Swing State Project

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Dem Convention Poll

Posted by DavidNYC

Markos is running a poll to see which city people prefer for the 2008 Dem convention. Go vote here. Also, keep up with convention-related news at Democratic Convention Watch.

UPDATE: You can check out the results here. Denver (my choice) and New Orleans are pretty much tied at about 30% apiece. No other city even breaks out of single digits. (At the moment, Minneapolis is in third at 8%.) I get the sense that Dean likes the whole "western strategy" idea and might favor Denver. Of course, we won't know until the end of the year at the earliest.

Posted at 01:43 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Monday, February 20, 2006

Dem Convention Watch: Initial City List Set

Posted by DavidNYC

Via Democratic Convention Watch, we now have the list of cities which have been formally invited to bid on hosting the convention by the DNC:

Anaheim
Dallas
Denver
Detroit
Las Vegas
Minneapolis
New Orleans
New York City
Orlando
Phoenix
San Antonio

It's also possible that Pittsburgh may be a late entrant.

These cities have not actually submitted bids yet - those aren't due until late May (Roll Call, sub. only). They've just been asked to submit bids, which means it's possible that one or more of these cities won't actually follow through. A final decision won't be announced until after the elections this fall, but I'm not sure if there will be any earlier decision-making "rounds" (eg, semi-finalists, etc.).

I personally think it might not be bad to do it that way, Olympics-style. Build up a little buzz and hype. Sure, it's all "meaningless," but a little extra positive attention never hurt. And I actually think that the conventions themselves are important - we get to spend four days, with lots of free media coverage, showcasing exactly what we want America to see of our party. Conventions may have little to do with nominations any more, but they are an important "sales" tool.

Anyhow, back to the issue at hand. DCW has some handicapping of the various cities. Despite my hometown connection, as you know, I'm a big supporter of Denver. Like Boston two years ago, I think New York as host offers no positives and if anything is a net negative. (You will not often hear me say bad things about NYC.) Denver, on the other hand, is in a slightly reddish state that has been trending blue recently. Plus, as I never get tired of mentioning, the summer weather is about a million times better.

Posted at 02:20 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Vilsack Says Dems Will Lose Unless They Embrace Views of Minority of Americans

Posted by DavidNYC

A winning strategy:

Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that Democrats risk political backlash if they object to the Bush administration's wiretapping but cannot show that Americans' civil liberties are at risk.

...

"And I think Democrats are falling into a very, very large political trap," he said. "Democrats are not going to win elections until they can reassure people they are going to keep them safe."

Compare with:

That's 56% who favor getting warrants vs. 42% who don't.

Posted at 01:31 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Democratic Convention Watch

Posted by DavidNYC

I've been a big proponent of single-district blogs, but this endeavour takes specialization to a whole new level. And I gotta say, I love it. Take a look at 2008 Democratic Convention Watch, a site devoted purely to news about the next Dem convention - a political junkie's delight. (And I found it randomly by Googling!) A few things worth noting:

• Some 35 cities have been invited to bid to host the convention.

• The deadline for bids is Jan. 13th, so we'll know which cities are in contention at that point.

• The host city won't be announced until after the 2006 midterm elections.

I've gone on record as a strong supporter of Denver, which is probably a leading contender at this point. Its Western location is ideal politically, and the mountain weather ought to be more pleasant than that in most cities during the summer. Colorado Luis notes that Denver might have a labor issue - there's only one unionized hotel in downtown Denver. On the flipside, unfortunately, most cities these days have the same kind of problem. I like Luis' suggestion that Denver be given the convention in exchange for permitting union organizing activities in conjunction with it.

The official Denver Dem Party website has a recent update here on their efforts to lobby the DNC, and a possibly freeped poll at DailyKos shows Denver with a sizable lead. I'm curious to know what drawbacks, if any, people think Denver presents.

Posted at 03:09 AM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Monday, November 07, 2005

Dems to Move Back 2008 Convention Date

Posted by DavidNYC

From Roll Call (sub. req.):

Democratic Members are lauding their party’s unexpected decision to hold the 2008 Democratic National Convention in late August, saying that the later date should help the party level the playing field against the GOP.

In an unusually early announcement, the Democratic National Committee said Friday that the four-day presidential nominating event would be held Monday, Aug. 25 through Thursday, Aug. 28 — a full month later than the 2004 convention, which began in late July.

DNC officials said the timing allows the party to avoid competition with the 2008 Summer Olympics, while also providing the prospective Democratic nominee a not-too-lengthy period to sustain the traditional post-convention “bounce” in popularity. After the convention closes down, it will be only 68 days until Election Day.

I think this is a wise move, but the article leaves out an added crucial reason why this is a smart change. Though both Bush and Kerry turned down federal matching money during the "primary" campaign, both accepted federal money for the "general election." I put those terms in quotes because they mean very little - the primaries were over long before the technical FEC start of the general election season.

And that start date is kind of screwed up, because the clock begins ticking as soon as your party's convention is over - meaning that John Kerry was stuck with his final cash pool (I think it was $45 mil) for three months, while Bush had to make do with that sum for just two months. This change eliminates that problem.

As to the location, I'm still a supporter of Denver. The Roll Call story mentions that some Dems want to do it in New Orleans, as expected. I think it's a kind gesture, but it goes without saying that Colorado (and its western brethren) represent a good share of our political future as a party, while Louisiana does not. I'd rather see the Dems take back power in 2006 and pressure Bush to spend some serious money to really rebuild N.O. and the rest of the Gulf Coast.

Posted at 02:48 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Sunday, October 02, 2005

2008: HRC Missed Bridge to 21st Century

Posted by Bob Brigham

I've written about this before (here and here), but now that Matt Bai has a major story in the Sunday NYT Magazine, I think the issue of HRC's political positioning needs revisiting. The article is aptly titled, "Mrs. Triangulation"

You can hardly pry up a floorboard in the basement of Democratic politics without finding some sign of the Clinton operation churning underneath.

The chief benefit of this network is that it spans the ideological divide in the party, from far left to far center. The problem is that labels like "left" and "center" seem to have lost much of their meaning in the party, and the divisions in Democratic politics no longer seem to run along traditional lines. Gone are the days when Hubert Humphrey waged war against Strom Thurmond on civil rights, when George McGovern's protesters clashed with Scoop Jackson's hard-liners. In the era after Bill Clinton, the vast majority of Democrats, whether they once considered themselves liberals or centrists, mouth allegiance to the same set of often tepid principles on issues like trade, terrorism and gun control - positions that they will often cite as evidence of hard-won unity but which in truth represent the absence of the real intellectual discussion that once defined (and sometimes doomed) the party. As a result, aside from a few subtle disputes - whether troops should be withdrawn from Iraq now, for instance, or next year - the philosophical differences between liberals and centrists have never been more obscure. Nothing better illustrated the passing of the party's long ideological debate better than the explosive presidential campaign of Howard Dean (now the party's chairman), whose record as a pro-gun, pro-Democratic Leadership Council governor did nothing to prevent him from seamlessly assuming the role of chief spokesman for those liberal voters who had always embodied the so-called Democratic left.

What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between "insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington - politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots" Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

The activist class believes, essentially, that Democrats in Washington have damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans - in short, by trying to govern. The "Net roots" believe that an effective minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new proposals or big ideas. Instead, the party should dedicate itself to winning local elections and killing each new Republican proposal that comes down the track. To the activist class, trying to cut deals with Republicans is tantamount to appeasement. In fact, Rosenberg, an emerging champion of the activist class, told me, pointing to my notebook: "You have to use the word 'appease.' You have to use it. Because this is like Neville Chamberlain."

This is an ominous development for Hillary Clinton, because the activists' attack on the party hierarchy is a direct and long-simmering reaction to the Clintonism of the 90's and the "third way" instinct of the D.L.C.

My thoughts after the jump.

This article seems to back up those of us who have questioned Hillary's political instincts. As far as internal Democratic Party politics go, it appears Hillary is trying to bridge old divides that no longer exist and in the way she is going about doing so, has put herself on what will inevitably be the losing side of the current debate going on in the Democratic Party.

I firmly believe the new divide is between the establishment and the base; the bosses and the netroots; the past and the future.

Under these conditions, is the following helpful?

The pollster Mark Penn and the ad-maker Mandy Grunwald, both of whom worked for Bill Clinton and are among Hillary's closest advisers, have longstanding ties to the centrist, pro-business Democratic Leadership Council, while two other Clinton confidants, the operatives Ann Lewis and Harold Ickes, remain close to women's groups and Big Labor, respectively. The trusted aides Howard Wolfson and Patti Solis Doyle have been associated with the Glover Park Group, one of the most influential consulting firms among Democratic interest groups.

Hillary's attempt to staff up to bridge the old divides only cement her position on the side of the tired old Democratic establishment that is currently in a tug-of-war with the base.

By failing to understand the current realities in the Democratic Party, Hillary has embraced a misdiagnosis that has compromised her political standing and exposed the out-of-touch advice that she is receiving. The fact that HRC appears unable to grasp the current dynamics within the Democratic Party actually lends credibility to the activists in the netroots and grassroots who think that many Washington DC Democrats have lost touch.

Additionally, Clinton's ties to Al From's DLC could tether her presidential ambitions:

"I think people are looking for leadership from Hillary Clinton, and she's not showing any leadership on anything," says Markos Moulitsas of Dailykos.com, one of the new movement's leading blogs. Even in Hollywood, where the Clintons have been royalty for more than a decade, patience for bipartisanship is running low. Last month in Beverly Hills, I talked about Clinton with Norman Lear, the television and film producer who founded the liberal organization People for the American Way. "I love her," he told me. "But as terrific as I think she is, my concern is that we need someone who will tell the truth as they see it all of the time. She, like all of them, is not somebody who does that."

That Clinton doesn't fully understand the depth of this resentment seemed painfully apparent in July, when, at the D.L.C.'s annual gathering in Columbus, she accepted the assignment of fashioning a new agenda for the group and publicly called for a truce between factions on the left and center. Her aides thought she was actually delivering a mild rebuke to the D.L.C. for criticizing Dean and the bloggers; what they didn't understand was that her presence at the D.L.C. event itself was enough to infuriate the "Net roots," and the suggestion that the two sides should work together made it only worse. The response from the blogosphere was swift and bilious. "It's truly disappointing" that this is the garbage "Hillary has signed on to," Moulitsas wrote on Dailykos.com, provoking the blog's devotees to write hundreds of passionate and often profane diatribes in agreement. In a strikingly blunt appraisal, John Podesta told The Washington Post that Clinton had "walked into a cross-fire maybe she should have realized was out there." ("I didn't get any carnations for that one," Podesta told me later, laughing.)

In fact, Clinton's advisers disagreed about whether a bunch of 20-something bloggers really mattered. In a conversation last month, Mark Penn scoffed at my suggestion that there might be a strong backlash in the party against the ethos of Clintonism. "Strong backlash?" Penn said. "Former President Clinton is at a 70 percent approval rating, stronger than even during his presidency. More people would like to see him president than President Bush. In this environment, that is a notion I would have to laugh at." It's true that most Democratic voters are probably too busy working and raising kids to spend a lot of time debating political tactics online, and the importance of the "Net roots" can be overstated. And yet, the blogosphere is bound to be an important organizing force in 2008, and some other candidate will almost certainly rise to fill the space that Dean once occupied. If nothing else, this would make it harder for Hillary Clinton, the heir to her husband's legacy, to run the unity campaign her advisers envision.

After I spoke with Penn, I repeated his assessment of the backlash to Podesta, whose reach into all aspects of the progressive world - from bloggers to members of Congress - makes him as knowledgeable about the party's crosscurrents as anyone in Washington. "The D.L.C. incident is over, and it isn't particularly meaningful," Podesta told me. "But in the long run, if you believe what Mark believes, it will get you in trouble."

Clinton is chair of the DLC's "American Dream Initiative, which has already been marked DOA. If Clinton wanted her DLC membership to be good for more than negative articles in major newspapers, she would immediately call for Al From to be fired. But for that to happen, she would have to understand the where the Democratic Party is headed, which she doesn't. In part, because she hangs out in DC with the likes of Al From and the other dinosaurs who have failed to cross the bridge into the 21st century. In fact, every single move the DLC has made this millennium has been a disaster. Every single move.

The Clintons may have allowed us to go to where we are, but they didn't join us. And we aren't waiting for them to catch up, because we are too busy following their example and pushing on.

Posted at 02:01 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Netroots, Scandals | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Thursday, September 29, 2005

2008: Feingold Stakes Out Moral High Ground on Iraq

Posted by Bob Brigham

Many Establishment Democrats considering a run for President have refined an Iraq stance of holding their hands over their ears and chanting, "wawawawawawawawa I can't hear you." Strategically, this makes zero sense, as we found out in 2002 and 2004. Going forward, if we do what we've done we'll get what we've got in 2006 and 2008.

And then there is Russ Feingold. At the start of the war, Feingold followed his instincts and voted against the war, but for the $87 billion. History has proven that his vote against the war was the proper thing to do.

Today, Senator Feingold takes his case to the floor of the U.S. Senate with his "Bush is Weakening America" speech. Full text as prepared after the jump.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

“How the President’s Policy is Weakening America”

From the Floor of the United States Senate

Mr. President, I rise once again to comment on the deeply disturbing consequences of the President’s misguided policies in Iraq. I have spoken before about my grave concern that the Administration’s Iraq policies are actually strengthening the hand of our enemies, fueling the insurgency’s recruitment of foreign fighters and unifying elements of the insurgency that might otherwise turn on each other.

But today, Mr. President, I want to focus on a different and equally alarming issue – which is, that the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq are making America weaker. And none of us should stand by and allow this to continue.

It is shocking to me that this Senate has not found the time and energy to take up the Defense Authorization bill and give that bill the full debate and attention that it deserves. Our men and women in uniform, and our military families, continue to make real sacrifices every day in service to this country. They perform their duties with skill and honor, sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances. But the Senate has not performed its duties – and the state of the U.S. military desperately needs our attention.

The Administration’s policies in Iraq are breaking the United States Army. As soldiers confront the prospect of a third tour in the extremely difficult theater of Iraq, it would be understandable if they began to wonder why all of the sacrifice undertaken by our country in wartime seems to be falling on their shoulders. It would be understandable if they -- and their brothers and sisters in the Marine Corps -- began to feel some skepticism about whether or not essential resources -- like adequately armored vehicles -- will be there when they need them. It would be understandable if they came to greet information about deployment schedules with cynicism, because reliable information has been hard to come by for our military families in recent years. And it would be understandable if they asked themselves whether or not their numbers will be great enough to hold hard-won territory, and whether or not properly vetted translators will be available to help them distinguish friend from foe. At some point, Mr. President, the sense of solidarity and commitment that helps maintain strong retention rates gives way to a sense of frustration with the status quo. I fear that we may be very close to that tipping point today.

We may not see the men and women of the Army continue to volunteer for more of the same. It isn’t reasonable to expect that current retention problems will improve, rather than worsening. We should not bet our national security on that kind of wishful thinking.

Make no mistake, our military readiness is already suffering. According to a recent RAND study, the Army has been stretched so thin that active-duty soldiers are now spending one of every two years abroad, leaving little of the Army left in any appropriate condition to respond to crises that may emerge elsewhere in the world. In an era in which we confront a globally networked enemy, and at a time when nuclear weapons proliferation is an urgent threat, continuing on our present course is irresponsible at best.

We are not just wearing out the troops; we are also wearing out equipment much faster than it is being replaced or refurbished. Just days ago the Chief of the National Guard, General H Steven Blum, told a group of Senate staffers that the National Guard had approximately 75% of the equipment it needed on 9/11. Today, the National Guard has 34% of the equipment it needs. And the response to Hurricane Katrina exposed some of the dangerous gaps in the Guard’s communications systems.

