DNC CHAIR DONNIE FOWLER
More than twenty-four hours ago, DNC Chair candidate Donnie Fowler posted a diary on MyDD and then fled without answering any of the dozens of questions that people asked.

Over on Kos, ttagaris referred to this as A Flaming Bag of Dog Poop, noting:

Remember when you were teenager and you used to play ding-dong-ditch with your friends?  Maybe some of us took it to the next level and would leave a flaming bag of poop on a doorstep?
[...]
Would a candidate, when going door to door, ring the doorbell, drop a piece of literature on the front step, and then run away to the next house? The same should be asked about on-line outreach.

You see, the Internet is the ONLY medium of two-way mass communication available.  One of the things I dread is that the Democratic Party will see this wonderful blogosphere and think in terms of pre-modern campaign communications.

I don't want to see them stuck in the mindset of television, radio, and print advertising.  Just talking at you in a 30 second spot, or a full-page advertisment.  NO! NO! NO!  If that is the way you want to use the net in 2005/2006 -- then you will get left behind in the netroots.  For many, that will be just fine.  To you, I wish the best of luck -- but I am uninterested in your campaign.

To the candidates who recongize the value of this two-way dialogue, the spoils shall go.  And I am not just talking about fundraising.  Cause if fundraising dollars are the only reason your are willing to "put up" with us, then you are not welcome in the netroots vision for the future of the Democratic Party.

In the comments, wanderindiana notes, "I salute you for your connection of two-way communication with reform."

Which I think is a very important concept. Reform requires responsiveness and accountability, not flaming bags of dog poop. We don't need leaders who use the internet like an ad, we need leaders who use the internet to interact.

Absent interaction, Fowler's post is nothing more than an ad "talking at" us by another politician who doesn't get it. To paraphrase Plato, Fowler has come out of the cave and realized there is more to see than the shadows on the wall. But he hasn't realized that he can interact with this new world.

An entire 24 hour media-cycle later, the questions people posted appear to have been in vain. This was a major missed opportunity. I don't want our Chair to miss opportunities...we've done enough of that.

I figure it is time to forget about Fowler and talk amongst ourselves. Thus, I have attempted to answer some of the questions about Fowler from comments that have ended up in the blogosphere.

QUESTION: MySteve:

What about minority outreach?"

ANSWER: Maxwell:

I have a little trouble fully committing to someone like Fowler who make such gross errors of fact as this:

Whether marching under the banner of the Tories (Revolutionary War), the Democrats (Civil War), or the Republicans (civil rights movement), conservatives have consistently resisted progress that we now consider obvious and natural:

The Republicans were the natural allies of the Civil Rights Act, and voted 27-6 to pass it through the Senate. It was Southern Democrats who resisted it...22 in the Senate and 96 in the House. This was the seminal event that restructured political affiliations along demographic lines among Democrats, and resulted in the exodous of many party members over the next decades.

If Fowler misunderstands one of the most fundamental events in modern Democratic Party history, I'm worried about him becoming the operational and very public voice of the party.

***

QUESTION: Josh Koenig:

I'm curious how you'd see the National party working (if at all) to revitalize state-level organizations.

ANSWER: Emptywheel:

In short, if the MI campaign is an example of what Donnie Fowler's DNC would be like, I want out. Here are some gripes:

I was the precinct/ward organizer for one of the medium-large counties in MI. You'd think, as a grassroots organizer for one of the must-win areas in MI, I'd have heard from you, or at least known that you valued my work and that you were listening to my good ideas.

But you see, the volunteers who ran our grassroots never attended one of the state meetings. Nor did we see you locally (suffice it to say we're accessible to both Lansing and Detroit). The people who attended meetings were the paid people--some might call them consultants, part of that aristocracy you claim to want to get rid of.

I don't really care that I wasn't invited to meetings--I was spending 10-60 hours a week volunteering, I didn't need more meetings (although I think it belies your claim for inclusion at every level).

But I do care that every time we tried to do something at a local level because IT MADE SENSE, we either had to lie, subject our paid staffers to berating in those weekly meetings, or just try to fudge the numbers. That is, not only did the MI coordinated campaign NOT listen to local leaders, it forced local leaders to manipulate the system in order to do what we knew to be right.

Now I'm willing to see you provide proof that you can change--that your leadership of the DNC would be different from what I saw in MI. But barring that I really can't see throwing you a lot of support. You talk a good talk. But your proven record doesn't match that talk, at least not from the perspective of this local grassroots leader.

