The Daily Kos diary “Begala: Dean ‘an a**hole from Vermont’,” which appeared yesterday, is a great example of one thing I’ve reflected on several times while reading the litany of blogosphere postmortems (especially the ones about races I was involved in): the deep divide between bloggers and mainstream professionals — let’s call them, us, the MSP.

To suggest the 50-state strategy is a big reason that the field expanded, as dKos contributor ScottforAmerica does in this post, is utter delusion. However, to suggest it had nothing to do with wins across the country, as he says Paul Begala did, is also dead wrong.

But as an MSP myself I am always going to be more sympathetic to the man whose name I have borrowed than, say, ScottforAmerica. Why?

Because Paul had to make his living doing this, as do I. For all I know, Scott is seeing his 3rd election cycle — maybe. Scott likely has never worked as a professional consultant, likely never had the benefit of seeing 10-20 races a cycle and learning the lessons that come with them. He’s probably never worked on a presidential campaign and maybe never even walked door-to-door as a regular volunteer or a ground level employee.

Maybe he has. I don’t know him. And not to single out Scott per se — this lack of serious political experience is true of most bloggers.

That said, Scott is bringing some nerve/backbone, new blood and determination to these contests. That fresh outsider-looking-in perspective is something I have absolutely loved in the past 4 years, something people like my quasi-namesake cautioned against.

I understand why Dems said “me too” with Bush and the GOP in 2002 and I think it was solid advice based on the strategies and polls we had at the time. But being wrong because the game changed on you doesn’t preclude you from being wrong. We got whooped in 2002. Scott also has his ideas about what works (e.g. 50-state strategy) that I don’t think are correct, but I don’t have data yet to absolutely dissuade him.

So, what does this mean? From my MSP perspective, I get pissed at the smug, know-it-all, cavalier attitude of bloggers like Scott because I feel like this post attacks me just as much as Paul Begala. The ending is really what gets me:

A new Democratic Party took a giant step forward today, a Democratic Party proud of it’s values and it’s principles, and one that won’t be afraid to stand up for our beliefs…anywhere. Unfortunately for Begala and Carville, they aren’t part of it.

You think Paul Begala and James Carville are not proud of the Democratic Party’s values and principles? That they are afraid to stand up for themselves? You think they argue against “50 state” because they just hate Dean and that they are scared of devolving power outside of the professional structures? Do you really think they never wanted to win, have completely sold out to corporations and are just fine with leaving a party in charge that is sending kids to die in the sand?

And right here is where I get offended. You, Scott the Blogger, perceive this struggle as a battle between the elite and the masses. This obviously puts me on the elite side, so I consider your swipe directed at me too. I’m pretty sure you hate me for no other reason than my being one of these elites. You blame me for losing to Bush in 2000 and 2004 and you will find every excuse to not look at historic things, like say, 9/11, to explain how R’s won in ‘02 and ‘04. You don’t think Iraq played as much of a role in ‘06 as the 50 state strategy. Heck, I’ll bet that if you ran for congress and I gave you my resume, you’d throw it away because it doesn’t have a list of the diaries I’d written or “netroots”-backed candidates I’ve worked for in the past.

And that is what bugs me: you hate me for being a professional, for making money doing this and, most of all, for not sharing your “damn them all to hell” and “if DC said it, it must be wrong” attitude. You claim to speak for the masses when you say these things but I’m pretty sure that you don’t know who the masses really are (here’s a hint: they don’t blog regularly).

So, in the upcoming power struggle for the leadership of this party (and it’s coming) we will have to see who’s really better at this game, Bloggers or the MSP. It’s the pros vs. the amateurs, the top-down vs. the bottom-up, the big guy vs. the little guys.

It’ll be interesting to watch and even more fun to play. Better bring your A-game, Scott. I’m pretty good at this.

As the election approaches next week, I thought it would be interesting enough to share their electronic exchanges here. They’ve promised to let me do so as long as I protect their anonymity, and that strikes me as a fair deal. (Just for the record, neither is Not Paul Begala.)

One is a veteran Democratic operative. The other worked for Howard Dean in Vermont. For the purposes of this post, we’ll call them Democratic Beltway Insider and Former Dean Staffer. Will only one survive? Will one trick the other into eating their own liver? Or tie the other’s tongue to a launching spaceship? Read on:

DBI: I know this sounds dumb, but what exactly is the bloggers’ problem with Rahm. He is one of the ONLY democrats who knows how to WIN. Is it because he knocked candidates who had no shot out in the primaries? Puleeze. I think we should have a 3rd party for all these people. The 50 state strategy is a Dean PR sham anyway. In [state redacted], [name redacted] used her 50 state $$ to hire a driver.

