First Kill All the ... wait, who do we kill here?

The Terry McAuliffe Syndrome - Dan Gerstein
Fire the Consultants - Amy Sullivan

I'll warn you now, I'm writing this immediately after watching SNL's spoof on Chris Matthews in which they skewer the likes of Howard Dean and Zell Miller ... so I am on a real snark high right now.

Let's get the long knives out for a little fun, shall we? I mean, that's what the losing side does after an election, right? Well, unfortunately, Dan & Amy have beat me to the cutlery drawer and damned if they haven't offed a few victims. Was it just coincidence that Bob Shrum hung up his Presidential campaign practice? Maybe, maybe not.

But in each case above, the two assailants have found their target. In the case of Amy Sullivan, it's Joe Hansen, a DSCC consultant with a mean grip on that arm behind the candidates' backs. Dan Gerstein continues to go off on a rantacular feast at the expense of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Terry McAuliffe, and Michael Moore. Oh, and he also endorses Simon Rosenberg for the DNC gig. Unfortunately, that last point kinda gets overlooked as even Team Simon had to put a little distance between themselves and "Steamin'" Dan Gerstein. Take heart, Dan. It's less distance than they seem to have with this dear blog, as I never made the rounds on those high profile blog post announcements as an endorsee (although I am listed as an endorsing blogger - yay me!). Being a political pariah has its moments ... savor them and create as many as possible.

A little sidestep is in order here as I profess a bit more appreciation for Dan's writings than might be considered normal. I mean, any frequent reader here will know that I am not exactly a practitioner of the belief that being a political moderate/centrist/whatever means one has to have the personality of cardboard. I've never believed it to be an oxymoron to describe oneself as a radical centrist, raging moderate, or even a caustic independent. At root of any worldview ought to be some deeply held beliefs that one is willing to go toe-to-toe on, combat passionately for, and defend to the hilt. That such a worldview might not qualify as within the modern American political party definitions does not (or, at least "should not") disqualify one from having such deep-rooted beliefs. So while I'm at it, I'll profess an undying gratitude for Charles Peters for enunciating such commentary in those formative pre-DLC days of my political upbringing. Dan Gerstein seems to fit snugly in this realm as well, so knowing that the community grows and gets accentuated by the likes of Gerstein is a healthy sign of growth.

Of course, having written that, I know damn well what to expect ... I'll disagree with him strenuously on the next WSJ column he gets published. Such is life.

For now, we've got the knives out and aimed at various parties, however. And it's a worthwhile question to ask after any election ... win or lose, actually. Who should suffer for the sins of the past round? Surprisingly, however, there's not a great deal of disagreement ... and that's telling.

I mean, look at the DNC race ... yeah, a bunch of the Deaniac crew is sticking by their Sacred Leader, but a not-insignificant portion of them are also eyeing Simon Rosenberg. Yes, the same Simon Rosenberg that people like me and Dan are cheering on. Yes, the same Simon Rosenberg who flacked for Lieberman and the DLC before becoming a New Dem pariah himself - burning some bridge or another with the DLC (I've never quite heard the story behind all of that) and yet defending Dems who voted for China MFN at the same time and lately pimping the candidacies of a variety of "Red State" Dem campaigns. That Simon has that kind of support already ought to be a very real indication of his potential to bridge the still fractuous parts of the Democratic coalition. I still cannot think of a logical argument for any other candidate doing that as easily and quickly (save for perhaps Donnie Fowler, though there's still a "blank slate" issue I continue to have with the guy). So, by and large, there's a very real avenue of agreement between the likes of me and those from the Deaniac faction that I normally love taking a jab at.

Move on to those we wish to punish: Shrum? Yeah, I don't see a long line of people willing to defend him anymore. McAuliffe? I think there's been a proper amount of perspective put on his plusses and minusses by most factions thus far. But we're all pretty much in agreement that his time has come. Joe Hansen is one of those names that labors in obscurity, so it's a bit of a new one for many of us to digest ... but the story Amy Sullivan paints is exactly the sort of consultant ruling class that we need to be rid of.

One name I've not seen enough mention of yet is Mark Mellman. Sullivan mentions him and she also points out the 2003 article that TNR did that pretty much highlighted Mellman's failures as a consultant. That I believe more should be made of this is not to suggest that any large numbers of Dems are rushing to his defense though.

Where there is some minor squabbling is on the matter of The Clintons. Don't know that it's a huge issue overall, but there are definitely those who maintain that BC was a disaster for the party while others will point out that there is no better individual political consultant than BC himself. Yet the spectre of a HRC candidacy in 2008 is enough to make anyone else cautious about really backing them devoutly. She may be the de facto frontrunner for 2008, but she would do well to ask other frontrunners how that panned out. She can start with the junior senator from Connecticut perhaps.

Yes, there are always a healthy-sized posse out to get the DLC and I do count myself as one of their most vocal defenders as I fail to spot any other Democratic group that has done more to enunciate an overarching philosophical backbone for the party to run on. The day Brookings wants to dip their toe into the political realm, I'll cede that ground to them ... but they ain't biting. Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, etc ... not really a constructive policy force among them. I'd classify them as political reactive moreso than a constructive policy shop in their own rights. Like it or not Dems, the DLC and PPI are THE GAME for new ideas. Care to challenge that? Then pony up the dough.

So we've got a healthy list of people that everyone is in fair amount of agreement on for offing ... Bob Shrum, Mark Mellman, Terry McAuliffe ... all gone bye-bye. Joe Hansen, there's some allowance that if he wants to focus on his strength as a field organizer, we might be wise to offer him a constructive role in that capacity ... just not as a one-stop shopping campaign strategist. Others have bitten the dust over time as well (que Mark Penn, Doug Schoen, and Pat Caddell ... among countless others), so there should be a sizable support group to console each new member with.

If I might be so bold as to suggest what all of this indicates - as if I could dare do so - I think there's a gathering storm that consists of the following: