But how much of the problem is that the party has drifted away from the concerns of "regular people" and how much of it is -- as Thomas Frank would argue -- that the Republicans have been so successful at persuading people that the Democrats aren't with them, that it's more important to vote for someone who drives a truck or goes to church like you do than it is to vote for someone who has your economic interests in mind?

We ought not to be afraid to go on the offensive on the cultural front as well. I actually think it's kind of a noble thing if you put the morality of your country ahead of yourself.

But that would suggest that you're going to have to find enough people who agree with your vision of morality.

Well, right, but I think Democrats have a lot of space to work in there. They've mostly been totally petrified to be there. The Terri Schiavo case is a perfect example of a cultural issue on which the overwhelming majority of the country would have sided with Democrats if Democrats had had anything to say about it at all.

But isn't that a case where it made sense for Democrats to just get the hell out of the way and let the Republicans hang themselves?

You know, Josh Marshall made a point recently that I think was great. Democrats often get too strategic; they overthink. What comes across to the public when you're opposed to something like that but you strategically decide to defer is that you're either cagey and untrustworthy or mealy-mouthed and you don't know where you stand. So I think the place you have to start on every issue is what you actually think about how to resolve the issue, not what is politically the best position to be in at that particular time. I think the trust you build with the electorate that way more than compensates for the fact that they'll sometimes disagree with you.

In an article in Slate in December, Chris Suellentrop wrote: "Since its creation in 1998, it's hard to come up with a single significant political achievement that can be credited to MoveOn." Do you accept that?

Absolutely not. I think there are a lot of achievements that we can point to, starting with the election. We were more rigorous in our testing of our ads than virtually any group that I'm aware of, and then spent through the MoveOn Voter Fund $20 million and through the PAC another $10 million to put those ads on the air in key states. During that program, we saw statistically significant declines of support for Bush in some of the key battleground states, especially early in the spring and early summer.

But still, Bush won.

Right. OK, so I think that this is a dangerous kind of lens through which to look at it. The problem with it is that it doesn't necessarily attribute cause correctly. So the statement that "Bush won" as a repudiation that those ads had an impact doesn't follow because Bush could have won for a lot of other reasons.

Sure. But when you're talking about your "significant political achievements," to then talk about 2004 ...

OK, I would say that we helped stall the energy bill for the last few years. On the FCC, we helped turn back the regulatory rule change. We have been involved in a lot of the signature progressive battles over the last few years, and our members have supported dozens of candidates who have won and made other races that were walks for Republicans competitive.

Following that line of logic, you end up in some pretty weird places, right? Because if you assume that everything that was done for the 2004 election was wrong because [we] lost, where does that leave you in terms of what to do for 2006?

But there's a difference between saying "it's all wrong" and you lost and acknowledging that your side didn't win.

Right. I guess what I would say is that in every one of these battles, our members have gotten more involved and our base has grown bigger. That means we're better prepared to fight now, in 2005 and in '06, than we were in 2004. If we're serious about winning by 60 percent or 70 percent on our issues and not squeaking by on 50, then we have to get serious about building a movement. And if it was the only thing we had done -- get 3 million people involved in politics on the progressive side and help them take action on issues that matter -- I think that would be an important thing to have done.

Looking back at 2004, what do you take away as lessons about what MoveOn should have, could have, would have done differently?

The only regret I have really is that we didn't exist in 1990, so that by 2004 we would be further along in our development. Our field program in 2004 was amazingly successful. It turned out 470,000 confirmed unlikely voters for Kerry in key battleground states, and more people than Kerry won by in New Hampshire and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. But next time we're going to do it bigger than that.

Is the candidate the Democrats run in 2008 critical to your ability to "do it bigger" in 2008?

That choice is very important, and we'll certainly be engaging our members in that process, as we did in 2004.

Can you see your members coming together around someone who is moving to the center on abortion or national security or talking a lot about Christianity? Or do you see resistance to a "centering" of the Democratic candidate?

There will be great concern about anyone who is trying to have it both ways. A candidate who does not speak in a principled way and is changing their positions for political convenience will not resonate. Call me crazy, but I always thought that Dean was a pretty centrist kind of guy. So at some point those labels become not very useful.

The thing that will mobilize our members and other key Democratic constituencies most is someone who is proud of what they are and who is not afraid to talk about that. Ultimately, that's going to be the winning formula for 2008.

But won't MoveOn's members expect the Democratic candidate to be against the war, in favor of protection for gay rights, unyielding on abortion rights ...

I don't think it's a contradiction to be pragmatic and progressive. I think we can do both. To think that by necessity the person who is most electable will not be with us on the issues -- I just don't agree with that. And that's where our members are too. They understand real politics, and at the same time they're going to fight for a progressive America. How that comes down in terms of a particular candidate is something I leave to them.

But you're obviously not a person who follows this only casually. Who in your mind are some of bright lights for the party in terms of candidates? I know that you're not speaking for MoveOn's members, but for yourself.

Hmm. I don't think I can not speak for our members on a question like that. And honestly, I don't have a horse in the race; I'd like to see how things shape up.

In my mind, 2006 is more important than trying to read the tea leaves about 2008 right now. First, 2006 has the potential to be a 1994, a watershed moment in which the electorate soundly rejects the politics of power, abuse and radical right-wing conservatism. But I also think it can be a 2002 in the sense that before the president had the full run in 2004, there was a dress rehearsal in 2002 where he proved to the Republican Congress that by running on scaring the daylights out of people and war you could do OK.

Recent Stories