FDS: Yes the 50 state strategy is a sham. That’s why suddenly the Dems are competitive in states that 2 years ago all the insiders were saying the Dems should just forget about forever. Admit it, you’re a beltway insider.

DBI: Those races are not in play because Dean gave each state party some allowance money. Those races are in play because organizations like the DLCC, Emilys List and even Move On have been working with state and local candidates for cycles and recruiting. A lot of these races were set up to be competitive totally independent of anything the DNC has done. I may be an insider, but I’ve been around longer than the new DNC people and I remember stuff. Not to mention that Dems haven’t done shit to be competitive other than let the GOP hang themselves – the biggest and best reason that we have races in play that weren’t in 04. Case in point NC08.

FDS: Ok well if those races are competitive because Democratic groups like DLCC and Emily’s List get involved with them, that basically proves the 50-state strategy correct, that by competing everywhere you expand the playing field and give yourself more chances to win. Thank you for proving my point.

DBI: Not really. The DLCC and Emilys List have regional programs they’ve been running for a number of cycles. The DNC is spinning that handing chump change over to state parties is going to revive them – guess again. The reason EL’s plan works is because its not affiliated with the DNC or state parties at all. Talk about insiders and hacks. State operatives are often just small-time crooks.

FDS: Well clearly there is no way I convince you as long as you are have are massively in love with Emily’s list. I simply point to the results:

Pre-Dean: Democrats are a bunch of pansies who refuse to challenge Bush on anything, especially the war in Iraq

Post-Dean: Democrats revitalize their party by trashing Bush, particularly on the war in Iraq, and make the country realize how awful he is, giving Democrats a chance to win in places like Wyoming and Idaho where no one thought they should ever even compete again.

Last I checked Emily’s List has been around for quite a while, I’m not really sure what they did differently in the last three years that totally reversed the political tide in this country. Thank you Howard Dean.

DBI: You are so easy manipulated and that is the point. Dean is taking credit for turning the tide, for fixing these state parties. But what has HE done that you can honestly attribute to HIM and the DNC. I’ll tell you: spin.

You also just changed the point you were trying to make. Are we talking about the 50 state strategy per Dean or about whether Dean is more responsible than Emilys List for the electoral situation Dems find themselves in now?

One point about Emilys List: they made Rahm work for his seat. They poured money and bodies into Nancy Kazack’s primary to beat him, but he still pulled it out. He busted ass and it was impressive. You of all people should respect Emilys List because they began as an outsider group – opposed to the workings of the party. The DCCC was primarying women with men, so Emilys List was started as an alternative to the DCCC so women could run and not be undercut.

Here’s the point, groups other than Dean’s DNC have done Real work for a Long time to find good candidates and build infrastructure in the states. A one-time contribution from Dean that keeps the lights on has very little to do with this “sweep” we’re looking at.

A party chair should be able to Raise Money, or Get Votes, preferably both. I rarely see Dean do either. The value of a chair is to be able to and RAISE MONEY from REALLY RICH PEOPLE.

Wyoming and Idaho…. Yes, ID-01 was also potentially competitive in 2002 and I maxed out to the Dem candidate there, Betty Richardson. She ran a strong campaign and peeled off some Rs. If she had been running in this climate she would have won.

Democrats can really suck a lot. You’re right. But Howard Dean is not the reason they are sucking less. A lot of them don’t listen to a word he has to say. And I would venture…he won’t be around much longer.

FDS: I won’t claim that simply giving extra money and attention to state parties has had a massive impact in just two years, it takes longer than that to have an effect. But this election season is proving the premise behind Dean’s 50-state strategy to be totally right. Some of these states are going to be competitive for Democrats in 2008. Everyone seems to forget that in 2004 when Dean was saying we should compete in every state everyone was calling him an idiot and that all Dems money and resources should always be focused on the 15 swing states.

We’re going to see many more “swing states” in 2008, and more states will be truly competitive again, not because Dean gave $400,000 extra to the Virginia state party, but because the premise behind the 50-state strategy is 100% good long-term political strategy.

It’s just you beltway insiders stuck in the swing state mentality that don’t get it. (Yes I technically live inside the beltway, but I hate everything and everyone, so it’s not an issue for me)

BDI: It can be a great political tactic to jump on a tide, say you thought of it, and take credit for it. I mean, THAT, is like the one smart thing Dean has done.

