When I was at Netroots Nation on Thursday, I pointed out why a majority in the House of members with D's next to their names isn't as valuable as a majority populated by Better Democrats:
We currently hold a 37-vote-margin in the House. Yet 34 Democrats voted against the health care reform and 19 voted against financial reform. It doesn't take a genius to see that it barely matters what happens in November when that many Democrats are voting with - and voting like - Republicans.
That's why you were there for Donna Edwards when she took on Al Wynn. That's why you were there for Bill Halter when he took on Blanche Lincoln. And that's why you should be with me as I take on Stephen Lynch.
As a reminder, my opponent in the Democratic primary, incumbent Stephen Lynch, voted for the Iraq War and its continued funding, for the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, and against health care reform, and has voted to restrict a woman's right to choose.
The differences between my values and Stephen Lynch's values couldn't be clearer. Ilyse Hogue, Director of Political Advocacy and Communications for MoveOn.org, highlighted as much when she sat down with Amy Goodman for an episode of Democracy Now! taped on location at Netroots Nation:
Amy Goodman (52:33): Ilyse Hogue, what about other primaries that are taking place?
Ilyse Hogue (52:37): Well, I think Bill Halter was the precursor. What we saw was him embodying a very strong feeling that our members have, and we think is sweeping across the country, which is he was taking on Wall Street. But Blanche Lincoln was also showing a friendliness towards the HMO's during the health care fight. And, what we're seeing is the base - our members - saying, 'Enough with Democrats who think that they're more accountable to corporate powers in this country than they are to us.
So we're seeing that same thing play out with Stephen Lynch and Mac D'Alessandro in Massachusetts-09. That primary is September 14th. What's interesting about that is that that is largely believed to be a safe Democratic seat, so the primary is actually the election. And Stephen Lynch, who is the incumbent, voted against the health care bill even though, at the end of the day, most of the Democratic base thought it would provide some relief. He did not do it as a champion for the public option. He was not there for the public option fight.
Mac D'Alessandro has come in and he's said, 'You know what? If we really want this democracy to be owned by the people and work for the people, we've got to do things. We've got to overturn Citizens United. We've got to actually get public financing. We've got to get lobbyists out of D.C.' And, I think that most Americans are looking for action on specific legislation like financial regulations, but they're also looking for people who are going to challenge the system because the system is not working for most Americans.
The kind of grassroots campaign that I'm running is built upon reaching out to voters directly, on the phones and at the doors. With the help of enthusiastic supporters across the 9th district, we have built a grassroots army that has generated strong momentum.
Just today, it was announced that we finished in second place in Democracy for America's Grassroots All-Stars contest, a competition that began with ninety candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives from across the country. I was the top finishing candidate among those still in a primary campaign, and I was the only candidate among the top five finalists not from the state of California.
I am running against an entrenched incumbent who has a million dollar warchest lined with contributions from big corporations and special interests. But, if there's one thing I've heard over and over again from voters as I've gone door to door across the district, it's that the voters want someone who stands up to big corporations, not someone who is funded by them.
That's why I need your support and the support of the netroots. Like Ilyse Hogue said, this is a blue district, so we have an opportunity to focus on electing the best Democrat we can. I urge you to support my campaign so that Massachusetts' 9th can be represented by a Better Democrat.
We all know the statistics. Over 4,400 American service men and women killed. Over $730 Billion spent. Longer than American involvement in World War II, longer than the Civil War, longer than the American Revolution, catching up to Vietnam.
We all know what a terrible cost the War in Iraq has levied on us. This is a war that my opponent in the Democratic primary, incumbent Stephen Lynch, not only voted for, but also voted to fund at least eleven times.
Still, as frequently as we've heard the dizzying and disheartening statistics, we sometimes lose sight of the direct impact this war has had on our communities. While we spend some $13 billion per month on the Iraq War, many of our cities and towns face crippling budget shortfalls as we climb out of this ongoing recession.