What we are asking of the Army is not sustainable, and the burden is taking its toll on our military families. This cannot go on.

Many of my colleagues, often led by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, have taken stock of where we stand and have joined together to support efforts to expand the size of our standing Army. But this effort – which I support -- is really a solution for the long-term, because it depends on new recruits to address our problems. We cannot suddenly increase the numbers of experienced soldiers so essential to providing leadership in the field. It takes years to grow a new crop of such leaders. But the annual resignation rate of Army lieutenants and captains rose last year to its highest rate since the attacks of September 11, 2001. We are heading toward crisis right now.

Mr. President, growing the all-volunteer Army can only happen if qualified new recruits sign up for duty. But all indications suggest that at the end of this month, the Army will fall thousands short of its annual recruiting goal. Barring some sudden and dramatic change, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve too will miss their annual targets by about 20 percent. And Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, told Congress recently that 2006 "may be the toughest recruiting environment ever."

Too often, too many of my colleagues are reluctant to criticize the Administration’s policies in Iraq for fear that anything other than staying the course set by the President will somehow appear weak. But the President’s course is misguided, and it is doing grave damage to our extraordinarily professional and globally admired all-volunteer United States Army. To stand by while this damage is done is not patriotic. It is not supportive. It is not tough on terrorism, or strong on national security. Because I am proud of our men and women in uniform, and because I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to make this country more secure, I am convinced that we must change our course.

As my colleagues know, I have introduced a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission that the US military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission and subsequently bringing our troops home. It is in our interest to provide some clarity about our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that U.S. troops will not be in Iraq indefinitely. And I have tried to jumpstart this discussion by proposing a date for US troop withdrawal: December 31, 2006. We need to start working with a realistic set of plans and benchmarks if we are to gain control of our Iraq policy, instead of letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time.

This brings me to another facet of this Administration’s misguided approach to Iraq; another front on which our great country is growing weaker rather than stronger as a result of the Administration’s policy choices: the tremendously serious fiscal consequences of the President’s decision to put the entire Iraq war on our national tab. How much longer can the elected representatives of the American people in this Congress allow the President to rack up over a billion dollars a week in new debts? This war is draining, by one estimate, $5.6 billion every month from our economy, funds that might be used to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina recover, or to help address the skyrocketing health care costs facing businesses and families, or to help pay down the enormous debt this government has already piled up.

And not only are we weakening our economy today, this costly war is undermining our nation’s economic future because none of that considerable expenditure has been offset in the budget by cuts in spending elsewhere or revenue increases. All of it -- every penny -- has been added to the already massive debt that will be paid by future generations of Americans. For years now, this Administration has refused to budget for the costs of our ongoing operations in Iraq that can be predicted, and has refused to make the hard choices that would be required to cover those costs. Instead, the President apparently prefers to leave those tough calls to our children. In effect, we are asking future generations to pay for this war, and they will pay for it in the form of higher taxes or fewer government benefits. They stand to inherit a weakened America, one so compromised by debt and economic crisis that the promise of opportunity for all has faded.

And there is no end in sight.

In addition to that debt, the war will leave other costly legacies. Here again, it is the members of the military and their families who will endure the most severe costs. But even if the war ended tomorrow, the nation will continue to pay the price for decades to come. Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard estimates that over the next 45 years, the health care, disability, and other benefits due our Iraq war veterans will cost $315 billion. We owe our brave troops the services and benefits they are due. We owe it to them and to their children and to their grandchildren to guide the course of this country and this economy to ensure that we are in a position to deliver for our veterans and for all Americans.

I cannot support an Iraq policy that makes our enemies stronger and our own country weaker, and that is why I will not support staying the course the President has set. If Iraq were truly the solution to our national security challenges, this gamble with the future of the military and with our own economy might make sense. If Iraq, rather than such strategically more significant countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were really at the heart of the global fight against violent Islamist terrorism, this might make some sense. If it were true that fighting insurgents in Baghdad meant that we would not have to fight them elsewhere, all of the costs of this policy might make some sense. But these things are not true. Iraq is not the silver bullet in the fight against global terrorist networks. As I have argued in some detail, it is quite possible that the Administration’s policies in Iraq are actually strengthening the terrorists by helping them to recruit new fighters from around the world, giving those jihadists on-the-ground training in terrorism, and building new, transnational networks among our enemies. Meanwhile the costs of staying this course indefinitely, the consequences of weakening America’s military and America’s economy, loom more ominously before us with each passing week. There is no leadership in simply hoping for the best. We must insist on an Iraq policy that makes sense.

Indeed.

Posted at 01:52 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Technorati

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Supreme Court: I Oppose John Roberts

Posted by Bob Brigham

The Feminist Bloggers have announced opposition to John Roberts and I posted in the comments my signature to their letter and urge you to also.

The political optics are very simple: when Roberts drives the court away from Americans, Democrats need to be able to have clear contrast.

This is especially true for Democratic presidential candidates. Roberts will have a couple of years to do his worst before the primary heats up. Any presidential candidate who votes for Roberts will be blamed for Roberts.

As for rank and file Democrats, the play is easy to see. If you are on the judiciary committee you damn well better vote with your team. If a senator is going to make a comment other than opposition, don't. STFU.

Democrats win when we play as a team (i.e. Social Security). We need that now more than ever. We're watching to make sure every Democratic senator plays off the Democratic playbook;

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has told associates he intends to oppose confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice, Senate sources said Tuesday as rank and file Democrats began staking out positions on the man named to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist. [...]

As party leader, Reid had urged fellow Democrats not to announce their positions until the conclusion of last week's confirmation hearings for Roberts.

By stating his own position first, Reid likely would set the stage for strong Democratic opposition to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and former Reagan administration lawyer.

We're watching.

UPDATE: And we're talking. From MSNBC:

Bob Brigham, a Democratic blogger who writes for Swingstateproject.com said Democratic activists are following the Roberts battle more closely than they did the 1991 Clarence Thomas saga.

“With the decentralization of politics and the blogs, there are a lot more people paying attention. The Democratic base is following this very closely,” Brigham said.

If he is confirmed, Brigham predicted, “Roberts is going to have a chance to hand down some serious decisions before the 2008 presidential race heats up. And every bad decision he makes will be blamed on any Democratic senator who votes for him. Democratic senators will be held accountable individually for the bad decisions he makes between now and 2008.”

Democratic Senators need to do the right thing.

UPDATE: Full statement from Leader Harry Reid:

“One of the Senate’s most important constitutional responsibilities is to provide “advice and consent” with respect to a President’s nominations. The task is especially important when the nomination is of an individual to be the Chief Justice of the United States.

“No one doubts that John Roberts is an excellent lawyer and an affable person. But at the end of this process, I have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify a vote confirming him to this enormously important lifetime position.

“The stakes for the American people could not be higher. The retirement of Justice O’Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist have left the Supreme Court in a period of transition. On key issues affecting the rights and freedoms of Americans, the Court is closely divided. If confirmed, Judge Roberts, who is only 50 years old, will likely serve as Chief Justice and leader of the third branch of the federal government for decades to come.

“The legal authority that we will hand to Judge Roberts by this confirmation vote is awesome. In my view, we should only vote to confirm this nominee if we are absolutely positive that he is the right person to hold that authority. This is a very close question for me. But I must resolve my doubts in favor of the American people whose rights would be in jeopardy if John Roberts turns out to be the wrong person for the job.

“Some say that the President is entitled to deference from the Senate in nominating individuals to high office. I agree that such deference is appropriate in the case of executive branch nominees such as Cabinet officers. With some important exceptions, the President may generally choose his own advisors.

“In contrast, the President is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary. The Constitution envisions that the President and the Senate will work together to appoint and confirm federal judges. This is a shared constitutional duty.

“The Senate’s role in screening judicial candidates is especially important in the case of Supreme Court nominees, because the Supreme Court has assumed such a large role in resolving fundamental disputes in our civic life. As I see it, any nominee for the Supreme Court bears the burden of persuading the Senate and the American people that he or she deserves confirmation to a lifetime seat on the Court.

“Let me start by observing that Judge Roberts has been a thoughtful, mainstream judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But he has only been a member of that court for two years and has not confronted many cutting-edge constitutional issues. As a result, we cannot rely on his current judicial service to determine what kind of Supreme Court justice he would be.

“I was very impressed with Judge Roberts when I first met him, soon after he was nominated. But several factors caused me to reassess my initial view.

“Most notably, I was disturbed by the memos that surfaced from Judge Roberts’s years of service in the Reagan Administration. These memos raise serious questions about the nominee’s approach to civil rights.

“It is now clear that as a young lawyer, John Roberts played a significant role in shaping and advancing the Republican agenda to roll back civil rights protections. He wrote memos opposing legislative and judicial efforts to remedy race and gender discrimination. He urged his superiors to oppose Senator Kennedy’s 1982 bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act and worked against affirmative action programs. He derided the concept of comparable worth and questioned whether women actually suffer discrimination in the workplace.

“No one suggests that John Roberts was motivated by bigotry or animosity towards minorities or women. But these memos lead one to question whether he truly appreciated the history of the civil rights struggle. He wrote about discrimination as an abstract concept, not as a flesh and blood reality for countless of his fellow citizens. The memos raised a real question for me whether their author would breathe life into the Equal Protection Clause and the landmark civil rights statutes that come before the Supreme Court repeatedly.

“Nonetheless, I was prepared to look past these memos, and chalk them up to the folly of youth. I looked forward to the confirmation hearings in the expectation that Judge Roberts would repudiate those views in some fashion. Instead, the nominee adopted what I consider a disingenuous strategy of suggesting that the views expressed in those memos were not his views, even at the time the memos were written. He claimed that he was merely a “staff lawyer” reflecting the positions of his client, the Reagan Administration.

“Anyone who has read the memos can see that Roberts was expressing his own personal views on these important policy matters. In memo after memo, the text is clear. It is simply not plausible for the nominee to claim that he did not share the views that he expressed.

“For example, there is a memo in which he refers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as “un-American.” If Judge Roberts had testified that this was a twenty year old bad joke, I would have given the memo no weight. But instead, he provided a tortured reading of the memo that simply does not stand up under scrutiny.

“In another memo Judge Roberts spoke about a Hispanic group that President Reagan would soon address, and he suggested that the audience would be pleased to know that the Administration favored legal status for the “illegal amigos” of the audience members. The use of the Spanish word “amigos” in this memo is patronizing and offensive to a contemporary reader.

“I do not condemn Judge Roberts for using the word “amigos” twenty years ago in a non-public memo, but I was stunned when at his confirmation hearing he could not bring himself to express regret for using the term, or recognize that it might cause offense.

“My concerns about these Reagan-era memos were heightened by the fact that the White House rejected a reasonable request by Committee Democrats for documents written by Judge Roberts when he served in the first Bush Administration. After all, if memos written twenty years ago are to be dismissed as not reflecting the nominee’s mature thinking, it would be highly relevant to see memos he had written as an older man in an even more important policymaking job.

“The White House claim of attorney-client privilege to shield these documents is utterly unpersuasive. Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Gonzales for the courtesy of a meeting to discuss the matter and was turned down. This was simply a matter of stonewalling.

“The failure of the White House to produce relevant documents is reason enough for any Senator to oppose this nomination. The Administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequences.

“In the absence of these documents, it was especially important for the nominee to fully and forthrightly answer questions from Committee members at his hearing. He failed to do so adequately. I acknowledge the right – indeed, the duty – of a judicial nominee to decline to answer questions regarding specific cases that will come before the court to which the witness has been nominated. But Judge Roberts declined to answer many questions more remote than that, including questions seeking his views of long-settled precedents.

“Finally, I was very swayed by the testimony of civil rights and women’s rights leaders against confirmation. When a civil rights icon like John Lewis says that John Roberts was on the wrong side of history, Senators must take notice.

“I like Judge Roberts. I respect much of the work he has done in his career, such as his advocacy for environmentalists in the Lake Tahoe takings case several years ago. In the fullness of time, he may well prove to be a fine Supreme Court Justice. But I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the current record.

“Based on all of these factors, the balance shifts against Judge Roberts. The question is close, and the arguments against him do not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block the nomination. Nonetheless, I intend to cast my vote against this nominee when the Senate debates the matter next week.”

Posted at 02:45 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, Democrats, Site News, Supreme Court | Comments (1) | Technorati

Thursday, September 01, 2005

DLC Fuckup Endangers Evan Bayh's Presidential Bid

Posted by Bob Brigham

Former DLC Chair Evan Bayh is the man who spent four years acting cowardly by refusing to fire Al From even though From repeatedly harmed the Democratic Party by triangulating against mainstream Democrats. Under Bayh's DLC, they even enjoyed it. Now Senator Bayh wants to be President, yet for some unknown reason, he thinks the best way to make a name for himself is to make an ass of himself. From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will be introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee next week by a centrist Democrat and a veteran Republican, an important symbolic boost for his confirmation prospects.

Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat who represents Roberts' home state of Indiana, and Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, have agreed to appear with him when confirmation hearings begin Tuesday. [...]

But the presence of Bayh, a potential 2008 presidential contender, will underscore differences in the Democratic Party over the Roberts nomination. Liberals such as Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts have sharply criticized some of Roberts' positions.

Here's the thing, if Roberts is confirmed, he'll have two full years before the presidential race really heats up. Every bad decision John Roberts makes is going to be blamed on Evan Bayh. During that time, the blogosphere will double or triple in participation, so people will know about it. During that same period, the DLC will continue to lose relevance. Bayh's classic-DLC maneuver of providing bi-partisan cover for Bush does not inspire confidence in Bayh's decision making ability.

Posted at 11:01 AM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Supreme Court | Comments (6) | Technorati

Monday, August 29, 2005

Giving it 110% or 110 MPH

Posted by Bob Brigham

AP:

WAXAHACHIE, Texas (AP) _ A driver for the Rev. Al Sharpton led Ellis County Sheriff's deputies on a nine-mile chase at speeds up to 110 mph before state troopers stopped the car, authorities said.

The driver was rushing Sharpton to the airport after Sharpton had met with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Sunday at her camp outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford. The car carrying Sharpton and two other passengers was clocked doing 110 mph in a 65 mph zone on Interstate 35 in Ellis County in North Texas, said Lt. Danny Williams. [...]

Deputies arrested Jarrett Barton Maupin, 43, of Phoenix. Maupin told the officers he was hurrying to get Sharpton to the airport, Williams said. Deputies impounded the rented 2005 Lincoln.

Depending upon the wheels, the speed limiter could have actually kicked in.

Posted at 05:18 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Dems 2008: Governor Brian Schweitzer

Posted by Bob Brigham

As Bowers noted, I showed Governor Schweitzer the MyDD straw poll on Tuesday. He said people who voted for him were "smoking pinecones."

Yet in the first 1,000 votes, Schweitzer did better than Biden, Bayh, and Vilsack -- combined.

This talk had better come to an abrupt end before we run out of pinecones.

Posted at 04:54 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Montana | Comments (3) | Technorati

Dems 2008: Feingold Heads West

Posted by Bob Brigham

The Progressive Patriots Fund just sent me an advisory:

Milwaukee- US Senator Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund announced details of a major foreign policy speech he will deliver in Los Angeles on August 23 outlining the administration's failure to develop a comprehensive national security strategy in the fight against terrorism and proposing a target date for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq of December 31, 2006.

