Showing posts with label primary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label primary. Show all posts

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Rainy Saturday Random Musings

I can't believe it has been nine days since I have posted here. I have been a little busy lately. I've been doing some bench building here in St. Petersburg. Some of you may have heard, we had a primary election in St. Pete on September 11th.

Actually not many people heard here in St. Pete either. The overall turnout was a paltry 11%. But we have strange elections here. We have four of our eight City Council seats up for election in November of this year. Primary elections were held in only two of those races. That's because these seats had more than two candidates. So on September 11th, the voters in those two districts chose the top two contenders to advance to the general election on November 6th. They will then join the candidates for the other two seats in a city wide election. Everybody clear on this? Voters within a district hold a primary to determine which two candidates advance to the city wide general election in November. Weird, huh?

What actually was a bit weird was how the primaries turned out. Not the actual results. They were fairly predictable. The real shocker was how most of the people voted. The majority of votes in this election were cast by mail. That's right, we essentially had a vote by mail election here in St. Petersburg. How about that?

Incumbent Council Member Jamie Bennett easily cruised into the general election in District 5 winning a full two thirds of the vote. He will face challenger Chris Kelly who received 19%. In the District 3 Primary, Ed Montanari led the four candidate pack with 42% of the vote. He was followed by Bill Dudley who garnered 30%. The disappointment here was that Cathy Harrelson failed to get through. Cathy was our hope to put another Democrat on the St. Petersburg City Council. Harrelson did manage to get 22%, but it was not enough. Well, we are most likely to retain the five out of eight Democratic majority on this allegedly non partisan Council.

The District 3 seat is going to remain in Republican hands as both Montanari and Dudley are Republicans. The District 5 and District 7 general election candidates are all registered Dems. In District 1, we have incumbent City Council Member Herb Poslon facing off against former Council Member Bob Kersteen. Polson is raising a bunch of money, way more than Kersteen. If he keeps that up, he will have no problem keeping that seat safely in the Dem column.

I am still going to be involved in 2 of the 4 races helping raise money. So I have just a bit of a breather here. But I wanted to let y'all know I haven't fallen off the face of the earth. Far from it. Last week I held fund raising events for each of my candidates and attended a fundie for Fairness for Florida's Families. That's the coalition that has formed to defeat the anti gay marriage constitutional amendment the wingers are going to put on the ballot for 2008. Nadine Smith gave a great talk at that event.

And I can not close without giving a shout out to Michael Hussey. His Pushing Rope Blog was just named Best Local Political Blog in the Tampa Bay area by Creative Loafing.

So Congrats to fellow Florida Kossack Michael Hussey!

And now it's time to go watch the Gators!



Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Hillarys Achilles Heel

Hillary Clinton leads all her rivals in the preseason polls for the Democratic Presidential nomination. She has been holding a double digit national lead for the last eight months. But before we hold the coronation, there is something that is worth taking a look at. It just might not be all over yet. And at least one candidate seems to be getting it.

What might Hillary's Achilles Heel be? And who is going after it? All this and more, below the fold...

Last month the Washington Post had this headline: Clinton Owes Lead in Poll To Support From Women . The lead for the story reads like this:
The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.
The story goes on to say:
Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin.
Entirely attributable to women. Remarkable. Or is it?

A Newsweek poll earlier this year found
86% say they would vote for a qualified woman candidate for president if their party nominated one. But when they were asked whether America is ready to elect a woman president, only 55% say yes.
Interestingly, Newsweek said
men are more likely than women to say the country is ready for a woman president.
To get only 55% support for the ready for a woman president question with men more likely than women to say yes, a majority of women polled must have said no.

And there is this little tidbit from the Washington Post again:
In a Post-ABC News poll conducted in April, 43 percent of female independents said they definitely will not vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee
So in a strange twist of fate, it seems that women are the Achilles Heel of Hillary Clintons' Presidential aspirations. A majority of women don't believe that the country is yet ready for a woman president. And a very significant number of independent women are definitely not ready for Hillary Clinton.

So, do any of the other campaigns seem to understand this about Clinton? Again from the Post:
Harrison Hickman, a pollster for Edwards, said he believes there is potential for Clinton's early bond with these voters to falter. "When you talk to women in more detail, they express doubts," Hickman said. Only when rival campaigns start trying to exploit those doubts, and when Clinton's camp starts addressing them, will the polls start to paint a more meaningful portrait of the race, he said.
So what is the Edwards camp doing about it? They are rolling out their not so secret weapon, Elizabeth Edwards:
The wife of the Democratic presidential hopeful from North Carolina, John Edwards, is taking the starring role in a new campaign commercial for her husband.