To make it clear to the families of Massachusetts' 9th Congressional district, I have offered a breakdown of the costs, using an interactive map. If you visit the map on my website, you can see what the per capita financial cost to each city and town has been - as well as what that money would have bought in teachers, police, and firefighters over these past seven years.
Iraq certainly isn't the only issue where my opponent and I disagree, or where he has cast a profoundly bad vote. Stephen Lynch voted for the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, while I believe that it represents an infringement on the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. Lynch voted for the Stupak Amendment to the health care reform bill, while I am staunchly pro-choice and see the Stupak Amendment as the most profound attack on a woman's right to choose since the Hyde Amendment of the 1980's. Stephen Lynch also voted against the health care reform bill, while I support it because it provides tens of millions of Americans with access to health care, allows children to remain on parents' health care plans until the age of twenty-six, and ends some of the worst abuses of health insurance companies, like "pre-existing conditions" restrictions on children.
There is a clear pattern that, while Stephen Lynch may vote with us Democrats more often than not, the votes where Lynch diverges from us Democrats are among the votes that most shape the path on which our country will head. If you no longer want to face the cost of a bad vote - if you want to elect a Better Democrat - I urge you to get involved and support my campaign.
In 2006, Democrats took back control of Congress because of public outrage at George Bush and the War in Iraq. But we should remember it almost didn't happen - until August, when Ned Lamont proved that Democrats can galvanize that energy to beat an incumbent Senator in a primary. Tomorrow, Pennsylvania Democrats will be asked to dump ex-Republican Arlen Specter - and in Arkansas, conservative Senator Blanche Lincoln also faces a primary challenge. And just like Joe Lieberman, the Party establishment is circling the wagons in both states - with President Obama shooting a radio ad that claims Lincoln "took on big insurance companies" to pass health care. A new poll shows that voters prefer Democrats over Republicans, which suggests that 2010 may not be the nightmare everyone fears. But it also showed that voters hate incumbents. If Democrats want to avoid a bloodbath in November, Specter and Lincoln must be defeated.
The big news this past week out of MA-09 is that progressive challenger Mac D'Alessandro will make the Democratic primary ballot against anti-choice, anti-health care reform ConservaDem incumbent Stephen Lynch. He submitted 5,000 signatures to city and town clerks offices by the May 4 deadline. As long as at least 2,000 are certified valid (should be no problem with 5,000 submitted), Mac submits the 2,000+ certified valid signatures to the Secretary of State by June 1 and he'll give voters a choice against ConservaDem Lynch.
Mac took to YouTube to thank his grassroots supporters for their help making the signature drive a big success:
Progressive Democrats across the country have reason to be active in this race. There were 34 House Democrats who ultimately opposed health care reform; and Lynch's vote was among the most perplexing:
Then there are the real head scratchers. Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) and Stephen Lynch (D-MA) famously abandoned the reform push late in the game, after having voted for the House bill. Lynch, in particular, went on a very public crusade of opposition to the bill from the left, and cast his vote despite pleas from President Obama and AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka that he vote with the party.
Of the 34 anti-health care reform Dems, some are running for other office (Senate or Gov), some are retiring, but most are running for re-election. Best I can tell though, few if any have serious primary challengers. MA-09 will provide progressive Democrats nationally with an opportunity to send a message to a ConservaDem who abandoned one of the Democratic Party's central pillars - expanding access to health care and moving toward truly making quality health care a right instead of a privilege.
That appears to be why Mac's campaign has found itself on MoveOn.org's radar screen as a viable primary challenger worthy of progressive support:
In the wake of Rep. Stephen Lynch's vote against health care reform, many progressives have expressed frustration with him-and now he's facing a serious primary challenge.
Mac D'Alessandro is the New England Political Director for the progressive Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and he's pledging to "be on the side of consumers and workers, and not on the side of health insurance companies and big banks."
So get in the game! Now that Mac has demonstrated grassroots strength through the impressively successful signature drive, he has to raise money - and ConservaDem Stephen Lynch starts off with a $1.3 million campaign war chest. So, please, please, please head over to Mac's ActBlue page and contribute as generously as you can!