Feingold will address the Town Hall Los Angeles Association on Tuesday, August 23. Town Hall Los Angeles is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting civic participation by offering members direct access to and insight from the most influential business and political leaders. Feingold will also speak at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law on Monday, August 22.

In June, Feingold became the first senator to propose legislation calling on the President to issue a realistic set of goals for success in Iraq, along with a reasonable timeframe under which to achieve those goals and the subsequent withdrawal of US troops. Because of the conflicting signals from the administration about the scope and duration of the military mission in Iraq, Senator Feingold said he now feels obligated to propose a target completion date.

“It’s time for Congress to have a serious debate about the situation in Iraq and how it fits into the campaign against terrorism. For too long our brave service men and women have risked their lives without the benefit of a clear plan for success in Iraq,” Feingold said.

Feingold recently formed the Progressive Patriots Fund to promote a progressive reform agenda and support candidates across the country. The organization has launched an effort for citizen co-sponsors of Feingold’s proposal for a target time for the drawdown of US military presence in Iraq.

What: Major National Security Speech by Senator Russ Feingold
Where: Town Hall Los Angeles, Millennium Biltmore Hotel, 506 S Grand Ave
When: Tuesday, August 23
11:30 am – 1:30 pm

Feingold will also speak at the University of California - Los Angeles School of Law on Monday, August 22. This event is also open to the public:

What: Speech by Senator Russ Feingold Sponsored by the Public Interest
Law and Policy Program and the American Constitution Society
Where: UCLA Law School
When: Monday, August 22
4:30 pm – 5:30 pm

Posted at 12:46 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Democrats: Time to Fight

Posted by Bob Brigham

Chris Bowers has a great map of the new SUSA 50 state numbers. Bowers seems to think it is time to fight:

There isn't a single corner of this nation where Democrats are not more in line with Independents than Republicans. That's a fact. That's fifty-state potential. That's a tidal wave.

But we can't win if we don't have a candidate on the ballot. The DC crowd needs to realize this year could be tidal, but only if Democrats are ready to fight with leadership. Sirota says:

Finally, one of the top 2008 Democratic presidential contenders has the guts to take a major stand on the Iraq War. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is announcing his support for the United States to set a firm timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Though that is a position that polls show a majority of Americans support, high profile Democrats have been unwilling to come out and make that stand. In fact, just a few weeks ago, the Democratic campaign committee in Washington is actually trying to pretend the Iraq War doesn't exist. [...]

Democrats would be wise to follow Feingold's lead, instead of either parroting right-wing lies themselves like Sen. Evan Bayh (D), or cowering in a corner on Iraq because they believe any support for withdrawal will mean they will look weak on national security. That just isn't the case. Polls show Americans believe the Iraq War has made this country less safe. That means trying to end the war and get out of the situation as Feingold is calling for is a credible pro-national security position in the eyes of the public.

Big bold move by Feingold. Speaking of big bold moves, Moveon really stepped up last night.

On Wednesday, August 17, tens of thousands of supporters gathered at 1,625 vigils to acknowledge the sacrifices made by Cindy Sheehan, her son, Casey and the more than 1,800 brave American men and women who have given their lives in Iraq—and their moms and families.

I don't know what the DCCC was doing last night, but I was at my neighborhood's Moveon vigil. Some Democrats get it, not suprising where you find them. From Montana's Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

Dozens of people gathered in front of the Gallatin County Courthouse Wednesday to silently protest the war in Iraq during a candlelight vigil co-sponsored by the Gallatin County Democrats. [...]

Local Democrats sponsored the vigil along with Moveon.org, a liberal organization that opposed Bush's re-election. But the party invited anyone to participate, regardless their political affiliation. [...]

The vigil was mostly a silent affair with protesters holding lighted candles during a moment of silence that stretched several minutes. The names of soldiers who died in Iraq were projected onto a white screen set up below the giant yellow ribbon that has become a permanent display at the courthouse.

Tracy Velázquez, vice-chair of the Montana Democratic Party, provided protesters stickers with the names of fallen troops. When asked, she said she wasn't worried the vigil would be used by the party's opponents to portray it as against the soldiers.

Some Democrats aren't scared. Progress is coming from the ground up, people are tired of relying upon DC. Distributed models allow scale that is just beginning. The Gallatin Democrats' website is updated every morning. We need to fight, in every precinct in every district in every state. Tidal.

Posted at 11:40 AM in 2006 Elections, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, Democrats, Montana | Comments (5) | Technorati

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Dems 2008: DLC Scandal Dogs HRC in WaPo

Posted by Bob Brigham

Right now, there is amazing organizing going on in OH-02, preparation for Tuesday's Special Election. But the Democratic Leadership Council has been suspiciously absent. They met just 2 hours away and people asked and asked for DLC'ers to come and help -- but they were to busy with their cocktail coronations.

This is an important lesson for politicians. The DLC is fundamentally unable to deliver in a post McCain-Feingold world -- they are too lazy to walk and too few create a scalable fundraising system. Yet look what you can do by staying true and raising money $50 a head online. And choosing the DLC over the netroots comes with a price, like this Washington Post story:

The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party.

"If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN," the blog said in a reference to the New Democrat Network, with which Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas is associated. "Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period."

Anyone who supports the DLC is fair game, even Hillary. And Hillary fucked up big time with Democrats:

Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said Clinton had badly miscalculated the current politics inside the Democratic Party and argued that she could pay a price for her DLC association if she runs for president in 2008.

"There has been an activist resurgence in the Democratic Party in recent years, and Hillary risks ensuring that there's a candidate to her left appealing to those activists who don't much like the DLC," he said.

Not only is Hillary losing netroots and grassroots support by aligning herself with Al From and the DLC, but she is failing to change the dynamics.

If there were a text-book, Hillary Clinton would be breaking every rule.

Oh wait, there is a text-book. By cognitive scientist George Lakoff, and yes, Hillary is doing everything wrong. Total FUBAR.

Don't think of Al From:

Fallacy: Progressives can gain more voters by moving to the Right.

There is a myth that voters are lined up in a left-to-right line, and that to gain the support of swing voters, you must move to the center. When progressives move to the right, they lose in two ways, setting up a self-defeating double-whammy:

1. Moving to the right alienates your progressive base.

2. It actually helps conservatives because it activates their model in swing voters.

Notice that conservatives do not gain more voters by moving to the Left. What they do is stick to their strict ideology to activate their model in swing voters by being clear and consistent in policies and messages framed in terms of conservative values.

Moral: Voters are not on a left-to-right line. Stick with your ideals, frame what you believe effectively, and say what you believe. Say it well, strongly, and with moral conviction.

Did you get that, the DLC model is what cognitive scientists call a fallacy.

Clinton is getting really bad advice from Al From and her handlers. One week ago she was a Senator and the beloved former First Lady. Now she is just another member of the Democratic Losers Club trying desperately not to offend anyone on the right.

Clinton's DLC membership is sinking her potential. It is sad to watch.

Steve Gilliard has more on the Hillary's political insticts failing her.

Posted at 10:57 AM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati

Dems 2008: DLC Scandal Dogs HRC in WaPo

Posted by Bob Brigham

Right now, there is amazing organizing going on in OH-02, preparation for Tuesday's Special Election. But the Democratic Leadership Council has been suspiciously absent. They met just 2 hours away and people asked and asked for DLC'ers to come and help -- but they were to busy with their cocktail coronations.

This is an important lesson for politicians. The DLC is fundamentally unable to deliver in a post McCain-Feingold world -- they are too lazy to walk and too few create a scalable fundraising system. Yet look what you can do by staying true and raising money $50 a head online. And choosing the DLC over the netroots comes with a price, like this Washington Post story:

The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party.

"If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN," the blog said in a reference to the New Democrat Network, with which Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas is associated. "Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period."

Anyone who supports the DLC is fair game, even Hillary. And Hillary fucked up big time with Democrats:

Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said Clinton had badly miscalculated the current politics inside the Democratic Party and argued that she could pay a price for her DLC association if she runs for president in 2008.

"There has been an activist resurgence in the Democratic Party in recent years, and Hillary risks ensuring that there's a candidate to her left appealing to those activists who don't much like the DLC," he said.

Not only is Hillary losing netroots and grassroots support by aligning herself with Al From and the DLC, but she is failing to change the dynamics.

If there were a text-book, Hillary Clinton would be breaking every rule.

Oh wait, there is a text-book. By cognitive scientist George Lakoff, and yes, Hillary is doing everything wrong. Total FUBAR.

Don't think of Al From:

Fallacy: Progressives can gain more voters by moving to the Right.

There is a myth that voters are lined up in a left-to-right line, and that to gain the support of swing voters, you must move to the center. When progressives move to the right, they lose in two ways, setting up a self-defeating double-whammy:

1. Moving to the right alienates your progressive base.

2. It actually helps conservatives because it activates their model in swing voters.

Notice that conservatives do not gain more voters by moving to the Left. What they do is stick to their strict ideology to activate their model in swing voters by being clear and consistent in policies and messages framed in terms of conservative values.

Moral: Voters are not on a left-to-right line. Stick with your ideals, frame what you believe effectively, and say what you believe. Say it well, strongly, and with moral conviction.

Did you get that, the DLC model is what cognitive scientists call a fallacy.

Clinton is getting really bad advice from Al From and her handlers. One week ago she was a Senator and the beloved former First Lady. Now she is just another member of the Democratic Losers Club trying desperately not to offend anyone on the right.

Clinton's DLC membership is sinking her potential. It is sad to watch.

Steve Gilliard has more on the Hillary's political insticts failing her.

Posted at 10:57 AM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Dems 2008: Netroots Love or DLC Baggage

Posted by Bob Brigham

If you've been within earshot of the liberal blogosphere, you've probably heard of the collective eye-rolling that followed the fact that Evan Bayh, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mark Warner and Tom Vilsack all groveled before Al From at this week's DLC meeting.

Regular Swing State Project readers know of the Brigham Corollary to the 11th Commandment: If you're in the DLC you're fair game.

In the last 24 hours we've seen a huge shift in positioning for 2008 -- Hillary is no longer off limits. When she chooses the DLC over the grassroots, people will call her on it:

The DLC has always been at the forefront of intra-party mud-slinging. They're just finally being called on it, and suddenly it's time for peace? If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN.

Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period. [...]

It's truly disappointing that this is the crap Hillary has signed on to. More of the failed corporatist bullshit that has cost our party so dearly the last decade and a half.

Kos lays out the choice for 2008 Democratic candidates:

Democrats have a choice to make -- stand with the DLC, or stand with the grassroots and netroots of the party. It's interesting that Democrats with a strong sense of self -- those who truly know what they stand for and are unafraid to say so -- are those least interested in the DLC's snake oil. Obama twice had to demand the DLC take him off their list. California's Phil Angelides -- the next governor of the Golden State given Ahnold's spectacular collapse -- also demanded to be taken off their list. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who's anti-war floor speech made the internet rounds last year, also demanded to be taken off their list. Western Democrats in Montana -- blood red territory -- have shown no interest in cozying up with the DLC.

It's those Democrats who are afraid of who or what they stand for that seem most drawn to the DLC. It's a shame that Hillary has thrown in with that lot, but it's clear that she's looking for the perfect positioning. She's not confident she can win on who she is and what she stands for, so she's what, looking for cover to the charges that she's "too liberal"? Is she looking to the DLC to help define that "vital center"?

Steve Gilliard on the Democratic Leadership Council:

Mark my words. She will never make it out of the primaries if she runs.

Hillary Clinton's instincts suck. They are horrible.

Her enemies will ALWAYS paint her as a liberal, regardless of her real stands. Her name is a byword for liberalism and corruption among the right. They will fight her to their last breath. The DLC wants to use the same failed playbook it has always used, run down the middle of the road and lose to the GOP.

At the same time, all this does is alienate liberal supporters who are perplexed by her insane and pointless manuvering. Video games, abortion, all these issues do not help her. They just make her look weak and vaciliating.

John Kerry ran to the left and lost by 110K votes. He didn't hide from being a liberal and he came close enough to winning that Bush was sweating out election day. So what lesson does Clinton take from that: run to the middle. Despite every poll, every focus group that wants a strong, active Democratic party, the Democratic Loser Council wants to stay in the middle. [...]

If Hillary Clinton wants to lose with the DLC, that's her business. But lose she will.
(emphasis mine)

David Sirota on the Democratic Leadership Council:

More food for thought about the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the future of the Democratic Party...Can you imagine if an organization existed that purported to speak for Republicans, yet whose entire premise undermining the conservative base of the Republican Party? Do you think GOP presidential candidates would be flocking to address that organization's meetings? The answer, of course, is no, they wouldn't - and you can bet the GOP leadership would crush that organization before it ever got off the ground. But on the Democratic side, the story is far different.

Democratic presidential contenders go suck up to the DLC, an organization whose for the last two decades has done everything it can to undermine the Democratic Party - even going to great lengths to attack Democratic presidential candidates it doesn't like. Then, hilariously, these same Democratic politicians who genuflect to the DLC claim to be shocked - shocked! - that the public has no idea what the Democratic Party stands for anymore.

Digby on the Democratic Leadership Council:

Being lectured all the time by effete DC Democrats on "patriotism" because I don't back their reflexively hawkish foreign policy is not only insulting it's dumb. It plays into stereotypes that only serve the Republicans by turning this into a dick measuring contest when we should be turning the conversation into who can get the job done.

Ezra Klein on the Democratic Leadership Council:

...it's that their rhetorical devices for getting there tend to include 1) a lot of sniffing and despairing at all those hopelessly irresponsible liberals followed by a 2) high-minded promise to stroll into whatever trap the Republicans have set for them or 3) set one themselves if the right's been remiss.

DavidNYC on the Democratic Leadership Council:

I'm keeping an open mind about 2008 - I definitely do not have a favorite candidate, or even a group of favorites. I recognize that different candidates will try to position themselves differently, and I am not demanding fealty to the netroots. (I know as well as anyone that the blogosphere is not the be all, end all of politics.) But if and when Hillary Clinton tries to reach out to us, it's going to be hard for me to forget that she's aligned herself with Al From and the DLC.

News Blog on the Democratic Leadership Council:

Why the DLC sucks monkey balls.

Larry Johnson, professional spook, lifelong Republican, was just smeared in the Weekly Standard.

Paul Hackett, lawyer, Marine Reservist, Iraq War vet, was just smeared today, accused of lying about his military record.

So what are we supposed to do, imitate that little coward Peter Beinart and be PNAC's bitch?

I think not.

Sirota on the Democratic Leadership Council:

But that doesn't fit the DLC's goals, which are to undermine the Democratic Party. Instead of working to debunk these right-wing stereotypes, these insulated Beltway snobs seem to only feel relevant if they reinforce the right-wing stereotypes parroted by Fox News and the Republican Party. It just shows that for Democrats who want to win - and not just preserve their status on the Washington cocktail party circuit - the DLC is really part of the problem, not the solution.

Let's be clear - the DLC has done masterfully in selling its snake oil by always claiming that Democrats need a coherent "positive" agenda. No one argues with that. The problem is that the DLC offers neither a coherent agenda, or anything positive.

Indeed. Candidates have a choice, people or corporations -- grassroots or DLC. It is an either/or question.

If a candidate is still on the DLC List of Shame -- they will NOT get my support. Primary. General. None. Even HRC.

UPDATE: (Bob) Sirota has more on the DLC at the Huffington Post.

Two words:

Open

Fuckin'

Season

Posted at 04:27 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (2) | Technorati

Friday, July 22, 2005

DLC and the Political 11th Commandment

Posted by Bob Brigham

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Reagan understood that it was counter-productive to triangulate against members of one's own Party.