“You’re not going to outsmart him. He works harder than any human being that I know, always has, “ says Edwards, in the television ad now playing in the crucial early primary state of New Hampshire.
Elizabeth Edwards is also going directly after Hillary:
she fired away at Hillary Clinton, telling the on-line magazine Salon that “sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues. I’m sympathetic; she wants to be commander in chief. But she’s just not as vocal a women’s advocate as I want to see. John is.”
Here is something else from John Edwards about his wife speaking her own mind:
it appears he’s just fine with his wife speaking her mind, telling us that “nothing about Elizabeth surprises me. You can’t control what she says, nor would I ever want to, that’s one of the great things about her.”
Seems to me that is the kind of thing women voters would want to hear from a male candidate about his attitude towards women.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

The Primary Question

There has been a tremendous amount of talk about what is going to happen with the Florida Presidential Primary now scheduled for January 29th. This was the subject of a meeting of the state's DNC members Friday night at the JJ and of both the state Executive Committee and Central Committee meetings on Sunday morning.

The meeting participants were faced with this question. They had received extensions from the DNC for submission of the FDP's Delegate Selection Plan. However, the DNC refused to grant an extension beyond June 15th. So the question was, what would the Delegate Selection Plan have to say about the January 29th primary?

The Florida DNC members ultimately came up with a set of principles to use to evaluate the question. The first was to encourage maximum participation of Democratic voters. That means a primary. Any type of caucus or other mechanism would likely draw only a small fraction of what a primary would draw. The second principle was that Florida Democrats votes should count. Period.

As reported in the St. Petersburg Times:

"Florida Democrats definitely do not want to be the people that decide, your vote doesn't count," said Arlin Briley, vice chairman of the Pinellas Democratic Party, echoing Democrat after Democrat attending the event. "We're in a spot, and we have to let the chips fall where they will and honor the people's vote."
Florida Senator Bill Nelson is also quoted by the Times:

Florida's top Democratic elected officials, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson oppose making the Jan. 29 election nonbinding, but it's unclear whether DNC chairman Dean has any leeway to bend his party rules and avoid punishing Florida Democrats for the early primary.

"He better," Nelson said Saturday. "I have talked to him and said, 'Don't forget the goal, and the goal is to do well in Florida in November. The last thing you want to do is have the perception that you're taking away people's right to vote and putting in a smoke-filled-room caucus.'"
Under these circumstances the Florida Democratic Party decided to submit their Delegate Selection Plan to the DNC with the January 29th primary as binding on the allocation of delegates to candidates. The plan must be submitted to the DNC on June 15th. There will then be a 30 day comment period. After that, the DNC will decide what to do.

Here is the statement from the DNC upon hearing this news from Florida:
The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in August 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we've had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.
Howard Dean speaking in New Hampshire was quoted by the Times:
"Their primary essentially won't count,'' he said of Florida. "Anybody who campaigns in Florida is ineligible for delegates." By moving to Jan. 29, he said, Florida Democrats "essentially converted their primary to a straw poll."
Now for a dose of reality. At this point the DNC is like the boy with his finger in the dike. Other states (Michigan, for example) looking to move up are watching what the DNC is going to do about Florida. If the DNC can hang on long enough, these other states will have passed their window of opportunity to move up. At that point, the DNC will be able to say to Florida: OK, you got screwed by the Republican legislature. We don't like it, but we are going to accept your plan. That way, the DNC doesn't have to tell Florida Dems their votes won't count.

If that doesn't happen, here is another reality check. The Democratic nominee ultimately controls the Democratic National Convention. No Democratic nominee looking to win Florida in the general election could possibly fail to seat a Florida delegation at the convention. Here is the Times again, quoting DNC member Jon Ausman of Tallahassee :
once a presidential candidate receives a majority of the delegates, I believe Florida is home free.
I'd be hard pressed to argue with that assessment.

Don't Get Too Attached to Your Candidates

A couple of things happened yesterday that moved me to write this diary. I had just finished my Candidate Review Series Recap. I went through 6 weeks of research and analysis. I even did some navel gazing. I got a chance to see most of the campaigns in action. And I still couldn't come to a decision.

That puts me in the minority of Dems. It also makes me worry very much about something. So, what am I worried about? Follow me below the fold...


The first thing to occur happened away from the keyboard. At least my keyboard. We have a very active and very well organized volunteer Obama campaign presence here in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida. As someone who has some small experience in campaigning, I took the first opportunity I had to drop in on one of their meetings in my hometown, St. Petersburg.

Most of the meeting was taken up with the group members relating their experience on the campaign walk the Obama campaign conducted this week end. Some of us in the room did not participate. That's because the Obama campaign picked a date that was in direct conflict with the Florida Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson weekend. It was see Nancy Pelosi and 2,000 Democratic activists, or go knock on some doors. Well, I can and have knocked on doors plenty of other times. Nancy Pelosi won.

As the folks who walked told their war stories, it became quickly apparent that this was, indeed, an amateur, volunteer organization. But their enthusiasm was endemic. The conversation then moved on to the Obama campaign's participation in the St. Petersburg Pride Festival at the end of the month. This Festival is the largest GLBT Pride festival in Florida, and is a very big deal in St. Pete. Again, having some small experience in this sort of thing, I offered a few suggestions intended to make the Obama group's participation more effective and more fun.

