Check you dates.
And no, Martin doesn't get all the credit. That's like saying Clinton gets all the credit for the 90s boom. But I sure would like to see Clinton be able to take the reins again...
if you remember, by 1996 ken starr was the democratic boogeyman, as he'd been hounding clinton for about two years at that point. there was a backlash, and by 98 it was in full swing.
[well, maybe i was being sarcastic...i apologize. that does not, however, negate the truth my statement.]
and in response to your rebuttal, there was very little "backlash" in 1996. it would be interesting to see polling data, but my guess is no more than 5-10% of voters knew Ken Starr's name in 1996.
compound this with the fact that a fundraising scandal immediatley before the election cost clinton and house dems votes (and therefore probably seats), and suddenly the achievements of the DCCC that year are even more impressive.
but none of this really matters because i don't think politics should be about "taking credit" for something. the fact is--not to mention the whole point of my original post--that martin frost and howard dean are the only two candidates with a history of a) winning themselves and b) helping others win. i am not saying they deserve sole credit for a) and b), but i'd certainly take them over rosenberg (who has never ponied up for a tough race) or fowler (when was the last time he won anything?).
anyhow, given the nature of the DNC post--and the occupants prime objective: WINNIGN--ones record should be of paramount importance to members.
and sorry if i was being a bit flippant. sometimes i do that. =)