This cap is lifted when a Democrat triangulates against fellow Democrats. Associating with the DLC, lifts the cap. The DLC is only relevant to the extent they attack Democrats, water-down message, and break solidarity. Smart politicians are fleeing the DLC but those who remain are fair game.

Kos says:

Three presidential contenders are trekking to the DLC's annual conference in Ohio, giving the organization a boost of legitimacy at a time when it faces increasing irrelevance in the political scene.

Evan Bayh, Hillary Clinton, and Tom Vilsack are all dutifully trecking to Ohio to worship at the altar of the "vital center" -- that elusive moving target that has conspired to rob Democrats of all conviction. Every time you hear a Democrat talk about how Democrats don't stand for anything? That's the DLC, as they urge Democrats to chase after a "center" that gets constantly redefined rightward by an ideologically principled Republican party.

As we strive to find our core convictions, and define who we are and what we stand for as a party, the DLC is one of the roadblocks -- a divisive, fundamentalist organization willing to sell any and all progressive ideals to the altar of big business. And anything that threatens their dominance has met with their ire -- be it Howard Dean, the netroots, or regular people suddenly interested in transforming and reforming the Democratic Party.

Democrats have a choice to make -- stand with the DLC, or stand with the grassroots and netroots of the party.
(emphasis mine)

Remember what wrote last month...

The DLC is in debt for the hatchet job against (now DNC Chairman) Howard Dean and in 2007 the bill will come due. Under the turnabout is fair play rule this is certainly valid and the score will not only be settled, but settled with interest. Bayh, Vilsack, Clinton...it doesn't really matter who, for the result is the same when one lies down with dogs.

As Kos continues:

It's interesting that Democrats with a strong sense of self -- those who truly know what they stand for and are unafraid to say so -- are those least interested in the DLC's snake oil. Obama twice had to demand the DLC take him off their list. California's Phil Angelides -- the next governor of the Golden State given Ahnold's spectacular collapse -- also demanded to be taken off their list. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who's anti-war floor speech made the internet rounds last year, also demanded to be taken off their list. Western Democrats in Montana -- blood red territory -- have shown no interest in cozying up with the DLC.

The choice seems clear.

Posted at 01:48 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats, Netroots | Comments (3) | Technorati

Monday, July 11, 2005

Dems 2008: Brian Schweitzer

Posted by Bob Brigham

From the (subscription only) Roll Call:

It’s forest fire season in the Mountain West.

But if disaster were to strike in drought-stricken Montana, many of the people who would be expected to fight the fires are half a world away.

Fully half of Montana’s National Guard — and most of its helicopters — are deployed in Iraq. And Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) is fired up about it.

Schweitzer wants to start a dialogue about the way the military has changed its ratio of active-duty to Reserve and Guard forces — a policy in place long before the war in Iraq but one whose full impact is only now being felt.

“One of the things they didn’t consider in this policy,” said Schweitzer, “is that there are governors who are commanders-in-chief of the Guard and they have important missions for them at home.”

It is this willingness to criticize Republican policymakers in plainspoken ways that has some Democratic activists touting Schweitzer as a dark-horse candidate for president in 2008.

“I’m still waiting to see if the Democrats will get behind a pro-choice, red-state governor, who says what he means and means what he says,” wrote Bob Brigham, co-creator of the Swing State Project, a Web log affiliated with a political action committee for Democratic bloggers. “Bonus points for a western candidate, double bonus points for speaking Arabic. Triple bonus points for a dog named Jag.”

Schweitzer’s supporters think the governor, a rancher and farmer who picked a Republican state Senator to run with him as lieutenant governor last year, has a knack for critiquing GOP policies in a way that sounds more populist than partisan.

Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is also backing Schweitzer, whom he called “a genuine version of Bush’s fake ranch.”

Because Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is seen as the overwhelming early favorite for the Democratic nomination, and because so many better-known politicians are gearing up for 2008, the idea of Schweitzer running for president may seem preposterous. Brigham doesn’t think so.

“What do the insiders know?” he asked. (emphasis mine)

I'm glad reporters are realizing you can quote posts just like you quote on the phone...

But, Swing State Project is not affiliated with any polical action committee, this is just another online magazine. And I'm not a co-creator, I'm just a dude. But I'm a dude who wishes Montana had all of the tools necessary to fight this year's fires.

Democratic strategist Chris Lehane doesn’t think anyone can be elected president in 2008 who is not seen as strong on national security. But the former spokesman to then-Vice President Al Gore does not think Schweitzer is at risk of looking weak.

“The way he communicates, the way he looks, the way he talks — he obviously is a hunter,” Lehane said. “His whole character and personality profile make it clear that he is no softie.”

And on domestic issues:

Schweitzer also has taken issue with the Bush administration’s domestic priorities.

When the nation’s governors gathered at the White House in February, Schweitzer likened the president’s pitch, which emphasized Social Security over Medicaid, to a livestock auction that fails to tempt buyers. The headline in the next day’s Los Angeles Times read: “Montana Governor Isn’t Cowed by Bush.”

The governor’s populist touch also on display last year when he brought hunters and fishermen into his camp by exploiting GOP vulnerabilities on field and stream access. On the same day that President Bush was trouncing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by 20 points in Montana, Schweitzer managed a 4-point win.

Schweitzer counts prescription drug subsidies for seniors, purchasing pools to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses and a college scholarship program among his first-year achievements.

Money quote:

Another potential problem for Schweitzer would be time on the ground in the states that host the early contests. Warner will be out of office starting in 2006. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), another Democrat hoping to upend the Clinton train, is already out of office.

But in a party with a history of nominating heretofore obscure governors, nobody is writing Schweitzer off just yet.

“It’s a huge leap to go from being the governor of Montana to a presidential campaign in a couple of years,” Lehane said. “On the other hand, the guy seems to be a huge talent. He could be the Jimmy Carter of 2008.”

UPDATE: (Bob): Sirota has more at the Huffington Post.

Posted at 11:22 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Montana, Site News | Technorati

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

2008: Western Democratic Primary

Posted by Bob Brigham

Our friends at Western Democrat have spent a good deal of blog-inches talking about a potential 2008 Western Democratic Primary. In the late 90's, there was a similiar push geared towards the 2000 election (since it would be an open seat), but it flopped. Eight years later, we are in a similiar situation, yet further away from the goal. That needs to change, people need to get the job done. Now that Dan Kemmis is writing about this in the western papers, hopefully it will get some traction. From David Sirota:

Few argue that the Democratic Party needs a shakeup - and former Montana House Speaker Dan Kemmis says there's no better idea than staging a Western Democratic presidential primary in 2008. It's time for some of the states in this region to play a pivotal role in shaping the party, and being a critical part of the presidential primary is just the trick.

Kari Chrisholm reminds us of the score:

Since 1960, the convention has been in California twice (SF 1984, LA 2000) but otherwise never west of Chicago.

Kemmis in the Denver Post:

The Democratic National Committee has created a commission to see if changes in the primary calendar can help Democrats choose presidential candidates with greater nationwide appeal. At a meeting in Chicago in May, the commission heard three proposals to accomplish that, all involving the regional clustering of primaries.

The most compelling of these proposals came from a group called Democrats for the West. They backed a plan that had been endorsed last year by the bipartisan Western Governors' Association, calling for a simultaneous primary or caucus in the eight Mountain West states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

Kemmis has quite a case:

Partisan motivations will naturally be at work in all of this. Western Democrats believe a Western primary could help generate some electoral votes in the region. As Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., wrote to the Democratic National Committee's commission, "In presidential elections, we are often viewed by party leaders, national political pundits and other national 'experts' as a 'Republican Red Sea' impossible to cross, like a great desert more to be endured than embraced."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., set the record straight, reminding the commission that "Democrats can win in Western states as evidenced by the recent ballot victories in Montana, Colorado and Nevada." Jerry Brady, an announced Democratic candidate for governor of Idaho, told the commission, "Our request for an early, regionwide primary and caucus season is ... based on the conviction that the time is right to capitalize on rapid gains already made."

Indeed, the timing is perfect. Sirota reminds us of the challenge and the benefits:

Sure, this will threaten the consulting class in Washington that has made a career out of running the same tired campaigns in the same primary states. And sure, it might make the usual suspects who are mentioned as candidates in 2008 nervous - but that's the point. It's time for some new blood, and for some other states to make their mark on the Democratic Party.

Posted at 10:18 AM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Dems 2008: Biden Starts a PAC

Posted by Bob Brigham

Senator Joe Biden has started a new PAC and website ~ www.UniteOurStates.com. The theme seems to be that Biden can unite, which he recently proved after he attacked Howard Dean. The problem is that Biden united people against him, which probably isn't what the credit card industry's lapdog had in mind.

Posted at 12:51 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (1) | Technorati

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Dems 2008: Hillary and the DLC

Posted by Bob Brigham

Swing State Project founder DavidNYC saves his best stuff for Daily Kos:

To me, it doesn't really matter what Clinton's role in the DLC is. What matters is the message that this move sends. No matter how many times Ed Kilgore tries to tell us that our disgust with the DLC is misplaced, most of us won't soon forget the frequency and vigor with which Al From baselessly bashed Howard Dean, his supporters, and by extension, much of the progressive activist base.

I'm keeping an open mind about 2008 - I definitely do not have a favorite candidate, or even a group of favorites. I recognize that different candidates will try to position themselves differently, and I am not demanding fealty to the netroots. (I know as well as anyone that the blogosphere is not the be all, end all of politics.) But if and when Hillary Clinton tries to reach out to us, it's going to be hard for me to forget that she's aligned herself with Al From and the DLC.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, a candidate for President doesn't want to play porter with Al From's baggage. Paybacks are a bitch and I for one have very little tolerance for the DLC triangulation technique of attacking fellow Democrats to try to appear moderate.

As Stirling says:

I Believe that the Democratic Party will not win elections until Democrats go after Republicans with the same joy they go after fellow Democrats.

That is the problem with the DLC -- they are only relevant to the extent they triangulate against other Democrats. When the Democratic Party needs them (i.e. nuclear option), they are nowhere to be found.

The DLC is in debt for the hatchet job against (now DNC Chairman) Howard Dean and in 2007 the bill will come due. Under the turnabout is fair play rule this is certainly valid and the score will not only be settled, but settled with interest. Bayh, Vilsack, Clinton...it doesn't really matter who, for the result is the same when one lies down with dogs.

Posted at 12:18 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Monday, June 27, 2005

Warner Flips, then Flops...Breaking Hand

Posted by Bob Brigham

From The Guardian:

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Gov. Mark R. Warner broke his bill-signing hand Monday in a spill from his bicycle.

Warner, 50, was treated at a hospital after suffering two broken bones in his right hand, said press secretary Kevin Hall. [...]

Warner lost control as he was approaching a railroad track and holding a water bottle in one hand, leaving him unable to apply pressure evenly to brakes for the front and rear wheels, Hall said. Warner apparently squeezed the front brakes too hard, flipping the bike.

I'm trying not to laugh, really, I am.

Hat Tip to David Boyle.

Posted at 05:04 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Dems 2008: Evan Bayh Blog

Posted by Bob Brigham

Senator Even Bayh now has a blog. It will be interesting to see if such efforts are successful in countering the notion that he's a DLC tool. Blogs are powerful, but not magical, so I'm not holding my breath...

Posted at 02:56 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (1) | Technorati

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Dems-2008: John Edwards Netroots Outreach

Posted by Bob Brigham

Over at the The American Prospect, Garance Franke-Ruta lands an important scoop:

John Edwards isn't just taking to blogging like a fish to water over at TPMCafe, he's also doing some pretty serious outreach to those who occupy the new media space more generally. Last night the former vice-presidential candidate had a bunch of the political bloggers over for dinner at his D.C. house, I'm told, to meet with him, his internet team, and his wife. Attendees included: Taegan Goddard, Matt Stoller, Stirling Newberry, Ezra Klein, and Oliver Willis, among others.

Focusing on the blogosphere is a pretty smart way for Edwards to keep his name in print and before the eyes of the mainstream media over the next few years. And with Howard Dean declining an '08 run, there's room for a new player in the blogosphere/new media space that used to be exclusively his. Gaining the loyalty of bloggers -- which is not that hard to do if you just talk to them -- could have implications for Edwards' future fundraising and media strategies, should he decide to run for office again, either nationally or in North Carolina. And it will certainly give him a higher media profile on an ongoing basis if his goal is to be a Democratic Party and issue leader rather than a candidate.

I just finished watching John Edward's first videocast.

Swing State Project focuses a good deal of post-inches looking at the evolving nature of online politics. Tagaris and I both do this professionally and DavidNYC is an old-school leader online, so our passion for cutting-edge tactics ties in perfectly with our focus on the evolving nature of political campaigns.

First on the videocast, I like Edward's podcast efforts more because I think they offer more content, but with a candidate like him, I fully understand why his team is blazing some new ground to get his face attached to his message.

While Edwards fielded a question about online communication and immediately started thinking about the ATM, he recovered nicely by bringing it back to message distribution and interaction. I think he gets it. He realizes that the middleman isn't needed, that instead of pestering the netroots to raise money to pay to distribute message, post-modern campaigns have more latitude to simply distribute message -- focusing on the content rather than paying for the cost of the container.

Now back to the dinner. That is a helluva a group of people to share a table with. Goddard provides an answer before many know the question, Stoller is a fucking genius, Sterling a sage, Klein is a glimpse of what is to come, and Willis is one of the most detail-oriented people to ever keep people focused on the big picture -- some of the best of the best. But as Garance pointed out, it would have been nice for some of the great female voices to be included.

At the end of the day, I don't find it very interesting who Edwards had or didn't have at dinner. I don't find it interesting that he was reaching out to bloggers -- both of the grassroots presidential candidates have figured this out. What I find interesting is that this might get enough play with the inside-the-beltway crowd that politicians who are running for something other than president will follow Edwards leadership and cut out the middleman when it comes to communication.

No matter where you are running, if there are bloggers who write about your district, you should have them over for dinner. While this makes complete sense for the presidential candidates (even their consultants figured this one out), it has been slow to catch on locally.

Looking at the 2008 Democratic Primary, two candidates have really focused on reaching out to the netroots. Democrats running for statewide or federal offices would be wise to rip off the best ideas these two candidates are using. Don't worry, both gentleman want Democrats to succeed and I think would be proud to have you steal their ideas.

The one thing both candidates have realized is that more people will visit other websites than will visit their campaign websites. Tagaris calls this "thinking outside the website" and is a test that quickly shows who gets post-modern communication and who is waiting for fossilization.

The problem is, there aren't enough of us who specialize in this. The smart candidates will have grabbed all of the blog-consulting talent with experience -- by the end of the summer.

So the problem that will face candidates is how to make it without reinventing the wheel -- without being able to hire the people who built the wheel the first time around.

My advice to every Democrat I won't work for is to follow the lead of the grassroots presidential candidates and the bad-ass senate candidate. Hire young people with sound political instincts and reverse engineer the best practices at the national level.

Congressional candidates are building message structures like they are running state-wide, senate candidates are running like they're running for president, and already people are campaigning for 2008. Some know what is going on, some are complete wankers, follow the best of the pack and local campaigns will shine.

But go locally. Plan realizing that Matt Stoller isn't going to have dinner with you. Localization is the key in 2006. Yes, Edwards can nationalize and Jon Tester will nationalize, but for 99% of the candidates the key is localization.

Posted at 11:51 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Democrats 2008: Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund

Posted by Bob Brigham

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold has launched:

www.ProgressivePatriotsfund.com

Why?

From Senator Feingold:

The Progressive Patriots Fund is dedicated to promoting a progressive reform agenda and supporting candidates across the country.

This organization will enable me to be a part of a larger national effort to build the Democratic Party throughout America. I plan to travel across the country, listen to others, speak out on important issues and advance a progressive reform agenda.

The challenges far too many Americans face every day did not go away with the past election. I will continue to give voice to those who believe we must work to provide health care for all Americans, protect and create jobs, ensure fiscal responsibility, and fight terrorism while also protecting our freedoms.

In both so-called red and blue states, people have a voice that needs to be heard. People in every state want a dialogue that moves beyond the electoral partisan politics and ideology that divide us.

That is why I intend to help begin a dialogue about how we move forward as a country united by the values we share and the challenges we face together.

"Travel across the country"? Very interesting...

Posted at 01:30 PM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Saturday, May 14, 2005

Iowa to Hold Pole Position in Primaries

Posted by Bob Brigham

From the Des Moines Register:

Despite the clamor from some national Democrats to dump Iowa from its leading role in the presidential nominating race, only one alternative to the traditional Iowa-New Hampshire kickoff will be offered when national party leaders meet this weekend.

Of the three proposals to be presented to a Democratic National Committee commission in Chicago on Saturday, only Michigan's delegation is expected to challenge the traditional first-in-the-nation status of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire pri- mary.

Observers say, as some commission members do privately, that it's unlikely Iowa and New Hampshire will lose their coveted positions as the first major nominating contests in 2008.

With Mark Brewer leading the Michigan delegation, their influence is tiny (ask Donnie Fowler). It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Chicago meetings.

Posted at 10:02 AM in 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Monday, May 09, 2005

Evan Bayh Presidential Ambitions

Posted by Bob Brigham

I was reading the new Fort Wayne Journal Gazette article on Senator Evan Bayh's potential presidential bid, when I was struck by the fact that the Democratic Leadership Council ended up in the story. While using the DLC to raise a campaign profile was a smart move 15 years ago, does it really benefit a candidate in 2008 to be seen as the DLC candidate?

The fundraising potential of the DLC is waning and far less critical than a successful online strategy. But it is the liability of being seen as the DLC candidate that interests me.

In the 2004, the DLC ruthlessly cut down Governor Howard Dean in the primaries. In our recent DNC Chair election, bloggers had their first taste of payback by quickly destroying any potential the DLC's Tim Roemer might have enjoyed.

But DNC Chair isn't nearly as important to Party direction as choosing the 2008 Presidential nominee and I have to think that being seen as the DLC choice would be the kiss of death for a candidate. In 2004, everyone but the DLC took the high road and next time I think many forces will quickly go negative on anyone seen as the DLC candidate. Much like Al From was too radioactive to even make an endorsement for DLC Chair, how long will it be until Presidential candidates distance themselves from the DLC for the sake of their campaign?

Anyway, back to the article:

Bayh is offering all the clues of someone who wants to ensure he has those resources if he wants to call upon them. He’s making prudent, campaign-building steps:

•Since entering the Senate, Bayh has been raising money with far more aggression than his Indiana races warrant and now has $6.8 million in his campaign account.

•He has worked on raising his national profile, using his role in the Democratic Leadership Council to travel all over the country. Of the $206,000 he’s raised in checks of $200 or more from individuals since the beginning of the year, just $1,000 is from Indiana.

•He created a campaign fund that allows him to make donations to other candidates, always a friend-making gesture. In the 2004 election, he made $209,000 in donations to other candidates from this political action committee.

•He’s been making speeches to Democratic audiences outside Indiana. This gives him practice with non-Hoosier crowds, introduces him to Democratic audiences around the country, and puts his name in local newspapers. In March, he was the keynoter at Colorado’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner. Last week he addressed a Butler County, Ohio, Truman Kennedy Holcomb Dinner. (This was the county Karl Rove made a speech in, the county that gave President Bush a 53,000-vote plurality, his largest in the state.)

•He has been courting the national media for years, and he has hired staff members with skills a presidential contender needs.

Posted at 08:54 AM in 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | Comments (1) | Technorati

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Dems: Stem Cell Matrix

Posted by Bob Brigham

San Francisco's new Stem-Cell research headquarters will allow an agressive young mayor to nationalize a cultural wedge issue that cuts through the heart of the GOP base. Democrats can make an investment in nationalizing this issue as tactically perfect in the short term and paying long term dividends as the research progresses.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

San Francisco was chosen as the headquarters city Friday for California's $3 billion stem cell program, overcoming a strong challenge from San Diego and Sacramento in a battle that was decided mainly on regional loyalties.

Mayor Gavin Newsom called it a historic achievement for a city and region struggling to find its economic footing after suffering through the collapse of the dot-com bubble.

"This secures our future as a point of destination for discovery," Newsom said. [...]

[Newsom] said the "fundamental" factor was San Francisco's global status as a trend-setting place where experimentation is part of the daily fabric of life.

While Newsom has only been mayor for 16 months, he already found success at leading the Democratic Party through bold action that nationalizes our values.

Newsom was vindicated for the Winter of Love, he is now pushing forward on all fronts.

San Francisco Examiner columnist P.J. Corkerly:

On Gavin Newsom's desk in City Hall, near his iPod with its 2,198 tunes, sits a black binder called "The Matrix." It's not the wine list from Matrix/Fillmore, the sleek urban bar in Cow Hollow that he founded and to which he still retreats (the second-story office of Matrix/Fillmore is a kind of unofficial second mayoral office). … Rather, the black binder is one of five or six such binders — and one tattered magazine from May 24, 1968, with an Andy Warhol pop-art cover — that he refers to often in the course of the day.

The Matrix book itself is something new in U.S. politics: a constantly updated (via PDAs and pencils) database, possible only in this era, and probably manageable only by a mayor interested in weaving his knowledge of the dynamics of day-to-day politics with the data-weaving possibilities of the tech he also loves so well.

What is the Matrix?

The Matrix is a written record of every promise he has made as a candidate and as mayor, and of every idea he has uttered or promised to look into. The Matrix also records every action taken, or not taken, on these promises and ideas — and why. ... Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York, used to get in citizens' faces and sputter, "How'm I doin'?" He would have loved The Matrix.

It's candid. Of his own proposal to station fire trucks and firefighters on street corners as a crime deterrent, Newsom's Matrix says, "Terrible idea."

"You succeed by failing," says Newsom. "I hope to keep embarrassing myself. It's only by throwing out the ideas that prove to be bad as well as those that are obviously good that you make any progress.

"But you need accountability. That's why I have The Matrix. The day gets so busy you can't otherwise keep track of everything. It's good politics, too. People are always happy to meet the mayor; they have ideas and problems. But if you don't follow up, then at the end of the term, yeah, you've met a lot of people. Disappointed people.

Keeping track of the push for stem-cells will keep the issue in the limelight politically as Newsom does everything possible to foster the science.

While 2004 presidential candidates were running from the issue of Gay Marriage, Newsom was establishing himself as a civil rights leader. While everyone running in 2008 is seeking to be known nationally, Newsom is finding success at global recognition.

It is one thing when a politican can bring together the money and wherewithal to fix a pothole. But it is on an entirely different level when the potential returns are in the range that stem-cells offer.

And it is a great issue for Democrats and disaster for Republicans. First, the GOP needs to worry about the red state brain drain that will result from Newsom's capitolization of San Francisco as the bio-tech leader. Second, the GOP distance from most Americans on the issue has significant backlash potential.

Newsom deserves much credit to-date, but now the real work begins, as a Chronicle editorial noted:

But city officials, led by Mayor Gavin Newsom, also made a sterling case to be the home of the $3 billion California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Against a tight deadline, they put together a package that will provide the stem-cell center with an incentive package estimated to be worth $17 million, including 10 years of free rent, nearly $1 million worth of hotel accommodations and free use of laboratory facilities.

But now the hard work begins. California voters decided to invest billions on the promise of pioneering research, even though there is no guarantee of success. But the Golden State was built on such visionary risks, and now San Francisco must show it is the proper place to lead this breakthrough medical and technological effort.

Godspeed.

Posted at 04:53 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, California | Technorati

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

OH-02: A Strange Twist

Posted by DavidNYC

The special election in Ohio's second district can't be scheduled, as I understand things, until Rep. Rob Portman actually gets confirmed as trade rep and steps down from his House seat. The committee responsible for his nomination approved him unanimously, but now there's a bit of a hold-up:

But Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, has placed a "hold" on the nomination. This could block Portman from being confirmed in time to represent the United States at a trade meeting early next week in Paris.

Bayh wants Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, to schedule a vote on a China trade bill strongly supported by U.S. manufacturers and many other lawmakers in exchange for dropping his hold.

The bill Bayh is pushing would allow the Commerce Department to put duties on Chinese imports to offset government subsidies. That could encourage U.S. companies to file a flood of cases charging China with subsidizing exports. (Emphasis added.)

This is definitely an interesting move by Bayh, and if I wanted to, I suppose I could also label this a post on the 2008 presidential election. I have to believe that the DLC - a group with which Bayh, moreso than almost any other elected Democrat today, energetically associates himself - opposes this kind of "protectionism." Maybe I'm wrong on that specific detail, but nonetheless, this strikes me as a sort of economically populist move designed to showcase Bayh's bona fides for the sake of certain parts of the Dem base.

As for Ohio's second, this procedural move by Bayh could delay the special election there - for how long, I'm not certain. I have a feeling that Portman won't be made to cool his heels for very long, but if Bayh is tenacious (and this could get him exactly the kind of press he's hoping for), then maybe the nomination will get put on hold for a while. And Frist has shown himself to be an incompetent parliamentarian - I wouldn't be surprised if Bayh could deviously outsmart him on this one.

Posted at 04:37 PM in 2005 Elections, 2008 President - Democrats, Ohio | Comments (1) | Technorati

Monday, April 25, 2005

2008: Evan Bayh Running for President

Posted by Bob Brigham

Indianapolis Star:

Although the $6.8 million in U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh's campaign fund is more than most of his colleagues have on hand, Bayh continues to cross the country to raise more, according to his most recent campaign disclosure report.

The Indiana Democrat won't say whether he's preparing for a potential presidential bid in 2008. But he apparently doesn't mind joking about the possibility. [...]

"A president from Indiana," Bayh said. "It kind of has a little resonance to it."

The quote is funny, but it is the fundraising effort that keeps his name in the Cattle Call.

Posted at 08:51 AM in 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (1) | Technorati

Friday, April 22, 2005

2006: Schweitzer Wins

Posted by Bob Brigham

Chick Johnson:

HELENA - Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday passed out the accolades to members of the Montana Legislature for their work and for approving nearly all of the items on his agenda.

"I think that this Legislature has done a wonderful job in this session," Schweitzer told reporters at a morning press conference. "As the chief executive I would ask for little more than they delivered. While all the ink is not dry yet, it appears as though we're going to do some pretty remarkable things in this legislative session.''

He congratulated the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate and House and paid tribute to the freshman lawmakers who were empowered to stand up for their beliefs on the bills. At times, Schweitzer was able to persuade some freshman Republican representatives to support his proposals, even as the GOP House leaders opposed them.

So here is the press version of the laundry list:

• Promote the production of ethanol in Montana by mandating its use in fuel.
• Require groceries to put up signs telling people the country of origin of most meat sold in stores, even as Congress had passed a similar requirement but postponed it and is considering making it voluntary.
• Reinvest money in state's colleges of technology, the two-year schools.
• Put $80 million into Montana's K-12 school funding over the next two years, which Schweitzer called one of the largest increases in state history.
• Set a balanced budget that will have a projected surplus or general fund balance of about $80 million as of mid-2007, without raising taxes and that honors the spirit of the budget spending cap.
• Eliminate the property tax on business equipment for some 13,000 businesses by raising the exemption from the tax to $20,000 in business equipment, up from the current $5,000.
• Crack down on methamphetamine use in Montana through a series of measures that Schweitzer said amount to the strongest package in the nation, apart from Oklahoma's.
• Help improve access for hunting and fishing by making permanent the Habitat Montana, block management and the fishing access enhancement programs.
• Reinstate the Made in Montana program, which the administration of Republican Gov. Judy Martz had discontinued, to promote items produced and grown in Montana.

Indeed.

Posted at 01:38 AM in 2008 President - Democrats, Montana | Comments (1) | Technorati

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

SF-Mayor (2007): Time Magazine Clocks Newsom at 80%

Posted by Bob Brigham

From the San Francisco Examiner:

Time puts Newsom's approval rating at 80 percent, which Newsom political consultant Eric Jaye said is "in the ballpark."

"It may be a few points higher or lower," said Jaye. "He is enjoying an extraordinary level of popular support given how contentious San Francisco politics are."

During his brief tenure in office Newsom has been the subject of glowing pieces in GQ, Esquire, Harper's Bazaar, and the New Yorker. Time also singled out Newsom for its 2004 "People Who Mattered" feature.

The first paragraph says he's looking good for re-election in 2007, the last paragraph reminds us why he might be looking good in 2008.

Posted at 03:32 PM in 2007 Elections, 2008 President - Democrats, California | Comments (1) | Technorati

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

08-Dem: Governor Brian Schweitzer for Campaign Manager

Posted by Bob Brigham

While Kos wants Schweitzer for President, I'd be happy to have him manage the campaign. In a must read Salon interview, Montana's Governor Brian Schweitzer offers the following advice:

And how do you persuade the most conservative voters -- the ones for whom abortion and gay marriage are be-all, end-all issues -- that they should think about education and healthcare as important "moral values" too?

The most conservative voters? The beauty is that I only need about 50 percent to win. The most conservative voters will not even give me a shot. I don't need 100 percent of the vote. Just do the right thing, for God's sake. And if that means I'm only going to be governor for the next three and a half years, so be it. Just tell 'em who are you are, tell 'em what you believe in, and tell 'em in a way that they're gonna believe you.

Schweitzer on standing up:

"You know who the most successful Democrats have been through history?" he asks. "Democrats who've led with their hearts, not their heads. Harry Truman, he led with his heart. Jack Kennedy led with his heart. Bill Clinton, well, he led with his heart, but it dropped about 2 feet lower in his anatomy later on.

"We are the folks who represent the families. Talk like you care. Act like you care. When you're talking about issues that touch families, it's OK to make it look like you care. It's OK to have policies that demonstrate that you'll make their lives better -- and talk about it in a way that they understand. Too many Democrats -- the policy's just fine, but they can't talk about it in a way that anybody else understands."

That sounds like a not-so-veiled criticism of John Kerry.

Oh, Washington, D.C. The problem is, they get to Washington, they drink that water, they get Washington-speak. This is not a criticism of John Kerry. It's the reason that people keep saying, "Oh, [the next Democratic president is] likely to be a governor." It's because governors are faced with this all the time: Their language has to be the language that is clear enough for Joe or Mary Six-Pack to understand. When you speak on the Senate floor or on the House floor or in a Cabinet meeting, you don't even have to use the words that we use. It's a new language -- you know, "budget reconciliation, blah blah blah blah."

No. When you're out visiting with folks in a way that touches their heart, you tell them, "We're going to find the money to do the right thing." Well, when a senator stands on the Senate floor, it'd take him two hours to explain that.

It isn't about policy stances:

You need to have good solid policy -- that's important. But you've got to touch people. They've got to know you; they've got to know that you believe in what you're saying. And that's probably more important when people vote than your policies. Because how the hell are they going to raise their families, maybe work two jobs, go hunting on the weekend, bowl and drink beer with the boys on Tuesday night, and still have enough time to figure out who's telling the truth about the budget, about healthcare, about education?

So it's about the candidate himself -- about coming across as authentic and as someone voters will say is "one of us"?

They look up there and say, "That guy's a straight shooter. If I wasn't so busy bowling and working and fishing, and if I had time to spend on these issues, I bet I'd come to the same conclusions that that guy would. But it's a good thing that he's doing all that studying and stuff, because I'm busy fishing and bowling."

On consultants:

What happened was -- consultants. "Oh, this issue, that issue, some other issue." They're all talking about the issues. And I just kept pushing them in the Senate race: "Why don't we just run the gun ad and nothing else?" And they said, "No, no we've got all these issues."

So this time around, when we started shooting ads, they had some polling data, and they knew what pushed the buttons of the people in Montana. And I said, "No. This is the way this campaign is going to work: The more times that we run ads with me on a horse or carrying a gun -- it's better if I'm doing both -- the more likely it is that we'll call me a governor at the end of the day. Because what those ads said is, "I'm a real Montanan."

Talk is cheap...

A whole lot of it's visual. I heard somebody say, very early in the last presidential campaign, that they turned the volume off on their television and just watched the two candidates, and they said, "Bush is going to win." You know, when Bush walked in the room, he'd say, "Oh, hey, how ya doin' there?" giving somebody a high-five right there, giving somebody a thumbs up. When Kerry walked in, he found his way to the podium, and he described in painful detail -- with big words, in a strong way -- all the things that he was going to make right for the American people. [...]

Look, I started this out by saying that Democrats can win if they lead with their hearts. Let people feel you! Don't try to verbalize. Let them feel you first. If you're not a passionate person -- I happen to be. If I'm for something, you're gonna know it pretty quick. And if I'm agin it, you're gonna know it too. I'm straight about those things. Some people can't do that. Maybe they've had a lot of time in politics, or they're lawyers, or it's just their makeup. And they have all these highfalutin pollsters and media people, and they say, "Well, there's this demographic that kind of bleeds into this demographic, and you don't want to lose these over here because you were on this." I don't believe any of it. I think most people will support you if they know that you'll stand your ground.

Even if they don't stand on the same ground?

That's right.

On electability:

And then it was "electability." Democrats were thinking, "Oh gosh, we've just got to win. Let's get somebody that's electable." And they thought, "This guy Kerry, he's a smart guy, a senator; he served in the war, so they can't ding him for that; he voted for the war." So they started making it into a thinking thing rather than using the heart. Now, Kerry may have been the best candidate, but he wasn't selected because he was the best candidate from the heart. He was selected because in Iowa and New Hampshire people intellectualized it. They said -- and remember, this wasn't Joe and Mary Six-Pack making this decision -- "I love Howard Dean, but I think I'll marry John Kerry because Mom and Dad are going to like him better."

Schweitzer's first 100 days in office were a huge success. If we don't let the DLC water down our populist message, this can be the playbook for historic wins across the west during the 2006 backlash.

Posted at 01:05 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Democrats | Technorati

Monday, April 18, 2005

MT-Gov: Schweitzer's First 100 Days

Posted by Bob Brigham

AP:

HELENA - With a red carnation perched on his lapel and sprouting a small banner proclaiming "100 Days," Brian Schweitzer sat casually in his Capitol office and grinned.

And why not? Montana's first Democratic governor in 16 years reached this landmark of his new administration with little to complain about.

While Schweitzer has little to worry about, the same can't be said of the GOP:

They don't like that he wears jeans with his tie and sports jacket [...] GOP leaders complain that Schweitzer bullies contrary lawmakers

Of course, Schweitzer denies he bullies those poor, wittle wepublicans.

But nobody is spending worry about Bob Keenan and game because they are too busy admiring Schweitzer's budding legacy:

Craig Wilson, who heads the political science department at Montana State University-Billings, said Schweitzer has reason for satisfaction.

"He's gotten what he's wanted," he said, attributing the successes to Schweitzer's elaborate preparations for becoming chief executive.

"You've got to have some ideas to start with, some policy proposals to start with," Wilson said. "You have to hit the ground running. He has some ideas to start with. He showed that coming out of the box."

Schweitzer's successes are all the more remarkable in the face of GOP animosity, Wilson said.

"Democrats elected a governor for the first time in 16 years and there were bad political feelings going into the session," Wilson said. "He won and Republicans are angry over reapportionment. They were mad about what happened from the beginning, were loaded up and wanted to take shots at the governor."

Schweitzer readily ticks off his wins _ programs to promote the ethanol and moviemaking industries, provide college scholarships, make prescription drugs more affordable, help businesses insure their employees and give Montana-made food a label declaring its birthright.

So Montanans are happy, anyone else?

While coping with the hectic pace of the Legislature, Schweitzer also has managed to attract national attention.

Schweitzer's election, in the Republican bastion of the intermountain West and in a year of few Democratic victories nationally, raised plenty of eyebrows. He got noticed for his hard-line approach to downstream Missouri River basin states' demand for water. His request that the Pentagon send Montana National Guard troops and water-toting helicopters home in time for the summer fire season made national news.

Schweitzer shrugs off the notoriety, saying it means nothing unless a benefit to the state. Still, he's not shy in explaining his national appeal.

"I'm a straight shooter. I tell it like it is and that is a diminishing commodity among politicians," he said.

Holding his first elected office, Schweitzer admits awe at where he finds himself daily.

"It's hard for us to imagine all the conversations that have occurred in this room in the last 100 years," he said.

"I sometimes early in the morning or late at night sit back and ponder about the magnitude of this office and the difficult decisions that have been made in this office over the last 100 years," he said. "It's a remarkable responsibility and it's not something I take lightly at all."

The first 100 days of the new dawn in Montana are a success.

Posted at 11:18 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Montana | Technorati

Saturday, April 16, 2005

MT-Gov: Republicans Help Schweitzer Craft Legacy

Posted by Bob Brigham

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has been in office for only a few months, yet already people are talking about a "legacy" crafted on support of small business and smart energy policy. From the Great Falls Tribune:

HELENA — Three major Schweitzer administration proposals won slim approval in the House on Friday, as a handful of Republicans defied party leadership to hand the Democratic governor key victories on ethanol, wind power and business taxes.

The dramatic votes came during a daylong floor session, interrupted three times by party meetings where Republican leaders strongly urged their brethren to use their 50-vote block to stop the Democrats' initiatives. [...]

[House Republican Floor Leader Michael] Lange also gave a fiery speech against the wind-power bill, calling it an "abomination" and an attempt by Gov. Brian Schweitzer to start crafting his own "legacy" for the state.

"I want to kick it right in the governor's teeth with this bill," Lange said. "So vote no."

Yet on each bill, at least one Republican declined to follow the party line.

Ethonal and wind energy are great legacy issues in Montana. And the business tax issue wasn't a tax increase, rather it exempted 13,000 small businesses property taxes by freezing the rate on business equipment taxes and increasing from $5,000 to $20,000 the amount of equipment exempt from taxation. Those 13,000 small business owners will remember Schweitzer achieved bipartinsan support to lower their bills, the farmers love ethonal and wind power will pay dividends for years to come.

Posted at 03:28 PM in 2008 President - Democrats, Montana | Technorati

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Senator Hillary Clinton presidential ambitions attacked

Posted by Bob Brigham

The problem with being the early mainstream media frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination is that everyone wants to tear you down. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will certainly understand this dynamic in the coming years.

From the AP:

ALBANY, N.Y. - Claiming Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for the White House, New York's GOP chairman has kicked off a national "STOP HILLARY NOW!" fund-raising effort to thwart her 2006 Senate re-election bid.

"Stopping Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most important thing you and I can do as Republicans in the next two years," says the fund-raising appeal sent out by Stephen Minarik. "You could say it's our duty as Republicans."

Minarik's fund-raising letter, dated Friday, promises a Republican "truth squad" that will "monitor Hillary's appearances and expose her lies."

While Minarik has sent out similar missives to New York Republicans, Friday's appeal — a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press — is his first to the potentially more lucrative national anti-Clinton audience.

Clinton, who has said she is not looking beyond her Senate re-election effort, has countered with fund-raising appeals of her own, including a March 31 e-mail warning supporters she is "the No. 1 target for the right-wing attack machine."

And now this from drudge:

The project being billed as "Hillary in the Raw", like you've never seen her before, is set to drop in September by liberal Ed Klein, former NYT MAGAZINE editor, VANITY FAIR, PARADE contributor and author of multiple works on the Kennedys.

"The revelations in it should sink her candidacy," a source close to Klein warns the DRUDGE REPORT.

MORE

Last week, Clinton stalwart Ann Lewis fired off an email to supporters warning of the 'Swift Boat' tactics coming against the former first lady turned senator.

Now the coming sales pitch for ' THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She’ll Go to Become President' reads: 'Just as the swift boat veterans convinced millions of voters that John Kerry lacked the character to be president, Klein’s book will influence everyone who is sizing up the character of Hillary Clinton...

'Despite more than a dozen years in the national spotlight and more than a dozen unauthorized books about her, she has managed to keep many secrets from the public -- especially about her turbulent marriage and its impact on her career. There have been plenty of rumors about what Hillary and Bill Clinton did behind closed doors, but never a definitive book that exposes the truth. Bestselling author Edward Klein draws on rare access to inside sources to reveal what Hillary knew and when she knew it during her years as first lady. Klein’s book, embargoed until publication, will break news about the choices and calculations she has made over the years.'

Yes, the 2008 presidential campaign has already begun.

Posted at 08:45 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, New York | Comments (1) | Technorati

Schweitzer for President?

Posted by Bob Brigham

Opinion Journal

Not only had the citizens of the nation's fourth largest state elected a Democratic candidate as governor for the first time in 20 years, they'd also rolled back GOP dominance to a 50-50 split in the state House, taken a 27-23 majority in the Senate, filled virtually every position of real authority in the state's higher offices with Democrats, and defeated referendums on re-allowing cyanide leaching in mining (despite millions of dollars of industry lobbying money promoting the idea) while approving of the medical use of marijuana. [...]

Red, blue or purple--color-coding Montana's patterns of voting is just too simplistic, and Brian Schweitzer fits the non-conformist mold to a T. A prosperous farmer/rancher from the area of Whitefish in the tony Flathead Valley country, Mr. Schweitzer cultivates a well-spoken, gun-owning, dog-loving, native-ritual-doing, shot-of-whiskey-drinking true-west style somewhere between that of Jeanette Rankin (a famously antiwar liberal Republican elected to the U.S. Congress before women's suffrage was passed) and Mike Mansfield (the conservative Democrat senator and former ambassador to Japan whose voting record, taken as a whole, was more liberal than that of George McGovern).

Schweitzer for President?

How all this sorts itself out over the short term is anybody's guess, but Mount St. Schweitzer is certainly stirring things up--from driving himself around the state with his pet dog, Jag, to flying the tribal flags of the seven Native American Indian reservations in Montana in rotation above the rotunda in the capital, a unique symbol of the governor's maverick streak.

That streak came to the fore at the annual state governors' meeting at the White House, where Mr. Schweitzer upbraided both President Bush and Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt. He likened the president to a bad cattle auctioneer and Mr. Leavitt to a cowpoke "riding for the brand." National Democrats swooned at the audacity of the freshman governor from the Mountain West. And some even started to whisper a number: 2008.

Tribal flags at the White House? There's always a first time.

UPDATE: Find out more about the story behind:

www.schweitzerforpresident.com

Posted at 12:52 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Montana | Comments (2) | Technorati

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Lord have mercy on the Democratic Party

Posted by Bob Brigham

From the Sioux Falls Argus Leader:

Did Daschle give a campaign speech?

They came to Vermillion on Tuesday to praise Tom Daschle, but after he spoke, it seemed clear this was not his political eulogy.

Many of the nearly 1,000 people who heard the former senator at the Farber Forum thought his remarks sounded like a campaign speech. [...]

Daschle staffers have said he does not miss the Senate, so people shouldn’t anticipate another bid for that job. Others suggested his address sounded like a presidential campaign speech.

For some reason, disgraced Democrats have a personal need to be publically thrashed in the Democratic Party presidential nomination process. Last time it was Lieberman who needed to be taught that his failed tactics of old have no place in post-modern politics. Next time, it looks like Tom Daschle is begging to be taught the same lesson.

A Dakota Democrat who can't even win his own state? At least we'll have some comic relief in the 2008 presidential primaries.

Posted at 03:22 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats | Technorati

Monday, April 04, 2005

Feingold raising money

Posted by Bob Brigham

Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, whose name has become synonymous with campaign finance reform, is raising both his profile and thousands of dollars with his new leadership political action committee.

Feingold, D-Wis., is using the PAC to fund political travel, like his high-profile trip to Alabama last week, and to make contributions to fellow Democrats as he tries to help the party regain the Senate next year.

The PAC, the Progressive Patriots Fund, is also likely to pay political dividends for Feingold, especially if he decides to run for president in 2008, as some are urging him to do. The travel is getting him exposure among voters and media outside Wisconsin, and the PAC's contributions will earn him gratitude from influential Democrats.

"After the election, I got a tremendous amount of input from people saying, 'How do we turn this thing around in the Senate, the House and the presidency,' and asking me to help," Feingold said in a telephone interview. "So this is an opportunity where you can have a fund that allows you to do that sort of thing."

I took a look at Feingold's first blog post and Tim has gone in-depth here and here. We will be following the 2008 Presidential Election with info on Democratic nomination and Republican nomination.

Posted at 03:04 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Wisconsin | Comments (1) | Technorati

Sunday, April 03, 2005

2008 Presidential Campaign

Posted by Bob Brigham

AP:

WASHINGTON - Politicians invariably answer the question about presidential ambitions by saying it's too early. Or they're too busy to be thinking about running. Or they're too focused on being re-elected senator or House member or governor. Don't believe them.

While sidestepping the question, they're often hiring consultants and visiting places like Iowa and New Hampshire.

No one has announced his or her candidacy for the White House in 2008, but there's plenty of speculation about who might run. Of course, no potential presidential candidates let on that they're after the top job. [...]

Some politicians don't bother to try to quash rumors that they might run.

"One of the issues is whether saying that you're in the running for the White House compromises your current position," said political scientist Charles Franklin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "For some, it doesn't matter."

So, for example, when Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., was asked by a TV reporter early this year if he would "rule out" running for president in 2008, he responded, "Why rule it out?"

So who is running for President in 2008?

It is hard to tell, but we might as well start keeping score. Here are some names I've heard, please add in the comments anyone who should be included who I've left out. Since we have around 1,000 days until most people start paying attention, we'll have plenty of time to examine them all.

2008 Presidential candidates - Democrats;

• Evan Bayh
• Joe Biden
• Barbara Boxer
• Wesley Clark
• Hillary Clinton
• John Edwards
• Russ Feingold
• Al Gore
• John Kerry
• Gavin Newsom
• Barack Obama
• Bill Richardson
• Brian Schweitzer
• Tom Vilsack
• Mark Warner

2008 Presidential candidates - Republicans:

• George Allen
• Haley Barbour
• Jeb Bush
• Dick Cheney
• Bill Frist
• Newt Gingrich
• Rudy Giuliani
• Mike Huckabee
• Chuck Hagel
• John McCain
• Bill Owens
• George Pataki
• Condoleezza Rice
• Mitt Romney
• Rich Santorum
• Randall Terry

Posted at 03:13 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, 2008 President - Republicans | Comments (4) | Technorati

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Russ Feingold, Alabama kiss and make up

Posted by Bob Brigham

Feingold made up with Greenville.

Tim has more on Feingold for President, 2008.

Posted at 10:51 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Alabama, Wisconsin | Comments (2) | Technorati

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Reid and Lieberman

Posted by Bob Brigham

Tuesday, Democrat Leader Harry Reid threatened to shut down the Senate if the Republicans went Nuclear, invoking a MAD paradigm of interaction.

