Why Paul Begala Shouldn't Be In Charge Of Anything

Sorry, terribly busy and cut off from the 'Net for long stretches today and tomorrow.

But I did see that Markos made the point I swear I just made in conversation with someone:

Remember this, from 5/11/2006?

BLITZER: Very quickly, is Howard Dean in trouble?

BEGALA: No. I think Candy's report was spot on.

He -- yes, he's in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He has raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it's a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That's not how you build a party. You win elections. That's how you build a party.

Funny, guess what happened in Mississippi yesterday?

No one could've ever predicted that investing in a state's infrastructure would make it easier to win elections in the future.

Ultimately, this is why Howard Dean and the 50-state strategy has been the best thing for the Democratic Party in a long time, and why Paul Begala shouldn't ever be in charge of anything remotely connected to the Party ever again. That investment in state-based infrastructure is worth so much to the future of the Party, it's not even funny. I can't say for sure, but I'm willing to bet that we don't win MS-01 yesterday without those staffers. The goal of the 50-state strategy is to be ready to take advantage of opportunities anywhere they arise.

As a state-based blogger at Calitics, you could say that I'm part of that infrastructure. And I'm proud to say Calitics has been given a credential for the DNC and will be sitting on the floor with the California delegation. 50-state strategy is go.

(This is also ultimately why the Clintonites shouldn't get back the levers of power in Washington. They weakened the party on the first go-round and their thinking is still very backward and reductivist.)