There are three things I would recommend to the DNC.  The first is to build a better grassroots organization.  Dean's candidacy was remarkable in that it involved so many new, young voters.   Yes, they were energized and came out in big numbers, but the party never effectively used their energy to help grow the party's organization.  Sending a bunch of schmoes with orange hats to Iowa did nothing to build the party's infrastructure.  What they need to do is copy the republicans.  They need to do their research and target specific areas where there are either weak/soft Dems who are not reliable voters, or potential new voters who should, based on their demographics and profiling (like the repubs did looking at things like cars you drive, magazines you buy, etc), vote democratic.  Then they need to comb through the list of over 2 million people who donated to a candidate or 527 and get those people to work.  They need to make personal calls to people in these communities, get them to volunteer, and get them to individually spread the word and recruit among their friends and neighbors for the party.  They need to recruit people to do the dirty work for free.  Not to toot my own horn, but I was on every web site or mailing list you can think of, and I gave to both Dean and Kerry and the DNC, and I never got a call asking to volunteer.  That's absurd.  The repubs were much better at knowing what areas they needed to target to win, and they started early in building a strong organization to execute their plan and increase turnout in needed places.  The dems have gotten lazy because they used to be able to rely on constituencies like union members to do the work for them--that won't fly anymore since those groups are evolving and their loyalties are obviously changing.

Second, the Dems need to do a complete overhaul of their platform and re-frame the debate to fit their values.  For the last 2 if not more cycles, the dems have had the expected stale platform.  Even though I don't necessarily agree, the perception is that the dems don't stand for anything.  All they want to do is protect the status quo.  It's why they were powerless to argue against Bush's first tax cuts, or against the prescription drug plan, or the war in Iraq, or now, social security reform.  The party has developed an image that is weak, inflexible, and worst of all, boring and not innovative.  This is the party that produced the presidents that won both world wars, brought the country out of a depression, constructed the greatest social safety nets in medicare and social security, etc.  There's plenty to be proud of, but more importantly, going forward they have to come up with a coherent, appealing narrative that explains who they are and where they see the country going.  The repubs do this brilliantly--I don't agree with it, but there are few people (even non-voters) who couldn't explain where Bush stands on taxes or Iraq.  The way I do this, without going to much into the details (if anyone is still reading this, I'd be amazed) is to stand for security and reform.

First, security.  I think the dems made a huge mistake by allowing the repubs to wrap themselves in the flag they way they did after 9/11, and the way they still are with Iraq.  I think if 9/11 had happened under Gore or Clinton's watch, the repubs would have (rightfully) excoriated him for being responsible for 3000 deaths.  What's in the past can't be changed, but I think the dems need to provide a compelling counter-argument on national security issue, and the way to do that is to actually move a little to the right of the repubs.  Their platform should call for drastic increases in homeland security spending, protecting everything from our food supply to our chemical plants (despite the industry's objections) to public transportation to our vaccines.  The argument should be made, over and over, that this president has squandered opportunities and not done what is necessary to make us safer.  My point is, national security is the biggest issue, and the dems need a message that proves they're serious about it.  I left Iraq out of this discussion because I think, one way or another, our situation is going to change drastically there before the next campaign starts.  I don't see us with 150,000 troops still there 4 years from now (but that's another conversation).....

Second, reform.  Everyone knows how wasteful government is.  Like it or not, the public perception of the federal government is that it's a bloated system filled with pork.  The dems need to be the agents of reform in gov't, but reform doesn't mean cut, it means strengthen.  Besides the obvious culprits of pork barrel spending and campaign finance reform, I think there are really strong, progressive positions to be staked out in areas like medicare, Medicaid, social security, the tax code, tort reform, pharmaceutical and medical errors, agricultural subsidies, immigration, etc.  The party needs to be the party of strong, smaller, reformed government.  The argument has to be made that some things cannot be privatized, that government can do some things better if it's reformed and strengthened, but the status quo is not acceptable in the 21st century.

Lastly, and most importantly, the dems need better candidates.  The last several election cycles have proven that the wonkish, know it all, tons of experience guy is not the answer.  Before the dems have any hope at all, they need candidates that the public like as well as the pundits.  They need their own Arnold, maybe not as a presidential candidate,  but my point is, they need a different kind of candidate.  No more Gore's or Kerry's, and definitely, absolutely not Hillary.  I hate to admit it, but likability is ridiculously important.  Being likable allows a candidate to sound moderate but actually be fairly conservative (or liberal).  Clinton and Bush both prove it in their own way.  If people don't like a candidate, they don't trust him, and if they don't trust him, they won't vote for him.  The Dems need a candidate who can fire up their base, but at the same time, expand the party.  I don't know who that person is right now.  I can think of a few good ones for 2012, but I don't know about 2008--I'm not sure yet.  The candidate and the party need to compete in all 50 states.  Writing off 1/2 the country before the campaign starts is idiotic.

I left out the whole values debate.  I think this issue is getting overblown a little bit.  The dems need to stake out their position and stick to it, and they'll find most of the country agrees with them (abortion, for example).  What they don't need, though, is every left-wing interest group forcing their candidate to pander to them.  They shouldn't have to appear in front of Emily's list, planned parenthood, the NAACP, etc and be forced to pander.  The repubs are much better at that (could you imagine Bush at an NRA convention or an  operation rescue meeting?)  The dems need to frame their values, and include faith in their language, but I think improving the other three things is much more important.......