***

QUESTION: desmoulins:

I'm all for reforming the party nationally and at state level but I wonder what the new reformed party will look like that is different from how it functions today.

ANSWER: BigDog04:

Fowler is trouble not for any obvious policy or reform reasons, in my judgment, but because he's incompetent in my opinion. All he succeeded in the Clark Campaign was to insure chaos and an unprepared candidate with astoundingly weak staffing...which just compounded the errors.
Imagine a nascent, last minute Presidential Campaign with an inexperienced political candidate, (who has the ENTIRE Media Spotlight, a compelling history with substantive viewpoints, significant strategic strengths against the Republican Machince) yet the first non-pro Press Secretary and Campaign Manager Fowler don't prepare the candidate for the most obvious of questions about Iraq?

I'm not a highly paid professional political operative...but I guarantee that conversation and role-play would have taken place where I or any other of hundreds of experienced politcal types in charge.

Why do you think he was on the Clark Campaign such a short period of time? Let's see....Wes Clark madee his decision late in the afternoon on September 15, 2003, announced on Sept 17, 2003 and Fowler resigned October 8, 2003. Why is his presidential campaign chairmanship even mentioned?

Leaving while publicly claiming to have been championing the 'rights' of the Draft Movement participants, the reality is that he was asked to take a secondary role...and he petulantly picked up his toys...went home AND TALKED TO THE PRESS ABOUT IT!

That wasn't loyal professional political technique then or now.

****

QUESTION: Norm:

You were the National Field Director for Gore 2000. You state you worked in both Iowa and New Hampshire that year. In Donna Brazile's recent book she has a story about election day for the New Hampshire primary. Basically, she writes that after the Gore campaign discovered that Senator Bill Bradley was leading in the exit polls, the Gore campaign helped cause a traffic jam during rush hour in areas of New Hampshire that were trending heavily for Bradley. Essentially, she wrote this off as something like "alls fair in love and war." Michael Whouley I think has also told similar stories. Vice President Gore ended up barely defeating Senator Bradlay in NH. My question to you, Mr. Fowler, is this: what role did you play in any discussions about causing a traffic jam to block Bardley voters from getting to the polls? Were you involved in any such discussions, and if so, how do you explain this attempt to block voters getting to the polls with all of the Democratic rhetoric is 2000 about voting in Florida and 2004 in Ohio?

ANSWER: wmtriallawyer:

He was national field director for Gore/Liberman. In other words, he was the guy in charge of ensuring all D voters in the U.S. were targeted, called, cajoled, and brought to the polls.

If he did his job in Tennessee (Gore's home state), Arkansas (Big Dog's home state), West Virginia (traditional D state before Rove got to it), Ohio, Florida, etc., etc., we wouldn't be here moaning over W.

Some field director. And now he wants to run the party? Mmmm, no thanks...

****

QUESTION: Rayne:

I'll be real blunt here: I saw more organization in my county here in Michigan from MoveOn and from the Sierra Club than I did the Democratic Party.

Frankly, I can't see what the impediments were towards making any of the so-called "innovative programs" work in Michigan during this last campaign. If MoveOn could do them, why weren't they already implemented?

If this didn't get done at state level, what's to say they'll get done at national?

ANSWER: BigDog04:

This is vintage Donnie F. He makes a great sales job to GET the job..then blows it because of a lack of real skill.

This interchange says a lot more about a lack of ability to work with people than it does anything else.

Whatever else the new DNC Chair does...he/she must be able to work with people who really disagree with them...and still make progress towards a greater goal. Fowler has NEVER shown a bit of success at a high level in his work.

*****

QUESTION: Andrew C White:

I also wonder about your statement here...

"raise money through traditional means and recognize value of new donors"

What do you mean by that? "traditional means"? Is this a poorly worded statement or are you sending an anti-internet and small-donor message? That's the way it sounds but I doubt you really meant it that way. Care to take a moment to clarify?

ANSWER: BigDog04:

And I have, after hearing a participant in a DFA training tell me how Fowler said "he" knew the secrets of the online campaign revolution, even less respect. Bah. Lots of Dean people should have stood up and stoned him in that meeting...much less the Draft Movement folks that took the online campaign to a new place too and worked it as hard as they could.

As one activist has already told me:
"If Fowler become DNC Chair...I'm gone. The Party is hopeless."