Mac D'Alessandro of Milton, Massachusetts, has spent his career fighting on behalf of working families. For the past nine years, Mac has worked for the Service Employees International Union, most recently as New England Political Director. Prior to working for the SEIU, Mac worked for Greater Boston Legal Services, directing legislative efforts to help families combat poverty. Mac earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Human Ecology and Environmental Policy from Rutgers University and his Juris Doctor from Boston College Law School. Mac, 40, is married to Jennie Mulqueen, an early childhood arts educator, and is the proud father of five-year-old Sophie and three-year-old Atticus.
SEIU's New England regional political director Mac D'Alessandro has taken the primary plunge against incumbent Stephen Lynch. (Lynch, for you Progressive Punch score followers, gets a lousy 2 rating, coming from Massachusetts, and has a lifetime progressive score on "Crucial Votes" of 81.87, which drops to 71.95 when focusing on 2009-2010.)
Greetings, Blue Mass Group! My name is Mac D'Alessandro. I'm the New England Political Director for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); and, as of this week, I am a candidate for United States Congress from Massachusetts' 9th district. I am a progressive Democrat, and I'm running for Congress because I believe that the working families in our communities deserve a Congressman who will fight for them and who will actually be a leader on key issues that matter to them - from reforming our health care system (and building on the recently-passed reforms) to holding Wall Street accountable to investing in job creation for our communities to protecting our civil rights and ensuring equal protection under the law.
I have spent my career fighting for working families. I've been with the SEIU for nine years. Prior to that, I worked for Greater Boston Legal Services, directing legislative efforts to help families combat poverty. I live in Milton with my wife Jennie, our children Sophie and Atticus, and our cat Nile. Like most families throughout the district and across Massachusetts, my wife and I sit at our kitchen table on a regular basis, going over our bills and the family budget, paying for today while trying to save for tomorrow. We see too often that the well-being of Fortune 500 companies are put in front of the good fortune of working families like ours. That is why I'm running. The 9th district deserves more than just another representative; the district deserves someone who will champion our Democratic ideals in the U.S. House of Representatives as we fight to balance the playing field for working families like ours.
There were 34 House Democrats who opposed health care reform. Lynch was the only one from Massachusetts. And, of those from the 34 who are running for re-election, I still don't see a lot of primary challenges. Supporting Mac D'Alessandro's campaign can send a message nationally to Democrats wavering on other issues (like Wall Street reform). Mac very much represents what it means to be a "Better Democrat." Please spread the word, join the Facebook group, and contribute any amount you can.
I think we all remember the 2008 Democratic primaries, that exciting and epic battle. In many ways the campaign caused more excitement than the general election, whose result was never really in doubt (especially after the financial crisis).
Both candidates drew upon distinctly different coalitions. In an influential article, Ronald Brownstein analyzes the difference this way:
Since the 1960s, Democratic nominating contests regularly have come down to a struggle between a candidate who draws support primarily from upscale, economically comfortable voters liberal on social and foreign policy issues, and a rival who relies mostly on downscale, financially strained voters drawn to populist economics and somewhat more conservative views on cultural and national security issues.
President Barack Obama assembled a coalition from the former, these "wine-track" Democrats. When most Americans think of liberals, they think of wine-track Democrats. Mr. Obama, then, was the liberal candidate; Mrs. Clinton the "beer-track," working-class representative.
So candidate won the most liberal place in America?
The answer below (or, alternatively, in the title).
You will be shocked, shocked to hear that a Blue Dog Democrat who made a career out of undermining his own party is sucker-punching them on his way out. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana abruptly announced this week that he would not seek reelection in November. Bayh's departure is ratcheting up insecurity in the Democratic caucus at the very moment they need to take decisive action to pass health care reform.
Bayh could easily have won a third term, but it's unclear whether any other Democrat can hold the seat. To add insult to injury, Bayh waited until 24 hours before the filing deadline for Democratic primary candidates, sending Indiana Dems scrambling to find a candidate to run in his place. Bayh's tardiness was calculated. Since no Democrats were ready to file by the deadline, the Indiana Democratic establishment will get to handpick Bayh's successor.
