They're on a roll: Public Campaign and Change-Congress.org

by: Books Alive

Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 10:52

On the same date, an e-mail came in from Lawrence Lessig with news of the latest videos from Change-Congress. They are targeting Lieberman and Bayh for their links to big PhARMA and their threats to prevent significant reform with a public option. Here's hoping that Glenn Greenwald doesn't mind being "incorporated" into the Lieberman video; there have been times in the past when objections have been raised by persons whose words and likeness have been used by Change-Congress in a video ad.

In these the last weeks of debate, there is more value to the exposure of just how much the outside campaign contributions influence the positions of our Senators and Representatives.

VOTE: Which Senate Dem should we target next with public option TV ads?

by: AdamGreen

Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 10:30

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America are running a 10-day vote where progressives can decide which states to bring the WeWantThePublicOption.com "sign your name" ad to.

Ads will feature the names of local residents from across a given state and call out the local Senate Dem for taking millions from health and insurance interests while threatening to oppose the public option. (A slight variation of the ad to the right we've been running in DC the last few weeks.)

Thousands of people have voted. So far, Baucus is in first place, Kerry second, Feinstein third, Lieberman fourth, Bayh fifth, and so on. 

Who do you think should be targeted in their home states? Comment below and vote here.

Results so far, with about 48 hours left to vote:

Dude, What about Brian Schweitzer for VP?

by: kauffmanr

Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:19

Bayh for Veep--an argument FOR him, believe it or not

by: mtayl

Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 15:54

Of the two, I think Bayh is the superior pick, and here's why:

First, let's address his problems. He is clearly on the wrong side of the Iraq war--he didn't just vote for it, but was very neo-con in his behavior in 2002 and 2003. Though he has moved (with public opinion) to the left, increasingly pushing for more accountability, calling early on for Rumsfeld's departure, and now finally seeming to embrace the Democratic position of withdrawing, carefully, all troops, he's had to do a bit o catching-up.

HUGE problem, right? Obama's defined by his anti-Iraq-war stance, right? Wrong. Obama's defined amongst progressives and Democrats as the anti-war, anti-lobbyist Democrat who will take on some of the establishment forces that have been hurting not just our country but Democrats in particular. While he's shifted right lately, this is who a lot of his still consider him to be.

But I don't think it's how the public at large perceives him. They see him as a charismatic and smart leader who is a Democrat and will hopefully change the economy, plus someone who, generally speaking, has been prescient on calling out Bush's failed foreign policy. In that sense, while Bayh isn't perfect, he starts to fill in some key gaps for Obama, and reinforce other ones.

So getting back to Bayh's Iraq problem, note that:

1) The war is less salient every day this campaign goes on.

2) Obama, not Bayh, is running to be Commander-in-Chief. I actually think having an older, white, more "seasoned" Washington hand on his ticket as EVIDENCE of Obama's superior judgment, someone who would constantly say "I was wrong, the conventional thinking was wrong, this war was wrong," would be a HUGE boon. It's not enough for the "presumptuous" (read: uppity) Obama to talk about how smart he was. Bayh is the perfect white bread messenger for that concept: WE fucked up on Iraq, so let's follow this guy who got it right. It's OK to follow him, because I am too. Look how calm, white, and patriotic I am.

You can't overestimate the cultural validity that Bayh provides, and while these political considerations might seem cynical, they matter. And I think they'll work.

Finally, I think Bayh actually functions to REINFORCE Obama on two key points: youth, and geography. They are both handsome, young, and, in their own ways, charismatic. Bayh is quieter, even bland, but he commands a positive presence nonetheless. You don't need excitement, Obama can provide that. He won't overshadow the nominee like Edwards almost did at the 2004 DNC.

Geographically speaking, Bayh is another Midwestern candidate, reinforcing Obama's heartland appeal (look how strong Obama is compared to Kerry in the Midwest). I think they'd take Indiana by a few points, and Bayh would help solidify Obama's stranglehold on the Great Lakes region, putting Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin out of play for good. He'd also help in rural Ohio.

Finally, as Nate at 538 tried to point out, Bayh (partly because he planned on running for president) has moved further and further to the left in the last few years, and, for where he is, is a decently progressive Democrat. While he definitely has some of that centrist, "post-partisan", DLC in him, so does Obama. They'd reinforce each other, and Bayh has held the line on enough causes (gay marriage amendment, Bush tax cuts, etc.) in such a hostile environment that I think he'd be a decently progressive leader. He's no Max Baucus, people.

Ok, ok, so maybe I'm drinking the Kool Aid. But while I agree with a lot of the criticisms of Bayh that are being made, I think these are some important factrs that work in his favor, and these are worth discussing.

Agree? Disagree? Angry at me for being a DLC plant? (I'm not!) Discuss.