As vice chair of a county Democratic organization, a member of the Democratic Leadership Council for almost ten years, and a supporter of the presidential campaign of Governor Howard Dean, I cannot help but point out the sheer hypocrisy in the DLC Political Memo by Al From and Bruce Reed entitled "Shattering Liberal Myths" in the latest issue of Blueprint magazine.

The memo suggests that our party's activist wing, and presumably the supporters of Governor Dean, is not only "out of line with Democratic tradition, it is badly out of touch with the Democratic rank-and-file." The memo uses as its evidence a Washington Post comparison of delegates to the 1996 Democratic National Convention and registered Democratic voters in general.

According to the memo, 1996's "delegates perfectly mirrored the Democratic electorate in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender. But they could not have been more different when it came to class and education." Delegates were wealthier and much more educated than the party's registered voters. On the issues, delegates' views were largely more liberal than those of registered Democratic voters. Delegates were more likely than Democratic voters to oppose time limits for welfare benefits, cut defense spending and oppose the death penalty. The memo goes on to point out that these same delegates, who seemed out of line with the Democratic electorate, were there to re-nominate Bill Clinton for a second term as president - a president who's own ideology was closer to that of regular Democratic voters than it was to the more liberal delegates who were committed to him.

What the memo fails to point out, however, is that the 1996 convention delegates - the liberal, wealthy, educated elites - were NOT the choice of the Democratic voters - because there was no choice. The delegates to that year's convention were hand-picked by the president and his advisers, perhaps among them Al From, Bruce Reed and other DLC'ers with high places in the Administration. As a party activist interested in being a delegate that year, I quickly learned that I did not have the clout to earn, nor the wealth to buy, a delegate spot. Most delegates that year were selected based on the amount of money they raised, their union, corporate or other special interest connections, or their status as an elite in the party, not their status as a member of the Democratic rank and file.

A DLC presidential campaign was responsible for the delegate selection in 1996 and it is that campaign that chose the wealthy, educated party elite, not the Democratic rank and file voters in primary elections.

What, then, does that say about the DLC's political critique of this year's Democratic Party?

It says that while Democratic voters agree with the policy positions of the DLC more then they do with the policies of the more liberal, elite wing of our party, it was the elite that the DLC'ers in the Clinton Campaign turned to in the 1996 delegate selection - a reward for the money they had contributed.

It says that the DLC and the man they helped elevate twice to the presidency are just as guilty of giving in to the corporate and special interests who finance them then any other Democratic group, wing or candidate.

It says that money has corrupted each wing of the Democratic Party - liberal, conservative and moderate alike.

It says that the way to achieve status, recognition and access in the Democratic Party is to raise or contribute tens of thousands of dollars.

It says that the regular Democratic rank-and-file, who work hard and are willing to play by the rules, are shut out of the game by the more liberal, wealthy party elite, who have decided that money and the millionaires, corporations and unions who contribute it, are more important to the Democratic Party then the activists who work daily in the trenches at the local and county level, and who having nothing more to contribute then, in the words of Winston Churchill, their blood, toil, tears and sweat.

Republicans, guilty of the same charges to an extreme degree, have at least built a powerful grassroots organization across this country that, rather then shut out their rank-and-file, gives them voice, gives them opportunity, and gives them victory.

Governor Howard Dean is giving voice to those very Democrats who have been shut out by the corrupting dominance of money in politics. He is giving rise to a new generation of Democratic activists and voters who feel as if the political process in this country favors the few, the elite, rather then the masses it is supposed to help. Whether these activists are liberal, moderate, or conservative, they are Democrats, and they recognize that our political system has been hijacked by corporate interests, lobbyists and other moneyed-interests who are no better than the robber-barons of days gone by.

They also recognize that the radical right-wing ideology and policies of George Bush, with his inability to be up-front and honest with the American people in foreign and domestic policy alike, is a dangerous one. They believe that Howard Dean is just the kind of straight-talking pragmatic Democrat we need to take Bush on. Democrats of every persuasion should wake up and take note.

I am a member of the Democratic Leadership Council. I believe in its agenda. I would stand up and fight for a third Clinton term tomorrow if given the opportunity by our Constitution.

But I also believe in the candidacy of Governor Howard Dean. His is a fresh face in the Democratic Party. His is a strong, new and refreshing voice in national politics. His is a candidacy able to reach out to the masses of disaffected Democrats and disaffected voters in cities and towns across this country - the very same working and middle class people the Bush Administration has forgotten.

If anyone in the DLC would stop to look at Dean's record as governor, they might find it more closely mirrors that of a young governor from Arkansas, rather than a liberal senator from South Dakota. I am bewildered by the continuing assertion by many in our party that Governor Dean is too liberal just because he is capable of attracting the liberal voters, donors and supporters that every other presidential candidate also desires. Howard Dean is no more an old-time liberal then George Bush is a compassionate conservative. Now there's a myth worth shattering.