BEFORE POSTING PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS THE PROGRESSIVE'S ONLY FORUM.

I haven't seen much/any discussion of this. However Obama is ahead in polling in states that haven't showed a Democratic candidate ahead in polling in my life time. That's interesting because there are Democratic partys in areas of my state that never had them before. I moved around a lot when I was young, from one rural community to another. And my father and mother and sisters were active in the Democratic parties that existed in those areas, which was almost none. There were no offices. There were no yard signs available. The only campaigning was local and almost all of the funding was either local or state party funds. The National party didn't have any interaction at all. And such was the state of Wisconsin.

We were a patchwork, where very liberal strongholds went uncontested by Republicans and conservative strongholds went uncontested by Democrats.

I go to those places now and I see a COMPLETELY different picture. There isn't 50:50 Democratic yard signs and Republicans. But it's at least 40:60

In 2000 Gore won Wisconsin by .2 percent of the vote. In 2004 Kerry won with .4 percent of the vote. Obama is up 5.1 percent.

I don't know to what extent Dean is responsible for that. However when I go to work at my local office (I'm in a liberal strong hold) the organizers there say that the reason that we have many of the offices I'm talking about, and the reason that we are so intertwined with them, is in large part Howard Dean's doing. It makes sense because it WAS the same thing in 2006. What Obama has added is a organizational element that was not as well developed when I was working in 2006...or at least I didn't notice since I was actually running my own campaign via the GSA in Wisconsin's 8th District (which we stole from the Republicans much to my glee).

What do you think? Should Dean be getting more credit than he is? And should the DLC apologize to their attacks on Dean?

A double yes, Dean put the party and it's rank and file members ahead of the entrenched system. IMO he saw clearly that the old LBJ based the north is ours and we'll cede the south and fight over a few states was dying due to demographic changes. The labor movement was in mid sea change from making to serving with govt and low paid service workers dominating and spreading into new areas of the country. I think a 50 state strategy would have weakend the Gingrich majority-but who can say for sure. I just know we as liberals/dems/progressives/ and even populists should never cede anything again, they have to win it.

Howard Dean is largely responsible for the increased support for Democrats we are seeing in many areas of the country at this time. It has been a long slow process over the last eight years and has cost a large amount of money and lots of sweat equite to accomplish. Add Barack Obama's very well organized campaign to the mix and you only build on the back of Dean's efforts. We need to keep working to make certain that the gains we have made over the last eight years do not disappear.

I think Howard Dean should be given great credit for our success, which was why Obama backed him to stay as leader of the party. If Hillary had won, Dean would be out.

The GOP is going down the tubes this year big time.

While we gained seats 2 years ago, this time if we take all three venues with a majority, we'd be fools and hypocrites if we don't hold the Democratic Party to as high a standard as anyone else.

Seats held by Republicans for decades are up for grabs and for the taking, not just because of the economy but because of Dean's work at the grassroots to bring in competitive candidates.

I'd prefer to wait and see how successful we are in November. If things play out the way it appears now, then Dr. Dean deserves credit for his efforts leading the changes in Democratic strategy. We haven't won yet, however.

All good answers. Whereas the laws of hubris require not counting chickens during gestation, I think that there are other measures of success beyond an Obama victory (which BTW, seems almost assured at this point since he has over 350 electoral votes when leaners are counted and 263 without them). The fact that the Democrats have party activism in small town America, the fact that we didn't lose an incumbent in '06, the fact that the Democratic label is outshining the Republican label all across the land, are all also qualifiers.

Yet I don't hear Dean's name mentioned anywhere in regards to this election.

Spot on Chris. The insiders have tried to remove Dean at least twice. When Dr. Dean was on the campaign trail he made the point that he would represent the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. It is safe to say that our republican lites got a tad uncomfortable.

It is my opinion that his charges were valid. I am not absolutely positive but I think the conservative democratic caucus is approximately half the size of our progressive caucus. It will take time to correct that situation. I am hoping that some of them have leaned conservative because their constituents scared them into that position. Given the total failure of the conservative agenda, one can hope they will find the courage to adopt more liberal ideas.

Your suppositions are correct about Dr. Dean and the recent success of the Democratic Party, J Dogg. I am more than proud to have his signature on one of my cowboy hats. Count me in the category that we can't say it often enough: THANK YOU, DR. DEAN!!!!!!!

The 50-state strategy is a success. And I doubt very much that Hillary Clinton would have used it, had she been the nominee. It is an amazing strategy, and one cannot say that a Democrat can't be successful in the south or the mid west.....this is proving to be not the case.