It was then that the first really interesting thing happened. I was challenged by an acquaintance sitting next me as to whether I had gotten off the fence and picked a candidate. It was obvious she had not read my Candidate Review Recap, because I relayed in it that I had not. She then asked me what I was doing at their meeting, as if I wished their campaign ill.

Here is something I want to repeat from the first of my Candidate Review series:

I am going to support the Democratic nominee. Period.
So before a nominee is chosen, I will do what I can, as I have in the past, to help any of the campaigns that I can. I will not work against any campaign, only for them. That was pretty much my answer to my acquaintance.

The second event happened in cyberspace on DailyKos. I returned home to read this comment from my friend Boofdah on my Review Recap Diary:

If she (Hillary) gets the nom I hate to say this, but we're in a world of hurt. :-/


It's a relief that at least (so far), we have a couple of really great local candidates, like this guy, to get behind and do grassroots work for, in case my preferred Presidential candidate (see my sig) doesn't get the nod. I hate to be a sullen poor sport; but I
honest-to-God can't get excited about volunteering for HRC. :(

Obama-rama!


We have recently been through this in Florida. In last year's governor's race, we had a fierce primary battle. Adherents to both sides were fervently attached to their chosen candidates. The blogosphere was filled with vituperative comments flying from both sides. At the end of the primary, all too many of the supporters of the loser could not bring themselves to work for their party's nominee.

Did any of this lead to the ultimate defeat of our party's nominee? Probably not. Did it contribute to the loss of our party's nominee. Absolutely.

So, what is the answer to this. One of the great things about Democrats is our passion. No one should wish for that passion to be diminished. I certainly do not.

I'd like to see a passionate discussion. I'd like to see what thoughts are out there about how best to be advocates for our candidates, while at the same time recognizing that any one of our candidates is infinitely preferable to any one from the other side.

After all, isn't the ultimate goal to get one of our candidates into the White House?



Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: Recap

Six weeks ago, I set out to try to work my way through what candidate I wanted to support this cycle for the presidential nomination. I had a plan. I reviewed the 3 "top tier" candidates in detail. I did a review on Bill Richardson, because I promised my friend Becker. And last week, I finished up with the Final Four. The only one I haven't done is Al Gore. But then, he's not running... or is he?

So where has all this left me? To find out, you'll have to follow me below the fold.

I started with the premise that


There are two top level criteria I am going to use to evaluate the candidates. The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their ability to win the general election.
To get to the general, one must first win the nomination, no? I had a list of things I was looking at in the candidates:


  • Values projected in the Message
  • Stance on issues
  • Fundraising ability
  • Staff competence
  • Primary strategy
  • Does this candidate make me feel it?


So I started with Hillary Clinton. I found a lot to like in the values expressed in her speeches. I called her vote for the AUMF in Iraq

The albatross around Hillary's neck
I wondered

Is she doing the right things now regarding Iraq? Is it enough to overcome her initial vote and her continued refusal to admit a mistake?

I noted her strength in fund raising in the first quarter. I also talked about having people around her who had made it all happen before. My biggest concern was her ability to win the general elections, should she win the nomination.

What's changed in the past few weeks? Hillary's performance in the first two debates. She has been the hands down winner in each debate so far. She keeps that up, she just might make a believer out of ...?

Next up was John Edwards. I really liked the values expressed in Edwards speeches. He still has the most detailed policy pieces on the issues of any candidate. He is foursquare for ending the war in Iraq now. Edwards did not match the stunning amounts raised by Clinton or Obama. He did raise enough to continue to execute his plan. And his plan to win the nomination (he's leading the polls in Iowa, still) is a good one. Here's what I wound up saying about Edwards:

John Edwards message and values reaches me. His call for One America, his stance on Iraq, and his ability to clearly communicate his values resonates with me. ... Edwards would be a nominee that I would be excited to support. And best of all, Edwards can win the White House in 2008.
What has changed in the last few weeks? Edwards has stayed mired in third in the national polls. He had a better debate in New Hampshire than he had in South Carolina. I had a personal experience with the Edwards campaign in Florida this weekend. At the Florida Democratic Party's big Jefferson-Jackson weekend, the Edwards campaign didn't look like it could organize its way out of a wet paper bag. They sure didn't have a clue how to organize in Florida. And it showed.

So that leaves Barack Obama from the top tier. I also really liked the values expressed in Obama's speeches. I noted his "somewhat less forthright" stance on Iraq, despite his having initially opposed the war. Obama has not laid out many detailed positions on the issues. However, his values translate pretty well into the stances on issues that he does talk about. Obama raised a ton of money in the first quarter, stunning nearly everybody. He has surrounded himself with some very experienced campaign operatives. At the end, here is what I had to say about Obama:
There is a lot to like about Barack Obama. His message of working together to solve our problems, to turn the page does resonate with me. The values expressed in his speeches are my values. I'm more than a little concerned about his unwillingness to let those values guide him in his current views on Iraq. It concerns me all the more because on other issues, he has not laid out any measure of specificity on how he would proceed. In sum, Senator Obama has not closed the deal with me at this point.
Has anything changed in the last few weeks? Obama has not exactly helped himself in the debates. He is stuck in second behind Clinton nationally. And he has slipped into third in Iowa behind Edwards and Clinton. Obama did show an organizational presence in Florida this weekend. And if anybody wants to see a passionate plea by a surrogate, get hold of the videotape of Congressman Bob Wexler speaking for Obama this weekend.

