Matt Stoller at MyDD writes the following:

Periodically, I read stories about intra-Democratic Party committee battles. They are basically all the same. Rahm Emanuel (DCCC), and occasionally Chuck Schumer (DSCC), are tough, smart guys with metal testicles, and they are hard-nosed and mean. They will do anything to win. Howard Dean is ignoring them and their pleas for money to run TV ads for their candidates because Howard Dean is grassroots-y. But party leaders are 'concerned' and Howard Dean doesn't care.

This storyline just continues to pop up every month.

Today it's in the Chicago Tribune, and it's titled titled 'Democrats fear rifts risk midterm victory'. It's the standard mixture of whining and sour grapes by Rahm Emanuel that not enough DNC money is going to the DCCC.

There are three basic problems with pieces like this.

1) If party leaders are going to complain about resources, they shouldn't spend money and time intervening in primaries.

2) I've hit this point before, but I'll hit it again. Dean was elected by DNC members to support the state parties. Party leaders had their chance to back a different DNC Chair. They did not get their shit together in time, and Dean beat them.

3) It's transparent that this is a 'cover your ass' strategy to innoculate leaders against an electoral failure this cycle. If Democrats do well, it's because our hard-nosed mean leaders are great. If we don't, it's because crazy internet lefties drained resources from our hard-nosed mean leaders. Insider Democrats can't lose!

I want to add a little more to this.

Dean has raised more money than his predecessor. He has raised it primarily from small donors. The reason he has done so is that they like the idea of the 50 state strategy. They also personally trust him more than they trust Schumer and Rahm. If they wanted to fund ads (and Rahm and Schumer interfering in primaries) they would have given to the DCCC or the DSCC. Which is to say - if all of the money was going to be used the DSCC and DCCC, primarily for use in ads - there'd be a lot less money. Fundraising is not a zero sum game - there is not a fixed lump of money. Dean gets more money, because he does things that the DSCC and DCCC don't do, that people want to fund. If he was a Schumer or Rahm clone, odds are he wouldn't be raising this much money.

Nor should the philosophical and strategic differences between Rahm and Schumer on one hand, and on Dean on the other, be played down. Schumer is supporting Lieberman. Dean's brother, Jim, is raising money for Lamont. Let's just say I somehow don't think he'd be doing that if Dean wasn't at least ok with it and I don't think it's a small thing to go against the incumbent protection racket. That's a serious step, and it says something that Jim Dean has taken it.

Next: the DSCC and the DCCC have been spending money on interfering in primaries. As Alice Marshal points out in the comments to Matt's post, if they have enough money to screw around in primaries, they obviously have enough money, don't they? And in fact, I'm hearing rumors that the DSCC in particular is beginning to feel some heat from donors who are upset about the way Schumer has both bean messing around in primaries with their money, and has refused to commit to supporting the Democratic nominee for the Senate in Connecticut.

There are serious disagreements within the Democratic party on strategy. They aren't just made up. One side believes in running generally conservative self funding candidates as much as possible and in giving up base voters in safe seats to try and score a few swing voters in swing states. They believe in the air game (ie. television ads) and in only trying to compete in districts where they feel the party has a chance this election cycle. The other side believes in the ground game, in the netroots and in organizing in all states and running everywhere. They believe that Republicans win not because they have more money for TV ads (though they do) but because they have spent over 40 years building an institutional advantage - they have more people working, all the time, to not only elect Republicans but to sell Republican ideas. This side believes that Democrats must come across as strong, and as believing what they say. They are happy to run Progressive candidates, or Conservative candidates as long as those candidates appear to be willing to stand up for what they believe and while they want to see some self funding ability, they aren't as wedded to the candidate with the most money, if the other candidate seems to have stronger community roots and a bigger volunteer base.

These aren't insignificant differences in strategic thinking and they aren't going to go away. Victory in the fall, if it comes, will help, because there will be more money for everyone's plans. But ultimately these strategies aren't compatible in their current form and as long as people like Rahm and Schumer think that all money should be spent their way (something Dean doesn't think) this fight isn't going to go away.