FDS: Who’s jumping on a tide and SAYING he thought of it? He did think of it and he did start the tide. Oh no wait sorry, I forgot, John Kerry started the tide. He was so convincing with his shrewd and unafraid criticisms of Bush.

BDI: What are you missing about farm team work that I thought I explained. Top of the ticket doesn’t a tide make. Generic ballot – people are saying they prefer Dems right? But they frequently don’t associate their local representatives with the top of the ticket. This is calling ticket splitting and it happens a lot.

Shitting on Kerry is lame. Everyone thinks he sucked. Remember other Dems who won in spite of Kerry? He wasn’t going to fix the party. He was just trying to get the White House – different.

FDS: Dean blazed the trail and made it ok to attack Bush when everyone else was afraid to do it on a grand scale. The reason Dems have a resurgence is because they have been able to show the country how awful Bush is. Name me one Democrat that is more responsible for the party going after Bush than Dean was. Go ahead, name ‘em.

BDI: McCain [Editor's note: Just to be clear, BDI knows well that McCain is a Republican.]

FDS: A) McCain is not a Democrat, B) McCain has gotten closer and closer to Bush each year.

BDI: It’s not ok to trash Bush as a Dem when it wont help you. The political environment has changed only because GOPers have fucked up so bad. Liberal is still a dirty word in middle America. No thanks to Dean. Like I said, talking points aren’t about instinct. They’re about strategy and polling.

FDS: A) It is ok to trash Bush as a Dem when it won’t help you, because that shows you have strength and principles, and if you’re criticisms are right, you can convince people of that in the end.

B) No one would know that the GOP fucked up so bad if someone in the Democratic party hadn’t said they were fucking up. I have still yet to hear you name a Dem who was more responsible for the Dems stopping from shitting their pants and getting the guts to go after Bush.

BDI: A: Maybe in Vermont

B: Rahm Emanuel

FDS: A) Oh lord. Well I stand by my claim that making the strong and principled argument will win people over to your side in the mid-range to long-term. You keep saying that winning a one seat in Arizona-7 is more important than the direction of the party for years ahead

B) Yes that’s right I distinctly remember Rahm Emanuel being all over the news launching heavy criticisms of Bush back in 2003….oh wait, no I don’t.

BDI: A – try that crap in Virginia and see what you get.

FDS: A) We did try it in Virginia and look what it’s got us: Jim Webb about to win a Senate seat, and several Dems poised to win heavy Republican districts

B) I’m still Googling to find those stinging criticism Emanuel was making of Bush before it became safe to. Having some trouble finding them though.

BDI: Not really. Bush and Allen got Webb there. Its not how Warner won. And his effect on the state has been bigger than anything Dean has done.

The whole premise of your argument is unproven and I disagree. You want to take a chance and push a scientifically unpopular msg because you think you’re right and that people will eventually come around to your way of seeing things.

FDS: The premise of my argument is not unproven, it’s been proven already. Bush began dropping from high to crappy approval ratings when Democrats go the balls to go after him.

BDI: And did they go after him because Dean thought it was a cool idea? Or because Bush pushed the public too far, they started to turn on him, it was evident in polling and focus groups, on the ground, etc and Dems concretely knew it was a strong message?

This has been entertaining but I have to sign off and do some work.

FDS: Ah yes, the Dems besides Dean started to turn on him after polling and focus groups showed it would work. Polling and focus groups, polling and focus groups. That’s how you get the country on your side, just don’t do anything at all until the public eventually gets sick of what they have.

Well I think I’ve managed to pretty much refute every single point made here, my job is done. I’m going to spend the rest of my afternoon pouring through Google to see if I can find these stinging criticisms you claim Emanuel was making about Bush while Bush was still popular. It might take a while….or forever.

BDI: Well, I suggest you run a campaign and try to get elected without listening to the electorate. Interesting concept. For a dictator or a Bush.

FDS: No point in trying to convince the electorate that our position is right, let’s just wait until the polling shows they have settled on it by default.

BDI: Sure. Tin ear. Always effective. No accountability to those who may disagree with you. The way to win people over is not to tell them something they aren’t interested in hearing.

Now really. I have to stop. You can send one more email so you can make sure you have the last word ok?

So there you have it. I guess only one question is left: Which one is Itchy, and which one is Scratchy?

If you ask me, it only really looks like him for a split second — but if I’m wrong, congrats on winning the five grand. I hereby nominate this for the Friday “Separated at Birth” section of Last Call.