In a call with state Democratic officials, Bayh said his abrupt departure is for the best, as Evan McMorris-Santo reports for TPMDC. According to Bayh, he's doing the party a favor by sparing them a contentious primary process. Thanks a lot.
What does this mean for health care reform?
What does Bayh's departure portend for health care reform? Monica Potts of TAPPED argues that replacing a conservative Democrat like Bayh with a moderate Republican won't make that much difference. Bayh was never a reliable Democratic vote.
But Tim Fernholtz of TAPPED dismisses this view as naive. Fernholtz predicts that, for all of Bayh's faults, the senate will be much worse without him: "In essence, the difference between this insubstantial Hoosier and, say, GOP hopeful Dan Coats, is simple: You can buy off Bayh." Bayh voted for health care reform and the stimulus, no Republican, no matter how "moderate" is going to vote that way.
Anyone who expects a moderate Republican from Indiana to support any part of the Democratic agenda is deluded. On the other hand, the Senate Democrats already passed their bill, their only remaining task would be to pass a "fix" through budget reconciliation to make changes in the legislation that would be acceptable to the House. Of course, reconciliation will be a bitter political fight. One wonders whether the demoralized Senate Democrats will have the stomach for it.
About that health care summit...
Note that congressional Republicans have yet to commit to attending the "bipartisan" health care summit that they called for. Christina Bellatoni of TPMDC reports that yesterday White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wondered why the Republicans were for the summit before they were against it:
"Right before the president issued the invitation, the-the thing that each of these individuals was hoping for most was an opportunity to sit down on television and discuss and engage on these issues. Now, not accepting an invitation to do what they'd asked the president to do, if they decide not to, I'll let them leap the-leap the chasm there and try to explain why they're now opposed to what they said they wanted most to do," Gibbs said.
Busting the filibuster
On the bright side, the Democrats still have a sizable majority in the Senate, with or without Bayh. Republicans would have to beat all 10 vulnerable Democratic incumbent senators in the next election in order to regain control of the Senate. The more immediate threat to health care reform and the Democrats' ability to govern in general is the institutional filibuster. Structural reform is needed to break the impasse. Lawyer and author Tom Geoghegan talks with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! on strategies for busting the filibuster.
Public option resurfacing
Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent reports that four senate Democrats have thrown their lot in with progressives clamoring for a public option through reconciliation. Sens. Sherrod Brown (OH), Jeff Merkley (OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Michael Bennet (CO) argue for the public option in an open letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid. The letter reads:
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach - its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option....
Big pharma's lobby
That's nice, but let's not forget who's really in charge. In AlterNet, Paul Blumenthal recaps the sorry history of collusion between the White House, the pharmaceutical lobby group PhRMA, and the Senate. According to Blumenthal the White House steered pharmaceutical lobbyists directly to Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chair of the powerful Finance Committee, who was entrusted with crafting the White House's favored version of health care reform.
Abortion and health care reform
As if we didn't have enough to worry about, Nick Baumann of Mother Jones notes that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is making abortion is an obstacle to passing health care reform through reconciliation. The NRLC is insinuating that Bart Stupak (D-MI) and his coalition of anti-choice Democrats will vote against the Senate health care bill because it it's slightly less restrictive of abortion than the bill the House passed. The good news is that it's procedurally impossible to insert Stupak's language into the Senate bill through reconciliation. The bad news is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) needs every vote she can get to pass the Senate bill and anti-choice hardliners could be an obstacle.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Obama's appearance on Fox News today is predictably giving the blogosphere fits. Personally, I don't really care. Fox News isn't going away. Anyone who thinks so is kidding themselves.
Nevertheless, we are seeing the typical bile from the HRC crowd. Exhibit one is Jerome Armstrong's typically bitter response to it. As always, his guiding principle is based on cynicism. "See. Your candidate panders just as much as ours does."
As I see it, there are about two lines of attack on Obama from HRC supporters.
