarding the money issue both on my blog and yours.

Exactly how much fisting do I have to take from you before you acknowledge that fact?

And lest I am accused again of not addressing all your points, I never said DuBose was the only person on the bench. In fact when that was mnetioned, you may not hear it, but I was clearly snickering.

i posted before reading your last.

Noted

In my opinion Thurbert Baker and Michael Thurmond are part of the problem. They are clearly qualified to make the leap and run for Governor or U.S. Senate. As are many of our Congressmen. But they are not going to do anything because they are comfortable in their positions and they know how weak the Georgia Democratic Party is.

I'm simply not going to sing the praises of a party whose top tier "bench" could not manage to pull 40% of the vote in the 2006 Gubenatorial election. And if you think that Jeanette Jamieson, Alan Powell or Tim Golden are going to pull us out of that, then you are delusional.

re:

That doesn't exempt them from omitting, ignoring, or are plain getting certain facts wrong in their "analysis".

The constitutional offices are nice, but really, how much influence do Thurbert Baker or Michael Thurmond have in the grand scheme of things? Not that much.

You have an opinion, they have an opinion. Several of them say the people who are in office now don't make up a strong bench. You disagree.

You can say that because they don't work for the party that they don't know what the hell they're talking about. I can point to the scoreboard (election results, dollars raised, etc etc etc) and say you don't know what the hell you're talking about. We can do this all day if you'd like.

Come on the show and refute it if you think they're wrong.

The odd thing about some of this hub bub is that assumptions are made that elected officials in some way are assumed to be part of the "D" community and have a responsibility to building the party and community.

I'm not sure that I've seen much evidence of this, except for the odd lip service when they want my vote or usually more to the point a check.

It's the classic chicken and egg conversation/question; i.e what is a political parties job? Build a community and brand or elect and support candidates? I can tell you having sat through that conversation a state communittee meeting more than a few people think it's only to elect people. Most of those people are, you guessed it "elected officials".

So perhaps a clarifying question is warranted here.. Which problem are you trying to solve? Engaging the electing officials or building the community? Very few of our officials are interested in that bench building since it could lead to some serious competition for them in the future.

Brand and community work is ldifficult. labor and time sucking fo'sure and should be more our concern right now than any single candidate I could name.

I'd bet $1. that if our community was stronger, our officials would be more comfortable running and challenging more "r's". The community could absorb more boneheadedness and just cause one bad candidated salted the earth in a house district it doesn't pull the whole house down.

"Very few of our officials are interested in that bench building since it could lead to some serious competition for them in the future."

BINGO!

the reality is, if they wanted to recruit a bench...they would.

There isn't a bench because the "leadership" i use that term loosely, doesn't want one.

Many in the Democratic Party do, and work to build one, however they are not in positions of perceived power or authority (elected or otherwise) so it's 1000x harder to recruit & train & locate profile candidates.

I could go on & on.

I will start by saying that I did not see the podcast (being pod-illiterate). As for "party-building", that can only happen on the precinct/county level. If we are depending on the leadership to do that for us, we will be sitting here debating "how many economists can dance on the head of a pin" when the new millenium gets here.

I read most of what is written here, but ultimately, I got to get the voters to the polls or my party will falter. It would be nice to have leaders who the voters believe in, but we have to make the party meaningful to them, and that means locally.

Maybe this is because "my guy" has not or will not enter the race on the national level. Statewise, the only way we can come back is to beat the bushes and GOTV.

I'll see your "precinct level" and raise you one MESSAGE, Peter. It's pretty hard to get people interested in the Party (as opposed to a specific candidate) without a strong and consistent message. It doesn't seem like much, but we haven't been able to pull it off yet.

How about coming out with "openness and inclusion" for starters. "We don't care who you are we are giving you a seat at the table...all we ask in return is openness and a willingness to work toward consensus." Call me closed minded as much as you like, I don't want to hear the reasons it won't work. LOL