I did review Bill Richardson. He has the potential to break into the top tier. However, he has not helped himself in either of the debates so far. And his near melt down on Meet the Press did not help him any either.

As stated earlier, I reviewed the Final Four. Enough said about them.

So, where does that leave me. The candidate who I worry most about general election electability (Clinton) seems to be easing some of those fears in me. Some. Not very many, but some. The guy I seemed to like the best (Edwards) is going nowhere fast nationally, but still has a viable plan to win the nomination. He needs to get better organized (and soon) in some other states than Iowa though. Otherwise Iowa could turn out to be a pretty empty victory. Obama seems to have peaked (for now) in the polls. However, there are recent hints he could have another stunning fund raising quarter. That would certainly keep the buzz going awhile. Richardson is still stuck in single digits and the other guys are still nowhere.

Speaking of nowhere, I am nowhere nearer to figuring out which candidate to get behind than I was six weeks ago. Is Al Gore running?

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: Bill Richardson

A month ago, I laid out my plan to review our candidates for President to try to determine who I was going to support for the nomination. I started with Hillary Clinton and followed with John Edwards. Last week it was Barack Obama.

I was going to cover the so called "second tier" candidates in one diary and then do a review. But thanks to my friend, Robert Becker, Bill Richardson's Iowa State Director, today's diary will cover New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

If you haven't seen the other diaries in this series, it would help to give them a quick look. And after that, here we go...


As I discussed in the overview to this series:

There are two top level criteria I am going to use to evaluate the candidates. The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their ability to win the general election.

In my attempts to evaluate candidates chances to win the nomination, I am going to look at these factors:

  • Values projected in the Message
  • Stance on issues
  • Fundraising ability
  • Staff competence
  • Primary strategy
  • Does this candidate make me feel it?

Let's take a look at the values projected in Bill Richardson's message. In a speech titled The New Realism and the Rebirth of American Leadership in February, Richardson said this
Realists like Truman and Eisenhower understood that defending Europe and ourselves from the Soviets required a strong military. But they also understood that we could not lead our allies if they did not wish to follow.

These and subsequent American Presidents knew the importance of moral leadership. Our remarkable military and our prosperous economy gave us the power to lead. But our commitment to human dignity – including our willingness to struggle against our own prejudices -- inspired others to follow.

In remarks to the Arab American Institute at their Kahlil Gibran "Spirit of Humanity" Awards Dinnerin April, Richardson had this to say
We want to make this world more peaceful, more understanding and more livable for all people; so that everyone may fulfill their dreams and live in a world respectful of race, ethnicity, sex and religious tolerance.

America should lead the world in spearheading a Middle East, North Africa, and Asian multi-national Marshall Plan that includes support for public education in the Muslim world which is the best way to mitigate the role of Salafist madrasas that foment extremism. We must help those Arabs and Muslims who promote a vision of peace, prosperity, tolerance and respect for human dignity, who form the overwhelming majority of the Arab and Muslim world, as opposed to the apocalyptic fantasies offered by a vocal minority of jihadists.

Here at home, we must adhere and protect the words, spirit and life of our Constitution for America is not just a country, it is a belief. A belief in a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A belief that every man and woman has the right to elect their government and a belief in freedom, justice and equality. America is the land of opportunity, but we have much to do to ensure that America is the land of equality of opportunity.

And at the New America Foundation this month, Richardson had this to say
Today, I am going to stake my claim to being the next president, the Energy President, on the concept of a fast, comprehensive energy revolution in the United States

Here are the principles that guide my thinking.

Our energy policy solutions must fight global warming, which threatens human, ecological, and economic catastrophe literally everywhere on earth.

Our energy policy solutions must wean us from oil, because any oil addiction perverts our nation’s strategic objectives, limits our options, and costs us both blood and treasure.

Next, in meeting this challenge, we must support and help people, communities, industries, and small businesses who could be hurt by a careless transition – but are being terribly hurt by soaring prices today.

Further, I am a market-oriented Democrat. I want to set clear regulatory standards and systems and incentives, and allow the markets to respond.

Finally, we must keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and technology development – exploring frontiers, finding solutions to our energy and climate challenges.

These are my bedrock principles -- they are not subject to negotiation.

Let's look at how the values expressed in the speeches translate into Governor Richardson's stance on the issues. Of course the paramount issue of the day is Iraq. In a recent CBS News/New York Times Poll, 31% named the war in Iraq as the most important problem facing this country today. No other issue even reached double digits. Richardson's plan for Iraq is to
de-authorize the war and withdraw ALL troops by the end of the year
Richardson goes on to say
Congress must continue to use the power of the purse without cutting funds for troops on the ground, but we should also go one step further. Congress should assert its constitutional authority and pass a resolution de-authorizing the war under the War Powers Act. Congress can then set a military pull-out date and appropriate funds accordingly for the re-deployment of troops.