But MAD only works if everyone is on the same page. Imagine the response if a general, in the heat of the Cold War, had said that he wouldn't respond in-kind to a nuclear attack.

If your friends aren't with you when the other side goes Nuclear, then they are probably your enemies.

MSNBC sets the stage:

'Cataclysmic event' “If Republicans want to go down this road, they are going to be beginning a huge, partisan, cataclysmic event, the implications of which are so profound that none of us really know the answer to it,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the Democrats arrayed behind Reid on the Capitol steps.

The next subhead:

Key Democrats: Nelson, Lieberman Conspicuous by their absence from Reid’s Capitol steps event were two Democrats: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who has voted against all but one of the Democratic filibusters since 2003, and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Both men are up for re-election next year, and Nelson is running in a state Bush won with 66 percent of the vote.

Damn straight Lieberman's absence was conspicuous.

Harry Reid responds in Raw Story:

Sen. Reid took pains to detail why he feels blogs–and Internet news sites in general–are paramount. Reid says he believes much of the American agenda today is dictated by wealth and power, and that blogs offer “regular, ordinary people” a place to have a voice.

“What has happened in recent years… [is] the concentration of media power, so one station, one owner can own 1,200 radio stations,” Reid said. “What this means is that wealth and power control most everything in this country. But one thing they do not control–wealth and power does not control the Internet.”

“I think the blogs are a tremendously important way for the American public to find out what’s really going on,” the senator continued. “That’s why I go out of my way to communicate any way that I can on the Internet.”

Of late, Reid and other Democrats have taken heat from progressive bloggers on the issue of party unity. The Democrats in the Senate split nearly evenly on the recent bankruptcy bill, and some Democrats have been tagged as waffling in their opposition to the president’s Social Security plan.

Reid dismissed the critique, saying it was “not valid.”

“That’s really not valid,” he told RAW STORY. “We have people who have different views on what should happen once privatization is dropped. But that’s good and healthy; there’s nothing wrong with that.”

“We have had unity on Social Security,” he added. “Total unity. Everyone agrees that privatization would destroy Social Security and we have also total cooperation and unity in the fact that if he’s willing to back off that–privatization–we’re willing to work on Social Security’s out year problems.”

Total unity on Social Security is a good start.

Posted at 11:50 AM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, Connecticut | Comments (1) | Technorati

Monday, March 14, 2005

Gavin Newsom wins on Gay Marriage

Posted by Bob Brigham

SF Chronicle:

A judge ruled Monday that California can no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman, a legal milestone that if upheld on appeal would pave the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed. In an opinion that had been awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

Eric Jaye, Newsom's political consultant, has an important strategy memo on Gay Marriage that I posted earlier. Big day for Newsom.

Posted at 03:46 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, California | Technorati

West Coast Offense

Posted by Bob Brigham

The thing about leadership is that, inherently, you must be a leader. Unfortunately, the poll-hacks think there is a magic formula of stances that equals victory. Total horse-shit.

To lead requires standing up for beliefs, not backing down…running and hiding.

Polls don’t tell us what issues to choose, they tell us how well we are doing in the fight for each issue. If an issue Democrats care about polls poorly, it means our leaders aren’t leading enough -- we aren’t doing a good enough job. Leaders drive polls, they don’t follow.

But, before a voter looks at any issue, they will decide whether or not they respect the politician. Poll-driven candidates appear shallow. People respect action, people respect leaders who stand-up and fight for their values. Even if people disagree, they will still respect the politician. Cowards are the doormats of post-modern politics.

Gavin Newsom showed us how a Democrat can grab a difficult issue by the horns and fight.

Friday, Eric Jaye (Newsom’s political consultant), published an important piece in the subscription-only Hotline.

Here’s what he had to say:

A Democratic Strategy on Gay Marriage
by Eric Jaye

Last year the Democrats had numerous opportunities to stand on principle -- and in doing so show they had the courage to stand for something. No opportunity was greater than the raging debate over gay marriage.

Facing an evenly divided electorate, Republican strategists surmised that victory in 2004 lay in driving turnout among their base voters. That's why they placed attacks on gay marriage on state ballots in swing states. They believed that such a debate would drive turnout, particularly among low-turnout Christian evangelical voters.

What did the Democrats do? By and large they ducked, with poll-crafted drivel that made them seem like typical politicians, not courageous leaders.

Most voters do not yet support gay marriage - although support for equal matrimonial rights has risen dramatically in the past decade. Polls show a sharp generational divide, with the majority of voters under 40 in support of gay marriage and the majority of voters over 60 strongly opposed.

But in this day and age, most swing voters reserve more venom for vacillating politicians than they do for two gay people deciding to adopt the bourgeois convention of lifetime commitment and matrimony.

It is this disdain for vacillating politicians that allows President George Bush to take so many controversial stands yet still win elections for himself and his party. It's called leadership and voters reward it.

On a woman's right to choice, Iraq, environmental protection, outsourcing and Social Security - Bush is 'wrong' from a pollsters' perspective. Yet, why does he still seem so right to so many voters?

Bush wins by being "wrong" because his controversial positions resonate as authentic. American voters don't agree with him on key issues -- but they tend to believe he "stands up for what he believes." In a political landscape in which character matters more than ideology, Bush wins by seeming "real" to voters.

So while Bush seems authentic at the very moment he is pursuing a political ploy to excite his right-wing base - Democrats seem weak and untrustworthy - not just to their base supporters, but to the broad mass of swing voters.

With a few exceptions, most Democrats simply lack credibility when they say they oppose gay marriage. We have the honor of belonging to a party that has been on the forefront of the civil rights movement for more than 50 years. Most voters, in most states, expect us to stand for civil rights - even when these very same voters are taking a go-slow approach.

So who do we think we are fooling when we mumble finely nuanced positions on gay marriage? The truth is we are only fooling ourselves.

We have now survived an entire generation of poll-tested politicians and incremental politics. Finely crafted "agreement" messages, once an innovation, are now an invitation to ridicule. Not just late at night on television, but at almost any hour, we can all enjoy a good laugh at the expense of a politician who is merely reading from a poll-tested script.

So what's the right answer when Democrats are asked, "Do you support gay marriage?" The right answer, in almost every case, is the truth. And in most cases, the truth is "Yes."

First and foremost - by saying "Yes" we are standing for something, even when the majority of voters don't yet support our position. And telling the truth makes us sound like real people, not like robo politicians. But more than this - by saying "Yes" we can seize political terrain that allows us to drive the debate, not duck it.

And we are finding that when we take the offensive on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage, we can make real progress. At the very least, we have a fighting chance when we stop ducking the issue of gay rights and start debating it with clear and concise language.

Along with a team of top-notch consultants, we worked on the successful campaign in 2004 to repeal Article 12 of the Cincinnati City Charter, which allowed discrimination against lesbian and gays. Just this month we helped defeat the Topeka City Question in Topeka, Kansas that would have allowed discrimination against gays. Both campaigns were played out in the context over the debate on gay marriage.

Last year, as former consultants to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, we were closely involved in presenting the "winter of love" gay marriages to the public. We were also part of the unsuccessful effort in Oregon in 2004 to defeat the attack on gay marriage.

We took away from those successes, and that failure, the belief that when it comes to gay marriage the simple truth is better than a complicated lie.

But more than that - in the long run we can't win if we don't debate. And let's not fool ourselves, this debate is not going away. The Republicans put it on the agenda, and they will keep it there, particularly so long as we refuse to even articulate our own position.

Cautious Democrats should face the fact that no position on gay marriage is the weakest possible stance. Silence is read as support for gay marriage. And your silence is seen as political at best, cowardice at worst. As a party, we might not have chosen this fight. But it is here. Unilateral surrender is not a workable strategy.

And to my fellow consultants I would offer this hard-learned lesson. Anti-gay marriage amendments are being fought on the basis of gay marriage -- not some "hidden flaw" or "costly consequence." These measures are not analogous to some down-ballot initiative that we can define. Voters know what they are about -- gay marriage.

In California, we found during the San Francisco gay marriage insurrection that support for gay marriage increased slightly across the state, and support for civil unions increased dramatically, after we captured the airwaves with images of couples who were absolutely unremarkable in any way other than in their desire to profess life-long love and responsibility for each other.

First in Cincinnati, and then in Topeka, we won campaigns against discrimination in part by seizing the language of morality, rather than ceding it to our opponents.

We crafted mail pieces entitled "Not Just on Sunday," and "Daily Bread," that took up the language of the Lord's Prayer in defense of tolerance and equal rights every day.

We didn't hide from the issue. We didn't run from the moral debate. We embraced it - and won. Democrats around the country have nothing to lose, and so much to gain, from doing likewise.

Posted at 06:42 AM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism | Technorati

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Senator Feingold

Posted by Bob Brigham

As featured on CNN's Inside Politics, Senator Russ Feingold posted on MyDD today.

Senator Feingold cross-posted on DailyKos, I especially like what he wrote in his Tip Jar comment (yes, he had a Tip Jar comment):

Thanks

to everyone who has taken time out today to read my first blog and post a message. It is a great experience to enter into this new avenue of democracy. I think there are some excellent points being made on both mydd and dailykos.

Today, I have been splitting my time between the floor debate and votes on the (horrible) Bankruptcy Bill and an all day Budget Committee mark-up on the (irresponsible) 2006 Budget Resolution, so I will not be able to respond to each comment. But I have been trying to keep up with the messages posted today in response to my diary. I am grateful for all the thoughtful responses ranging from the proper use of toasters to some serious constitutional questions.

In particular, I think the discussion about the definition of "blogger" is particularly interesting. It is really helpful to me to read the comments of people who know a lot more than I do about blogging. I value the input.

As a senator from Wisconsin, I visit each one of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year and hold a town hall meeting or "Listening Session." I've done over 800 of them up to now, and this has been a great help in my work. I hope this discussion today will be the beginning of another way for me to listen to people's views and do my best to be an effective U.S. Senator.

I can assure everyone that while this may have been my first endeavor into the blogging community, it will not be my last. Again, thanks for your views.

I tipped him. But he already had Trusted User Status...

The post-modern era is flourishing.

Posted at 05:28 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Netroots, Wisconsin | Technorati

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Senator Feingold Interview

Posted by Tim Tagaris

Is done...

Well, it turns out that I am second-to-last blogger to ask a question; chances are anything I have thought out will have been covered at that point. That's fine--I am just happy to be there. So. . .

Put your questions/comments in this entry. I will keep the screen open while the Q&A is going on, crossing off questions as we move along. If something is left by my turn, I will fire it out there.

Also, feel free to trackback people from your sites--I will do my best to blog the exchange as it happens, just like we did with Donnie Fowler's interview.

Overview: The first question I asked was about veterans and "supporting the troops." I got so pissed while thinking about 250,000 vets a year waiting in line for care, people I know personally who have died in Iraq, and Republicans waving their purple fingers at the SOTU, that I stuttered and stammered through the whole question.

The second question I asked was about the Senator's quote in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

"If at some point people say, 'Hey, we think you ought to run for president' (and) it's a serious thing, I'm going to listen. I would only run if I honestly believed that I was the guy that really could win, that I was the person who was the best candidate to run"

That one, I managed to get out without making myself sound like a smitten fifth grader. Extended entry...

5:52 P.M.

I am about to call in right now. I am a bit frustrated because on Tuesday night where I work--there is Irish dancing classes that go on upstairs. It sounds like a train is running through the building. I hope the conference is taken on mute for all callers, otherwise I will have to go outside to my car and take the call. If that happens, I will post a full update when its over.

6:02 P.M.

Gotta take the call outside. Will update when it's over. Sorry folks.

7:05 P.M. (Recap)

Right off the bat we got into 2008. Markos asked about other potential candidates for president wooing Washington insiders to bolster future runs.

The Senator countered with a refrain he repeated throughout the Q&A. Locking down insiders right now is a losing strategy. We don't even know what the world is going to look like in two years and it would almost be irresponsible (my word) to make a decision on 2008 right now, and start agressively moving towards it.

I gotta be honest--I had to take the conversation in my car (not running), so I was freezing and not able to take many notes. However, I think detailing the following is important:

He acknowledged a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is taking place. He stressed that if there is a WINNER of that battle, and we divide ourselves in the process, the party is in trouble. I agree, sort of...

In my mind, Tim Roemer has little place in the future of "my" Democratic Party. See Mercatus. Congressmen like Martin Frost who run television ads claiming their Republican opponent isn't Republican enough. . . Umm, not palatable to me either. I understand that in some areas of the country you gotta do what you gotta do to win. But there is a line where personal principles have gotta come to the fore--and "Who supported President Bush?" "Speaker Hastert, and Martin Frost" "Kay Hutchinson and Martin Frost." Umm, no thanks.

But I think what most of SSP readers want to know is whether or not we got any clues as to whether or not Feingold is running in 2008. I came away from the interview unsure. It is obvious that he is seriously thinking about; waiting to see how things play out in D.C. and across the country before comitting to anything.

Were it Final Jeopardy, I would guess that he will be the progressive option on the ballot in Iowa, New Hampshire, or whatever states come first in the next cycle.

At the end of the interview, Chris Bowers asked him whether or not he was aware that in most online polls for 2008, he leads--almost exclusively.

Hopefully that translates at some point into him realizing that people are saying, "Hey, we think you ought to run for president."

Cause he "oughta."

Tim

Posted at 03:00 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, General, Wisconsin | Technorati

Monday, February 07, 2005

Russ Feingold Interview

Posted by Tim Tagaris

Tomorrow night, I, along with several other bloggers, have the opportunity to ask a question of Senator Russ Feingold. So I have decided to turn to SSP's readers; what question do you think I should ask? Whether it be an actual question, or a topic you would like to see asked about, drop a comment below.

Personally, I am inclined to support a Feingold candidacy if and when he decides to run. Whether it was the informal poll on Kos this weekend, or previous polls on MyDD, it appears I would have a lot of company.

In the interim, take a moment to read the senator's op-ed in today's Christian Science Monitor. Here is a brief snip I appreciated on engaging the Middle East through dialogue, diplomacy and aid, as opposed to the current short-sighted policies of the Bush Administration.

But if we want a less threatening future, we Americans need to get in the game, increase our diplomatic presence, listen to the people on the ground, and combine widespread, quick-impact development projects with long-term investments in fighting corruption and promoting the rule of law. This has to be done in Mali and across the developing world. Most of all, we need to stop thinking solely in terms of how the world will look next year, and start thinking about how it will look in 50 years [...]

It is time to plan again for a generational effort, to commit to a policy of engagement, and to plant a new crop of wisdom. The US must engage with Muslim communities, and offer tangible support to struggling nations.

Without that sustained, consistent effort, our talk of partnership in the fight against terrorism will be seen for what it is: an empty gesture, and an empty-handed one at that.

Posted at 11:15 AM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Netroots | Comments (4) | Technorati

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Is Feingold the "Best Candidate to Win?"

Posted by Tim Tagaris

With almost four years to go until the next presidential election, I don’t know the answer to that. Apparently, neither does Senator Russ Feingold; but he is traveling the country to figure it out.

One of President Bush's most vocal opponents in the Senate is weighing a 2008 run for the presidency.

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told the Tiger Bay Club of Volusia County on Friday that he'll decide whether to run after "going around the country" working to return a Democrat to the White House.

Let's assume for a moment that the 2008 primary process will be the same. As a Midwesterner, Feingold would seem to be in good position to place well in the caucuses. He would probably even do better in New Hampshire a state that often favors the non-establishment "maverick-type" candidates. Chris Bowers spoke last month about Feingold's perception as an outsider:

Feingold is in an odd position. Even though he has won three terms in the US Senate, he actually is still known as a "reformer" and an "outsider," due in no small part to the constant repetition of the "McCain-Feingold" legislation in the national media.