Both Edwards and Hillary Clinton were on The Colbert Report last night (Obama was too, live from satellite). He was broadcasting (live?) from Philadelphia. Needless to say, the Colbert Report writers had written some hilarious material for both of them.
Clinton came on first, to thunderous applause, and delivered her joke flawlessly and got a great response. Edwards then came on for an even longer cameo and inadvertently showed the real reason he lost the nomination.
The jokes were great. His delivery was AWFUL. It was almost like he didn't even get the jokes. He didn't know where to pause, he didn't know what words to emphasize. It was like a vacuum of charisma.
That is the reason I think he lost the primary so quickly (he faced some strong competition). His policy is dead-on, but his charisma and likability are totally absent. Others have commented about how the media and reporters just don't like him. Someone, I can't remember who, made the comment "Edwards couldn't get the [political reporters] to like him if he personally had sex with all of them." Edwards has the looks to be President, and quite possibly the qualifications and correct agenda, but he just doesn't have the charisma (neither does John McCain for that matter,although reporters do like him, which is why I don't think he's a threat to Obama, Huckabee would have been worse). Its a serious problem for Edwards that he comes off as even more unlikeable than Hillary (although technically has lower negatives). Even when making jokes he just sounded like another empty suit politician.
A whole lot of alt-rock stars with activist consciences today endorsed Steve Novick's run for Senate in Oregon, to face Gordon Smith in the fall. Michael Stipe of REM, Stone Gossard of Pearl Jam and Krist Novoselic of Nirvana and now Flipper joined Portland based stars like Colin Meloy of the Decemberists, Thomas Lauderdale of Pink Martini and Corin Tucker of Sleater-Kinney in their letter of support for Steve. {pdf}:
We wanted to write you a short letter asking you to join us in supporting Steve Novick for the U.S. Senate. We know that we aren't the typical people you hear from about an upcoming election, but Steve is certainly not the typical candidate.
Steve is a principled progressive who will take on the tough challenges we face today.
The upcoming election offers us a real opportunity to turn the page on the failed policies of President Bush and bring progressive change to Washington D.C. Steve Novick could be a real leader for change in the Senate and we hope you'll join us in supporting him this election.
Sincerely,
Colin Meloy (The Decembrists)
Thomas Lauderdale (Pink Martini)
Stone Gossard (Pearl Jam)
Michael Stipe (REM)
Britt Daniel (Spoon)
Chris Walla (Death Cab for Cutie)
Krist Novoselic (Nirvana & Flipper)
Dave Dederer (Presidents of the United States)
Corin Tucker (Sleater-Kinney)
Rufus Wainwright
The traditional media is missing a major part of the story over Hillary's Bosnia lie.
Hillary's lie doesn't just tell us that she inflated her national security experience, or that she is this week's target in the all too familiar game of "gotcha" the traditional media plays ever election cycle, rather, the process by which the Bosnia lie became the story of the week tells us about Hillary's political instincts and judgment. Instincts and judgment that can play a major role in her success or failure as President
I've noticed something this primary season. Even though we are told that a double standard doesn't exist, it surely does. There were obvious examples of sexism during this heated primary season... like Chris Matthews gaffes that ended with a public apology. But there have been others. Recently, my mother forwarded me an essay by Robin Morgan of the Women's Media Center called Goodbye To All That #2. Robin wrote Goodbye To All That (#1) back in 1970, when she and other feminists took over a counter culture magazine called Rat.
"Whatever those candidates say today, remember what they said before: Iran must be stopped at all cost. The fact that Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weaponry four years ago is more than an inconvenient revelation for those candidates. It's an indictment of their judgment and their qualifications to lead this nation."
You know, the more you hear the facts it just starts to sink in: Dennis Kucinich has been right! And consistently right, where our leading Democrats have been wrong.
Well, after so many grossly unfair debate formats that virtually tell each audience which candidates they are supposed to be interested in, Dennis Kucinich finally figured out a way to highlight this fundamental absurdity to his own advantage: Socratic Irony!
STATE BLOGS