On health care, Richardson opens with
Affordable and secure health insurance for every American should be our national goal.
He continues with a litany of measures to extend coverage and assist families in paying premiums. However, this is not a call for universal single payer health care.

In Energy Policy, Richardson makes a strong call for
a New American Revolution -- an energy and climate revolution
As we saw above in his speech to the New America Foundation, Richardson puts a premium on energy policy for both national security and environmental security concerns.

Richardson had this to say on fund raising
voters will judge the candidates on their experience, on their records, on their passion, and that fund-raising will be secondary
He better hope that's true, because he is truly in the second tier of fund raisers. His $6.2 million raised in the 1st quarter puts him fourth on the fund raising list, behind Senator Chris Dodd and well behind all the "first tier" candidates.

Richardson's campaign manager is Dave Contarino. Contarino ran Richardson's first campaign for Governor, served as his Chief of Staff for 3 years and most recently was the Chair of his re-election for Governor campaign. Amanda Cooperia is overseeing fund raising. Cooper was Richardson's re-election Campaign Manager and Fundraising Director. Cooper oversaw raising $14 million for the Governor's re-election campaign and led the effort to raise $28 million for the DGA in Governor Richardson's two year term as Chair. Bsides the aforementioned Robert Becker, Richardson's experienced and tenacious Iowa state director, Richardson is putting locally experienced operatives in place in Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

More than anyone else in this campaign, Bill Richardson is running on his resume. Every speech he gives, he reminds his listeners that he is the governor of New Mexico. He was Ambassador to the UN, Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton and a Congressman. In Iowa, Becker has this to say about Richardson's campaign
Make no mistake about - while we are using today's latest technology (including this email!) and innovative, engaging TV ads - we will run an aggressive, old-fashioned, one-handshake-at-a-time caucus operation.
He needs to shake a lot of hands. The latest Real Clear Politics 2 week average has Richardson at 8% in Iowa, far behind the top three. He needs a stronger than expected showing in Iowa (in the top three) and a very good showing in Nevada, with its heavy concentration of Hispanic voters to get to New Hampshire with any chance at all.

So far, Richardson is too low in the pack for anyone to be doing head to head polling against the leading Republican contenders. So we don't know where that stands right now. He is a governor, however, and he does have that extensive foreign policy experience. And that foreign policy experience is 180 degrees different than we have been experiencing under the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For my money, Richardson is running too much on his resume. In looking for Richardson's expressed values in his speeches, I had to wade through endless repetitions of his resume before I could find kernels of his values. Elections are about the future. Yeah, we want to know what makes you think you're qualified. But more than that, we want to know what you stand for and what your vision is.

In the end, I don't get that from Bill Richardson. Not yet.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: Barack Obama

Three weeks ago, I outlined my plan to review the Democratic presidential hopefuls and come to some resolution on who I would support for the nomination. I started with Hillary Clinton. Last week was John Edwards turn. Today it is Barack Obama.

If you haven't seen the prior diaries in this series, it would be helpful to give them at least a quick scan. Below the fold, I'll briefly review my methodology and reasoning when evaluating the candidates. OK, here we go...



As I discussed in the overview to this series:

There are two top level criteria I am going to use to evaluate the
candidates. The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their ability to win the general election.

In my attempts to evaluate candidates chances to win the nomination, I am going to look at these factors:

  • Values projected in the Message
  • Stance on issues
  • Fundraising ability
  • Staff competence
  • Primary strategy
  • Does this candidate make me feel it?

I am a true believer in values based decision making. Here are the values I have chosen to bring to bear on this particular process:

  • community
  • individual liberty and capacity for self-government.
  • equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none.
  • thirst for innovation and civic duty.
  • insist upon new, viable means to achieve progressive ideals.

OK, having said all of that, here we go with Obama's values expressed in his speeches. Obama burst on the scene for most of us with his Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention on July 27, 2004:

Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to he self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness."

That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody's son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will he counted, or at least, most of the time...

The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of
opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that
choice.

In Remarks to the American Legion Legislative Rally on March 01, 2005, Obama had this to say:

I thought about the hundreds of Illinois veterans I've met over the last few years. We asked them to leave their homes, leave their families, and risk their lives in some far-off place to protect us. And yet, somehow, we're still hearing stories like the one I heard from a veteran named Bill Allen, who told me that on a trip to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. That's what I thought about. And finally, I thought about a young man named Seamus Ahern, who I met during the campaign at a V.F.W. hall in East Moline, Illinois. He told me about how he'd joined the Marines because he was so proud of this country, and he felt that as a young person in his early twenties he wanted to give something back. He was getting shipped out to Iraq the following week, and as I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, the absolute faith he had in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: When Shamus comes home, will we serve him as well as he served us? That's the question we should be asking ourselves when we talk about veterans' benefits and the veterans' budget. And that's the standard we should meet.
On May 02, 2005 at an NAACP Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner, Obama said:

...it's one thing to know that everyone has a seat at the lunch counter, but how do we figure out how everyone can pay for the meal? It was easy to figure out that blacks and whites should be able to go to school together, but how do we make sure that every child is equipped and ready to graduate? It was easy to talk about dogs and fire hoses, but how do we talk about getting drugs and guns off the streets?" This is what they told me.

