First, Schaller is clearly correct that Democratic gains are overwhelmingly going to come from the non-South. And that is the Democratic reality today. The Republican Paranoia strategy and adherence to the Extreme religious right agenda of Dobson is leading to the natural counterbalance to the Southern realignment - a Northern realignment in favor of the Democrats. (Aside: I think it is important to break out Congressional politics from Presidential politics generally but it is clear that a realigning of these two strands is in process.)

However, in critiquing the 50 state strategy, Schaller ignores both the short term benefits and the long term goals of this startegy. This, while Schaller acknowledges that:

[S]ure, the GOP is spending resources there now, but notice why: Because the safety of Democratic candidates in races elsewhere (or, alternatively, the tanking of GOP candidates there) has allowed Democrats to compete in places they normally would not.

He attributes only a one way effect - to wit, the Dem safety in the North has allowed them to compete in Red States. But it is not either or - it is symbiotic - the safety in the North comes, in some part from widening the playing field and the ability to widen the playing field comes from the safety of the North. These are complementary developments, not either/or.

Finally, Schaller overlooks the long term goals of the 50 state strategy:

Devolution of power in the Democratic Party is inextricably tied to Dean's 50 state strategy. I don't know if I agree with Dean's execution of the strategy, in fact I am pretty sure I disagree with a lot of it, but the idea of a 50 state Democratic Party is sound, even essential, to its continued relevance.

It is no secret that I am a proponent of a politics of contrast for Dems. I am also a proponent of a Big Tent Dem Party. Are these two ideas mutually exclusive? I think not.

For example, while I am skeptical of a short term strategy that can deliver significant wins for Dems in the South, the medium and long term offer opportunities. But I think they come from the devolution strategy that Howard Dean is trying to execute, creating strong state Democratic parties that control their own local message. National branding still requires a national message and, more importantly, negative branding of the Republicans.

. . . The point is we can win in PURPLE states. We can find a message that works in purple AND blue. And, to be frank, it is basically a negative message about the extremists that run the GOP.

But that is not to say that multiple local messages are not also necessary. The Big Tent. And Howard Dean understands this. Thus his devolution strategy is essential to making a national Democratic Party, a Big Tent Democratic Party, a relevant and powerful reality. The devil is in the details of course, but the big picture is essential, and I think Dean gets the big picture.

In  his post, I think Schaller does not get the big picture.