I agree. The label of outsider is a well-deserved one for Feingold, and for more than just his role in the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform legislation.

As most people know by now, Senator Feingold was the lone voice of opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act. In his dissent a mere weeks after the unpopular vote (at the time), Feingold cited respect for the Constitution and protecting Arab Americans. He continued in the same speech:

The Founders who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights exercised that vigilance even though they had recently fought and won the Revolutionary War. They did not live in comfortable and easy times of hypothetical enemies. They wrote a Constitution of limited powers and an explicit Bill of Rights to protect liberty in times of war, as well as in times of peace.

There have been periods in our nation’s history when civil liberties have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the legitimate exigencies of war.

Our national consciousness still bears the stain and the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the Vietnam War. We must not allow these pieces of our past to become prologue.

It's the "straight talk express" v.2.0. In my mind, that is the most appealing aspect to a potential Feingold candidacy. His matter-of-fact style of speaking and positions on the issues is one that has the potential to cross over to the other side of the aisle. For the same reasons John McCain is popular, Russ Feingold would be equally as popular. What is ironic about that, is that while McCain truly is a bit of a moderate, Feingold actually represents to the positions pretty left on the political spectrum.

How will this go over in the conservative South? I don't think very well; quite frankly, I think we win in the Midwest and West. Either way, Feingold is taking his show on the road, his first stop, "playing golf" in Alabama.

"On Nov. 2, I was fortunate enough to be elected by the people of Wisconsin to a third term in the U.S. Senate. Right after the election, I confess I immediately went looking for a warm place to golf. So I piled into a van with some friends in Milwaukee and drove from Wisconsin to Alabama."

Suffice to say, not everyone believes that the good Senator from Wisconsin traveled by van across the country to brush up on his short game.

Keep a lookout for Sen. Russ Feingold , the second half of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance duo, who just won a third term from Wisconsin voters. He's on a nationwide mission to test out his progressive message that's liberal on some issues, like universal healthcare, and conservative on others, like the deficit.

Fans think he can bridge the blue-state-red-state divide, making him not just a voice for a changing Democratic Party but a possible '08 presidential candidate. He's not the only one: Republicans are keeping an eye on Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney , who's on his own message tour.

So now the speculation is over--the Senator is the first candidate officially testing the waters for 2008. But can he win? First of all, we know that he will do quite well in the Midwest.

In Wisconsin, Feingold received more total votes than John Kerry, crushing his opponent in a state John Kerry carried by the slimmest of margins - 50% to 49%

2004 US Senate Results for Wisconsin:

Russ D. Feingold (D) 1,632,562 55%
Tim Michels (R) 1,301,305 44%
Other 14,977 1%

No question about it, Feingold has some serious support in the netroots/grassroots as well.

Whether it is was MyDD poll that had Feingold clearly leading the way before an orchestrated "freeping" by General Clark fans -- or an ever growing Feingold for President Yahoo Group -- there is a growing buzz.

But the grassroots is one thing, national support on a ballot is another. So far, "mainstream" America has not caught Feingold fever. An Ipsos-Public Affairs poll (Dec. 17-19, 2004. Nationwide) had Feingold placed 7th, with a mere 1% of the vote. Even the popular tradesports.com has listed Feingold as a potential candidate, but he isn't getting much love there either.

It's early, but the question is officially on the table: "Is Feingold the best candidate to win?"

For more on Senator Russ Feingold:

US Senate Website

Feingold on the Issues

2004 US Senate Campaign Site

Posted at 04:14 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, 2008 President - Democrats, Wisconsin | Comments (3) | Technorati

Is Feingold the "Best Candidate to Win?"

Posted by Tim Tagaris

With almost four years to go until the next presidential election, I don’t know the answer to that. Apparently, neither does Senator Russ Feingold; but he is traveling the country to figure it out.

One of President Bush's most vocal opponents in the Senate is weighing a 2008 run for the presidency.

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told the Tiger Bay Club of Volusia County on Friday that he'll decide whether to run after "going around the country" working to return a Democrat to the White House.

Let's assume for a moment that the 2008 primary process will be the same. As a Midwesterner, Feingold would seem to be in good position to place well in the caucuses. He would probably even do better in New Hampshire a state that often favors the non-establishment "maverick-type" candidates. Chris Bowers spoke last month about Feingold's perception as an outsider:

Feingold is in an odd position. Even though he has won three terms in the US Senate, he actually is still known as a "reformer" and an "outsider," due in no small part to the constant repetition of the "McCain-Feingold" legislation in the national media.

I agree. The label of outsider is a well-deserved one for Feingold, and for more than just his role in the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform legislation.

As most people know by now, Senator Feingold was the lone voice of opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act. In his dissent a mere weeks after the unpopular vote (at the time), Feingold cited respect for the Constitution and protecting Arab Americans. He continued in the same speech:

The Founders who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights exercised that vigilance even though they had recently fought and won the Revolutionary War. They did not live in comfortable and easy times of hypothetical enemies. They wrote a Constitution of limited powers and an explicit Bill of Rights to protect liberty in times of war, as well as in times of peace.

There have been periods in our nation’s history when civil liberties have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the legitimate exigencies of war.

Our national consciousness still bears the stain and the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the Vietnam War. We must not allow these pieces of our past to become prologue.

It's the "straight talk express" v.2.0. In my mind, that is the most appealing aspect to a potential Feingold candidacy. His matter-of-fact style of speaking and positions on the issues is one that has the potential to cross over to the other side of the aisle. For the same reasons John McCain is popular, Russ Feingold would be equally as popular. What is ironic about that, is that while McCain truly is a bit of a moderate, Feingold actually represents to the positions pretty left on the political spectrum.

How will this go over in the conservative South? I don't think very well; quite frankly, I think we win in the Midwest and West. Either way, Feingold is taking his show on the road, his first stop, "playing golf" in Alabama.

"On Nov. 2, I was fortunate enough to be elected by the people of Wisconsin to a third term in the U.S. Senate. Right after the election, I confess I immediately went looking for a warm place to golf. So I piled into a van with some friends in Milwaukee and drove from Wisconsin to Alabama."

Suffice to say, not everyone believes that the good Senator from Wisconsin traveled by van across the country to brush up on his short game.

Keep a lookout for Sen. Russ Feingold , the second half of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance duo, who just won a third term from Wisconsin voters. He's on a nationwide mission to test out his progressive message that's liberal on some issues, like universal healthcare, and conservative on others, like the deficit.

Fans think he can bridge the blue-state-red-state divide, making him not just a voice for a changing Democratic Party but a possible '08 presidential candidate. He's not the only one: Republicans are keeping an eye on Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney , who's on his own message tour.

So now the speculation is over--the Senator is the first candidate officially testing the waters for 2008. But can he win? First of all, we know that he will do quite well in the Midwest.

In Wisconsin, Feingold received more total votes than John Kerry, crushing his opponent in a state John Kerry carried by the slimmest of margins - 50% to 49%

2004 US Senate Results for Wisconsin:

Russ D. Feingold (D) 1,632,562 55%
Tim Michels (R) 1,301,305 44%
Other 14,977 1%

No question about it, Feingold has some serious support in the netroots/grassroots as well.

Whether it is was MyDD poll that had Feingold clearly leading the way before an orchestrated "freeping" by General Clark fans -- or an ever growing Feingold for President Yahoo Group -- there is a growing buzz.

But the grassroots is one thing, national support on a ballot is another. So far, "mainstream" America has not caught Feingold fever. An Ipsos-Public Affairs poll (Dec. 17-19, 2004. Nationwide) had Feingold placed 7th, with a mere 1% of the vote. Even the popular tradesports.com has listed Feingold as a potential candidate, but he isn't getting much love there either.

It's early, but the question is officially on the table: "Is Feingold the best candidate to win?"

For more on Senator Russ Feingold:

US Senate Website

Feingold on the Issues

2004 US Senate Campaign Site

Posted at 04:14 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, 2008 President - Democrats, Wisconsin | Comments (3) | Technorati

Feingold Offically Weighing Run

Posted by Tim Tagaris

Officially ending the speculation about the speculation.

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told the Tiger Bay Club of Volusia County [Florida] on Friday that he'll decide whether to run after "going around the country" working to return a Democrat to the White House.

More later (I am at work). For now, your thoughts on the article and/or a Feingold run?

Posted at 02:31 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (3) | Technorati

Friday, January 21, 2005

The Small Blog as the Small Donor of 2006/2008

Posted by Tim Tagaris

You couldn't escape it. During the 2004 election cycle, Internet fundraising was all the rage. From Howard Dean's $40 million, DailyKos and ActBlue, to Terry McAuliffe receiving credit, some of it undeserved, for leveraging the small donor to pull even with GOP fundraising efforts.

That's great - for whatever the real reasons - the Democratic Party did a terrific job of using the Internet to raise money in small amounts as a counter to a traditional GOP advantage. But guess what? The Republican (Noise) Machine will learn, and we had best get ahead of the curve.

If the small donor was the phenomenon of the 2004 election cycle, the small blogger might very well be the next great hope for the Democrats.

The online financial contributions had implications for finance (and comm.) staffs working campaigns across the country. Leveraging the small blogger is predominantly a technological offshoot for traditional field programs (and comm). And as many of us know, the field organization is where is gets done in a grassroots effort. They are the group that will put in hours of tedious study to pull every last vote out of each precinct in a candidate's universe.

Much like everything else in the field plan, organizing the small blogger is laborious and requires a commitment often unmatched by other parts of traditional campaigns. The good news is, so much of netroots outreach crosses formerly compartmentalized groups within a campaign structure; so you can share the burden. What fun!

Let's begin.

If you listen to the pundits, why was the GOP finally able to effectively counter the Democrat's field operation? I have heard it a million times, you probably have as well, it was "the neighbor to neighbor strategy." Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove crafted a plan that had people convincing others in their communities to vote for President Bush. By most accounts, it worked terrifically.

We can accomplish the same thing using our netroots. The beautiful thing about this plan is that we have all the resources necessary to accomplish it without some sort of direction from the powers-that-be. But let's take it back into the campaign setting, because that is the reason I started writing this. Rest assured however, the blogosphere has every resource it needs to make this happen without direction.

Think about the characteristics of the small blog. Many of us run our own. You know the blog your friends, co-workers, and maybe your parents read? The same one you link to in your Kos diaries to boost your visibility? Yes, that one.

It's the blog that generally gets the same 15 people, most within same community you are targeting, reading it a few times a week/month. Maybe you see where I am heading now?

I propose that we take that personal neighbor to neighbor strategy and lead it in a technological direction.

Let's assume you are working on a campaign that has a very clear message. You are part of a functional effort that sends out consistent press releases, talking points, and uses the Internet to foster participation within your congressional district, legislative district, or even statewide.

Step 1: Start collecting each and every single blog that exists within the universe your campaign is operating in. Find them out, email them directly, then introduce yourself and your campaign.

Step 2: Give your supporters the tools to create their own blogs. And do it your website. Heck, it takes 3 minutes to start a blog - walk them through it on your homepage or get involved page. Get a volunteer in the office whose task it is to take people through it step by step over the phone if necessary.

Step 3: If a blog, even a small blog, asks for an interview, grant it! If it gets to be too much, then schedule a weekly/bi-weekly half hour conference call with all the bloggers who want to participate.

Step 4: Back to the press releases and talking points. Send them to bloggers. Send them in the same mass email that you are sending out to the traditional media outlets. Give them the same opportunity to ask questions of the campaign.

Step 5: Invite bloggers to attend your events, just like the press. Make your press conferences and events wi-fi when possible.

Step 6: Nurture the relationship. Rinse and repeat. Bloggers love the inside scoop before the newspapers can get it in print the next day or the news broadcasts it a few hours later

And this plan holds for medium sized blogs as well. The ones that candidates and their staffs would have never dared to enter before because there weren't enough ATM cards found on a consistent basis.

There are some great medium sized blogs out there on both sides of the aisle. There are quite a few of those smaller blogs that have HUGE POTENTIAL in the state I am working now; they include: Young Philly Politics and Philly Future. Pittsburgh Webloggers is also a great source.

The way that traditional communication directors compile lists of newspapers, reporters, journalists, and their contact information - that is the way they need to start with bloggers, especially the small bloggers within their universe.

Finally, cross your fingers and hope they remember you when they go big! Until then, just be content as you work with them to spread your information to their families, co-workers and friends in the district which you are running.

Posted at 02:18 PM in 2005 Elections, 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, 2006 Elections - State, 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, 2008 President - Republicans, Activism, General, Netroots | Comments (1) | Technorati

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Statement from Senator Barbara Boxer

Posted by Bob Brigham

AP:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top.

Asked about her historic vote to stand up for the people, the Office of US Senator Barbara Boxer may have released the following statement:

"I exercise my right to express when I feel it's time. I say to fight, you take it as I'mma whip someone's ass."

"Come along follow me as I lead through the darkness, as I provide just enough spark that we need to proceed. Carry on, give me hope, give me strength -- come with me and I won't steer you wrong."

"Put your faith and your trust as I guide us through the fog to the light at the end of the tunnel."

"Now this is our final hour, let me be the voice in your strength and your choice. Let me simplify the rhyme just to amplify the noise. Try to amplify the times it, and multiply by six. Teen million people are equal at this high pitch."

"If we don't serve our own country, we're patronizing a hero. Look in his eyes its all lies."

Posted at 11:32 AM in 2006 Elections, 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats, Activism, California, Ohio | Technorati

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Feingold 2008?

Posted by Tim Tagaris

From Washington Whispers (thanks to Kos for finding it)

Keep a lookout for Sen. Russ Feingold, the second half of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance duo, who just won a third term from Wisconsin voters. He's on a nationwide mission to test out his progressive message that's liberal on some issues, like universal healthcare, and conservative on others, like the deficit. Fans think he can bridge the blue-state-red-state divide, making him not just a voice for a changing Democratic Party but a possible '08 presidential candidate.

Keep your eyes peeled for Draft Feingold sites, they should start going like hotcakes. In fact, I bought mine a few weeks ago (just wish I had it ready - if anyone wants to help Bob & I get it started?).

Some other links:

Feingold's Senate site
Great campaign comerrcial. Quicktime / Windows Media
Feingold speech on opposition to PATRIOT ACT (10/12/2001)
Feingold's 2004 campaign website.
Speech on Senate floor: Condaleeza Rice as the next Sec. of State.

The administration's record of the past four years suggests a foreign policy careening out of control, driven by ideologues who want to test their theories in the laboratory of the Middle East one minute, by domestic political considerations the next, and by spiteful attempts to punish those who disagree with their methods the next.

Where is this going? Who is in charge? Who knows? No one ever seems to be held accountable for the blunders, the failures, the wildly inaccurate presentations and projections or the painfully ineffective initiatives.

Congress cannot simply accept more of the same, keep our heads down and hope that somehow we will muddle through. The stakes are far too high. Our national security, the stability of the world that our children will inherit, our troops - even our country's honor - are on the line. Congress has an obligation not to oppose every administration effort, but to reassert our role in helping to steer the ship of state wisely rather than recklessly. I look at our foreign policy over the past four years, and I know that America is so much better than this.

I personally am a big fan. Although I know there is some dissent among those that blame him personally for allowing the confirmation of John Ashcroft. What are your thoughts? Could you get behind a Russ Feingold candidacy?

Posted at 04:45 PM in 2008 Election - President, 2008 President - Democrats | Comments (12) | Technorati