And of course, I reminded them that it wasn't very easy at all. That the moral certainties we now take for granted - that separate can never be equal, that the blessings of liberty enshrined in our Constitution belong to all of us, that our children should be able to go to school together and play together and grow up together - were anything but certain in 1965.

In the budget they passed this week in Congress, they gave out over $100 billion in tax cuts, on top of the trillions they've already given to the wealthiest few and most profitable corporations.

One hundred billion dollars. Think about what that could do for our kids if we invested that in our schools. Think of how many new schools we could build, how many great teachers we could recruit, what kind of computers and technology we could put in our classrooms. Think about how much we could invest in math and science so our kids could be prepared for the 21st century economy. Think about how many kids we could send to college who've worked hard, studied hard, but just can't afford the tuition.

Think about all that potential and all that opportunity. Think about the choice Washington made instead. And now think about what you can do about it.

I believe we have a mutual responsibility to make sure our schools are properly funded, our teachers are properly paid, and our students have access to an affordable college education. And if we don't do something about all that, than nothing else matters.

But I also believe we have an individual responsibility as well.

Our grandparents use to tell us that being Black means you have to work twice as hard to succeed in life. And so I ask today, can we honestly say our kids are working twice as hard as the kids in India and China who are graduating ahead of us, with better test scores and the tools they need to kick our butts on the job market? Can we honestly say our teachers are working twice as hard, or our parents?
Speaking at the Pritzker School of Medicine Commencement on June 13, 2005, Obama said this:

...Today, as we continue to find new ways to live longer and better, the greatest single threat to the health of our nation is not a scarcity of genius or a failure of discovery; it is a lack of collective will to ensure that every single American has access to effective, affordable health care. It is our inability, after years and years of talk and gridlock, to finally do something about the crushing cost of health care in America.

45 million Americans are uninsured - over 5 million more in the last four years. This isn't just a moral shame, it's an economic disaster that's catching Americans in a vicious cycle. Because the uninsured can't afford health care, they put off seeing a doctor or end up in the ER when they get sick. Then their care is more expensive, and so premiums for all Americans go up - to the tune of $922 a family. Because everyone's premiums go up, more Americans lose their health care.
And on the Confirmation of Judge John Roberts, which he voted against, Obama said this:

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way.
The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
So how do these values expressed in these speeches square with Obama's positions on the issues? As always, I am starting with Iraq. It is still the biggest issue on the minds of the public, by far. Unlike, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, Barack Obama was not in the United States Senate when the AUMF came up for a vote. He was in the Illinois State Senate. But he did say this Against Going to War with Iraq on October 02, 2002:

I don't oppose all wars... After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars... What I am opposed to is a dumb war...I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
Now that he is in the US Senate and faced with actually voting on these issues, Obama is somewhat less forthright. Obama reportedly told the Associated Press the Congress should pass the war funding money without a time line for withdrawal if Bush vetoed the spending bill. Statements like that have not enhanced Obama's standing with the progressives in his party.

Obama has not laid out detailed positions on many of the other issues. However in Remarks to the National Conference of Black Mayors on May 05, 2007, Obama laid out strong positions on education, energy independence and global warming and affordable housing.

Obama's position on Health Care from his web site:

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, and in a series of speeches and public events Barack Obama has outlined specific principles for providing affordable and comprehensive coverage and for improving quality of care and reducing of costs for everyone. These include tackling medical inflation and spiraling health care costs, developing new mechanisms to extend portable, affordable coverage, and reforming health care delivery so that it emphasizes prevention and efficiency.

As a first step, Barack Obama wants to hear from you. He is hosting a series of community discussions around the country to hear not only from policy experts, but also from real Americans who are struggling with the health care system, doctors and nurses, people with insurance and without it.
There does not seem to be a ringing call for single payer universal health care in there.

Obama is the only candidate who takes on Government Corruption on his web site.

On fund raising, the New York Times had this to say at the end of the first quarter:

Mr. Obama’s total for the first fund-raising period of the 2008 presidential race was close to Mrs. Clinton’s. She reported Sunday that she had raised $26 million, but declined to provide a breakdown of contributions for the primary season versus the general election. Mr. Obama said $23.5 million of the money he raised was for the primary season.
It did turn out that Obama had actually out raised Clinton in primary money. He also had more contributions under the campaign finance limit, meaning he has more mileage left in his donor base than Clinton. This was a truly stunning development.

Obama has put together an interesting campaign management team. Certainly the finance department, led by Julianna Smoot, has proved to be top notch. Smoot was finance director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this past cycle.