P.S. Speaking of Chuck, his assertion that the netroots could support a Rahm Emanuel challenge for House Speaker is roiling the lefty blogosphere today. Markos Moulitsas says the opposite:

I’m pretty confident in predicting that bloggers 1) wouldn’t launch a grassroots effort to promote a Rahm Speakership, and 2) would actively and energetically oppose it.

Jonathan Singer has taken a poll which confirms the sentiment:

And I concur: At best Rahm will have their grudging respect, should Democrats win by a comfortable margin. Many don’t trust his courting of Wall Street money managers, and they don’t like his criticism of Howard Dean’s “50 state strategy” — even though as DCCC chair he is institutionally obliged to focus only on key races.

In today’s Blogometer, Chuck has issued a statement:

Regarding the blowback my ‘Speaker Rahm’ speculation is receiving with the liberal blogs, I just didn’t realize how bad his rep was with some. Frankly, I should have been more aware of how the Rahm-Dean strategy feud damaged things. So, here’s a question for the left; if not Pelosi and if not Rahm, then who could you support as Speaker?

It’s a good question, though it should be added to the end of his column. Otherwise, he’s liable to get more responses like this one from DuckmanGR at MyDD (please excuse his language):

Chuck Todd is … a Beltway 500 tool. Let me further add, fuck Chuck Todd, may he soon rot on assignment covering the rapidly shrinking Greenland Ice Cap that reporters like him helped enable, and tell us how the shilling that he has been doing for the GOP and the DLC earned him this important post. … progressives need to stop listening to or relying on self serving low life scum like Todd and Halpern [sic] and Charlie Cook (oh I know, he’s so fucking smart, right?) and the rest of their revolting ilk. 18 seat gain is an abject failure by Rahm, that control will be entirely in spite of him, not thanks to him. What a crock, Crock Todd, Fucktard.

Well, now. If that isn’t a compelling argument, I don’t know what is.

In all seriousness, Chuck knows more about politics than almost anyone, even if he is, like everyone, wrong from time to time. I do think this one was an obvious mistake, but even for avid readers, the political blogosphere is a harder nut to crack than even political meatspace.

Who “runs” the netroots? Kos? The Townhouse group? Both are influential, but neither have the message control of the Democratic party, which obviously isn’t saying much. And who leads the Republicans? Is it non-Republican Glenn Reynolds? Comparatively low-traffic RedState?

Believe me, it’s not just the Beltway establishment that doesn’t know what to make of the bloggers; the bloggers don’t know what to make of themselves, either.

Some in the rightosphere see potential conspiracy in the fact that Rogers showed up early in the comment section (since removed) at the fake-but-accurate Stop Sex Predators blog. They shouldn’t; Rogers was only too glad to help get the word out, but by all appearances, he got scooped. Otherwise, it would have appeared first on his own blog, instead of an anonymous black ops blog. Here is a Rogers post at his own site, on Oct. 1:

Well the good news is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is finally getting it. I called their Director of Communications, Bill Burton, before the Foley story broke to let him know about Foley (and another case) were coming down the pike. While Burton promised to have someone email or return my call and didn’t, I am glad he followed up on my call and was ready on Friday to come out of the gate running.

The bad new is they are still not paying enough attention… There are others within reach… If the Democrats would only fight half as hard as the Republicans.

I posted comments at the DCCC website on the Foley entry. Not only do their promises of returned calls and emails never come to fruition, but now they are deleting my comments from their blog, The Stakeholder.

Rogers seems genuinely puzzled that the DCCC would remove his comments — also referencing his contact with Burton — from their blog, which is amusing, really. Considering the hay Republicans made of user-generated Bush/Hitler comparisons on MoveOn’s website in 2004 and GOP campaign committees’ proven eagerness to publicize Democrats’ association with their over-enthusiastic and unpredictable supporters, it should come as no surprise that the DCCC would like to save themselves this press release attack.

Of course, the NRCC will probably let this one slide — it’s certainly not in their interest to keep the focus on ex-Rep. Foley’s behavior. Conservative bloggers, however, perhaps unmindful of who all they may cause headaches for, can be counted on to pursue the angle relentlessly.

P.S. Believe it or not, another post has appeared at Stop Sex Predators:

I’m thrilled that so many folks are looking at this simple blog. Please attempt to limit your comments to the purpose of this blog.

Pay no attention to the curtain (behind which there is surely some man)!

If you have any ideas that I should post, please let me know. I’m happy to pass along information about the current situation, but would much prefer to keep marching toward the large goal or stopping sex predators. I don’t think we’ll see it in the Congress anytime soon, so let’s focus our energy elsewhere.

Okay, now you’re just wasting your own time.