I'd like to associate myself with Mr. Millstone's remarks.

It's one thing to run a conservative Democrat in Kentucky or Texas; it's quite another to back one in NYC, even in a Republican-held district.

It is something completely different to dun members of Congress for "dues." This is exactly the kind of old-style politics that led me to get involved in order to change. It's why I'm perfectly willing to back the party machine when I feel they're right, but just as willing to tell them to go to hell when I believe they deserve it.

Two more things...

1. While Chris van Hollen is technically running the DCCC, I've been told that Rahm Emanuel is still pulling the strings -- and Emanuel voted for the FISA bill, which Hall, Towns and Clarke (and van Hollen!) rightly voted against. That being said, I believe we can, and should, add Emanuel to the list of "leaders" in the Democratic party who should be purged in the name of truth, justice, and the American way.

2. I may just have to get a letter-writing campaign together from people who worked to put John Hall in Congress in 2006, commending him for falling behind in his "dues."

the DCCC is completely un-ideological. They back candidates who they think can win, and they run the spectrum from Blue Dog to Progressive. It is true, however, that many Progressives get the shaft because they run lousy campaigns - maybe some food for thought on our part.

But again, that's something different than what I'm talking about here. New York incumbents tend to have their seats for as long as they want them. Or when is the last time a sitting Democrat was defeated? I honestly can't recall.

So the issue becomes not the conduct of the DCCC, but that of the Members of Congress. And yes, they need to be at the front of the line in terms of donating money to their committee. The DCCC is the linchpin of the effort to expand our majority, after all.

In 2006, the "red to blue" list of 32 seats garnered 9 wins and 23 losses. The overwhelming number of Democratic victories were in districts the DCCC ignored. In two cases, the "red to blue" candidates lost primaries to eventual Democratic red-to-blue winners, Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1) and Jerry McNerney (CA-11). The DCCC's recent track record of determining which seats are "winnable" is pretty bleak.

Bouldin seems right in his claim that the DCCC is un-idealogical -- sort of. They seem idealogically bound to the pursuit of the almighty Dollar, and believe that the DCCC helps them that can help themselves. Perhaps they feel that those people are the ones most likely to be able to "pay their dues" to the DCCC after getting elected.

Perhaps they feel that those people are the ones most likely to be able to "pay their dues" to the DCCC after getting elected.

No, it's simply that contemporary campaigns cost money. No need to go into the CMCE stuff, either - right now, under the system we have and that's going to govern this election, running for office costs money. I talked to Christine Jennings the other day, about her normal daily schedule: four to six hours of call time. If you want to be elected, that's what you need to do, whether you like it or not. All too many Progressives think that rule doesn't apply to them. It does.

But yeah, their 06 track record - Duckworth versus Cegelis comes to mind - is mixed. That said, they did pick up over thirty seats last time around, and that was in large part due to Rahm's focus.

You're right, of course, that campaigning costs a lot of money, and that means lots of time "dialing for dollars." There are a one or two progressive candidates in this area who don't seem to be willing to do that work to the extend it's necessary (I won't name names).

But I disagree that Rahm Emanuel had any effect on the 20+ Democrats who defeated incumbent Republicans without DCCC help -- or at least without that help until the very end. If Rahm had any effect at all, it pales in comparison to the effect rendered by Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney and his friend Jack Abramoff, and (who could ever forget!) Mark Foley.