At the top of the campaign is David Axelrod, his media strategist. Axelrod is founder of Chicago-based AKP Media and handled Obama's 2004 Senate race. He has an "A" client list and consults for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Rep. Rahm Emanuel. The Washington Post has this to say:

David Axelrod, a former newspaper reporter who has worked on past campaigns for no fewer than five of the Democrats racing to the White House, a form of political ubiquity that only enhances his reputation. This time, he's with Obama.

A measure of his status in the top tier of Democratic spinners, scripters and fixers is that when his peers detect something subtle and good, they presume Axelrod must have had a hand in it.
David Plouffe, another partner in AKP Media is the campaign manager. You can read up on Plouffe at his Wikipedia listing.

Despite the credentials of the top management, the Obama campaign has had a couple of stumbles so far. There was the dust up with the Clinton campaign over the David Geffin remarks. More recently, CNN had a story titled Obama publicly scolds staff for scheduling decision:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told New Hampshire firefighters Friday that he was frustrated his staff did not build into his travel schedule a personal appearance before their union meeting taking place in the coastal city of Portsmouth. Instead, the presidential hopeful had to address the IAFF and Federation of State and Provincial Firefighters Association this morning by telephone.

"I have to tell you, I wish I was there," Obama said over a speakerphone. "My staff had already scheduled some things and they couldn't wiggle out if it. They heard from me a little bit because I wasn't happy I couldn't be there personally."

Altogether not a big deal. But it is something to watch for as the campaign goes on.

Obama's primary strategy can be devined from a review of his campaign staff. The staff is weighted with folks heavy on Iowa experience. New Hampshire, not so much. Obama is a Senator from Illinois, a neighbor state to Iowa. Somewhat like Edwards, it appears Obama is looking to get momentum going with a strong showing in Iowa. In the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, John Edwards is leading at 29%, but Obama has slipped past Hillary Clinton into second at 23%. Clinton trails at 21%. A second in Iowa would not be a campaign killer for Obama. Particularly if he beats Clinton.

New Hampshire shows Clinton with a 12 point lead over both Obama and Edwards according to the Real Clear Politics Average through May 15th. Whatever momentum is developed coming out of Iowa and Nevada will surely have a major impact on New Hampshire.

In head to heads against Republicans, the latest RCP average has Obama leading Giuliana by 3.4 points and McCain by 5 points. These are not quite as big a lead as Edwards has over the GOP rivals, but certainly in the ballpark. Obama appears to have a better than reasonable chance of winning the general should he be the nominee. Certainly a better shot than Clinton does.

Now we are at that very subjective point. Does this candidate make me feel it? There is a lot to like about Barack Obama. His message of working together to solve our problems, to turn the page does resonate with me. The values expressed in his speeches are my values. I'm more than a little concerned about his unwillingness to let those values guide him in his current views on Iraq. It concerns me all the more because on other issues, he has not laid out any measure of specificity on how he would proceed. In sum, Senator Obama has not closed the deal with me at this point.

So where does that leave me? Let me know where it leaves you. Next week, a look at the "other" candidates.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Dr. Dean - Let Our Votes Count

Blog Florida Blue


Florida Governor Charlie Crist today signed an elections reform bill that moves Florida's Presidential Preference Primary up to January 29th in 2008. This puts the Florida Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee on a collision course. DNC primary rules call for draconian penalties for any state that moves its primary up before February 5th. Potentially, Florida could lose all of its delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

I have blogged about this before. The first time was last November on DailyKos. More recently, I blogged about the Florida Primary Conspiracy Theory, a dubious concept at best. I have also blogged about How to Have Our Primary Cake and Eat It Too. This laid out how the FDP could avoid delegate penalties from the DNC. The technique would be to declare the January 29th primary non-binding. This would then require the FDP to hold a caucus at a later date to actually select and apportion the convention delegates. It would also have the unfortunate effect of the the Florida Democratic Party telling its members that their votes on January 29th wouldn't count.

I have come to the conclusion that this is not a cake I want to eat. Our Republican dominated state legislature did this to us. Make no mistake here, though. Many Dem legislators were just as happy to move up in the primary schedule. I know I was, and continue to be. We are the largest swing state in the country. We have more electoral votes at stake than the states going before us combined. We are much more diverse than any state going before us in this process. Floridians deserve to have their voices heard as part of the presidential nominating process.

Our own state party should not be put in the position of telling us our primary votes are not going to count. Not in Florida of all places. We have a hard enough time getting our votes to count here as it is. (Although the bill that Gov. Crist signed today also does away with touch screen voting machines (almost entirely) and provides us with a voter verifiable paper trail.) No , the state party should not put us in that position.

That puts the ball squarely in your court, Dr. Dean. As Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, your position on this dilemma counts for a great deal. Do you really want to tell Florida Democrats, of all people, that their votes won't count? After all, this was done to us by the Republican controlled Florida Legislature. The Dems couldn't have stopped this if they had wanted to. Speaking of Florida Democrats, Dr. Dean, you do recall how important their support was in your ascendancy to the Chairmanship, don't you? The early support from the Florida delegation to the DNC really got the ball rolling for you.

But, let's just get back to the basic issue here. There will be a presidential primary in Florida on January 29th. It is now the law of this state. The Democratic candidates are going to campaign here. This state supplies too much money, and holds too many electoral votes for the candidates to ignore us. The only remaining question is this:



Doctor Dean, are you going to let our votes count?



Sunday, May 6, 2007

Candidate Review Wednesday: Hillary Clinton

Last week, I outlined my plan to work my way out of my candidate selection funk. Today is the first stop in this process. I have decided to review the candidates in alphabetical order by last name. That means we start with Hillary Clinton.

For the Joe Biden fan out there, and I know there is one, I also made a decision to start with the so called "top tier" candidates. So despite Joe's great one word answer in the debate, I am going to wait to cover the "other" candidates out there. Next week, therefore, John Edwards will be on the block.

Follow me to see how Hillary Clinton measures up.


The two broad criteria I am using to evaluate the candidates are these:

The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their
ability to win the general election.

I am a true believer in values based decision making. Here are the values I have chosen to bring to bear on this particular process:

  • community
  • individual liberty and capacity for self-government.
  • equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none.
  • thirst for innovation and civic duty.
  • insist upon new, viable means to achieve progressive ideals.

Here's the values Hillary Clinton has expressed in her speeches:

Foreign Policy

  • bipartisan consensus and; non-partisan competence
  • "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind"
  • we must value diplomacy as well as a strong military.
  • "Let us never negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

Economy

  • we can't be secure without a strong economy.
  • we cannot sustain our deepest values without an economy that rewards hard work.
  • fiscal discipline,
  • rewarding hard work,
  • investing in our people,
  • growing a strong middle class by giving everyone a chance to succeed.

Energy Policy

  • Energy we all know is essential to our economic security, and the trend lines are terrible.
  • our values demand that we be good stewards of the planet for our children and our children's children.
  • how will we get there? Two words: innovation and efficiency.

How does Hillary bring these values into play via her stance on the issues? Let's start with Iraq. If you can not get past the Iraq issue, you are nowhere. In a recent CBS News Poll 36% of Americans named Iraq as the most important issue. No other issue was even in double digits.

The albatross around Hillary's neck is her initial vote to authorize the war. She continues to exacerbate this by refusing to acknowledge that this vote was a mistake. Whether she can get away with this is still an open question.

Beyond the initial authorization of the war, Clinton has been a harsh critic of the Bush administrations' prosecution of the war. After Bush vetoed the supplemental approps bill, Clinton said this:

With his veto today, President Bush has made it clear that he is standing in
the way of ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home. The nation is
ready for the President to stop disregarding the will of the American people and
to work with Democrats on a funding bill that will enable us to begin
redeploying our troops.

Two days later, Senator Clinton:

announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end
authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 --
the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of
force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.


Is she doing the right things now regarding Iraq? Is it enough to overcome her initial vote and her continued refusal to admit a mistake?

Hillary has not made a lot of noise about the economy lately. At least not according to her press releases. As for health care, she seems to be taking an incrementalist approach. She is talking about expanding health care for children. Haven't seen anything from Hillary on Universal Health Care.

Clinton led the pack in fundraising in the first quarter of this year. However, she did not blow away the field as many people expected. The bigger news was that Barack Obama actually raised more primary money than Hillary. However, Hillary was able to transfer $10 million from her Senate campaign to her presidential campaign. It also remains to be seen if she can sustain this torrid fundraising pace.

Say what you will about James Carville and Terry McAuliffe. There is one thing they can say that most of the rest of us can not. They have won the big enchilada. They have been there and done that before. Between Bill and Hillary Clinton, there are a ton of folks out there that owe them favors, and they are putting together a first rate team throughout the country. Two knocks on the team so far:
  • They have been very ham handed in their fundraising efforts. People are giving, but they don't like their arms being twisted so much.
  • There is some concern that these guys think they are running the 1992 campaign all over again. This election is about the future, as all elections are.

Hillary's primary strategy seems to revolve around the inevitability of her nomination. She has been leading the polls from the outset. She has received the endorsement of Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack when he dropped out of the race.and thus gets the benefit of most of his Iowa organization. As the Senator from New York, she pretty much has favorite daughter status in New Hampshire. And Bill's huge popularity in the African American community give her a big leg up in South Carolina.

With all that she has going for her, I still am not feeling it from the Clinton campaign. She just does not get my juices flowing. Maybe she's too calculated. Maybe she still doesn't get it on Iraq. Whatever it is, she has not closed the deal with me at all.

One of the other things that I am trying to evaluate is the candidates ability to win the general election, should they be the nominee. I have the least comfort on this factor with Hillary. Here is probably the biggest reason why:

A new Gallup poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton's approval rating in the net
negative territory
, with 45% having a positive view and 51% having a negative
view. This has dropped dramatically from the start of the year when her
favorability rating was 58% positive/40% negative.


This means that Clinton must convince people who already don't like her to change their minds. This is a much more difficult proposition than her primary rivals face. It is my biggest concern about her candidacy. And it put her on the bottom of the list of top tier candidates for me.