It finally happened. In case you missed last night's big news, the Nevada Legislature overrode Idiot-in-Chief Jim Gibbons' veto to make comprehensive domestic partnerships into law. Nevada is the first Mountain West state to offer legal recognition for same-sex couples, and is the first non-coastal state to do so by way of the Legislature. Believe me, I'm quite proud of "my other home state" today.
The theme of equality was central to our nation’s founding, with the declaration that “all men are created equal.” Our country’s history has witnessed the gradual evolution of that core principle from a ruling class that countenanced slavery and subordination toward an egalitarian vision that embraces the inherent equality of all people. We fought a civil war in part to give life to this proposition. It is embodied in our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under law, and in the other Civil War amendments. And epic social movements of the past two centuries have moved our country, in fits and starts, further still toward the reality of truly equal opportunity. As Abraham Lincoln said of the Founders’ vision:
“They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.”
It's because of this rich history that recent happenings in Nevada and California are so discouraging. First, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, this week Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons vetoed a law that would give domestic partners similar rights and benefits to those enjoyed by Nevada married couples.
In a statement (PDF) released by the Governor, he writes: "My disapproval of this bill should not be taken to suggest that domestic partners are in any way undeserving of rights and protections." But this is a canard. As Justice Carlos Moreno, the sole dissenter in this week's California Supreme Court ruling, said:
"Granting same-sex couples all of the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, except the right to call their officially recognized and protected family relationship a marriage, still denies them equal treatment."
He continued to say the ruling "places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."
Granting gay couples anything but the ability to marriage is fundamentally separate and unequal. These actions in California and Nevada are a troubling trend and particularly discouraging in light of the recent advances in gay rights in so many other states.
Something amazing happened yesterday. Maybe it isn't revolutionary, but hopefully it will be evolutionary. The Commerce & Labor Committee of the Nevada Senate agreed to domestic partnerships (or "DP's"). Unfortunately it's not marriage, but let me explain to you why this is a major step forward for equality in the Mountain West.
After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld one of the country's strictest voter ID laws in April, several states rushed to pass similar bills before the year's end. By December, more than 25 states introduced legislation to require voter ID at the polls. Though none of these bills were successful this year, lawmakers in several states are hoping to revive such restrictive requirements in 2009.
Since July of this year, at least seven states have pre-filed or carried over voter ID legislation for the 2009-2010 sessions, including Nevada, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
(In confluence with Chris's thesis about the growing demographic Democratic base, here's the latest from Project Vote. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
The United States saw dramatic increases in voting from traditionally underrepresented groups, including minorities and young voters, according to a new analysis released this week by Project Vote. If borne out by systematic analysis of the voter rolls, this change in the electorate is evidence of the power of successful voter registration drives and an indication of the strong inclination of voters to participate in the process when candidates address their issues.
Friday marked the end of the first week of early voting in Nevada. In Clark County, which represented 65% of Nevada's votes in 2004, there have already been exactly 160,000 early votes cast in person, with a striking Democratic advantage. This number shatters 2004's one-week early turnout record of around 102,000.
Of those 160,000 votes, a hair short of 56%--89,554 votes total--were from registered Democrats, while a little less than 28 were cast by registered Republicans--44,607 total votes. That means that during the first week, Democrats outnumbered Republicans with regard to total in-person early voting by a factor of over 2 to 1. We have had 25,839 non-partisan or minor party ballots cast as well.
As history has shown, there is a difference between submitting a voter registration application and finding your name on the rolls when you go to vote. With registration coming to a close, Project Vote is conducting emergency efforts to ensure that no one who wants to vote is left out on Election Day.
Project Vote's Registration Repair Program is an intensive and urgent effort to collect and rectify large numbers of registrations that have been rejected by boards of election. We have been working all over the country to obtain disqualified applications and to contact would-be voters to repair applications with missing or erroneous information.
Last weekend, I was lucky enough to see the state of the race for myself. I traveled to the heart of Battleground Country. Because Nevada's 5 electoral votes are up for grabs and two Nevada Republicans may lose their House seats this fall, I wanted to do something to help. That's why I packed my bags, took some spare change for my favorite slot machines (NOT!), and made sure my family in Henderson had an extra bed for me to crash on.
I went to Vegas, baby, and I'm giving you the full report on what's happening there!
Maybe someone out there who knows the inner workings of EMILY's List can explain to me why this group has not put money behind Becky Greenwald, the Democrat challenging loyal Republican foot-soldier Tom Latham in Iowa's fourth Congressional district.
I have been going over the list of Democratic women running for Congress whom EMILY's List is supporting, with a particular focus on the six challengers most recently added to this group in early August. I do not mean to knock any of those candidates, and I recognize that every race has its own dynamic.
However, after comparing Greenwald's race to those of other candidates, I remain puzzled that EMILY's list is not more involved in IA-04.
Much like Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, Campaign Activists can be, uh, "interesting". Ok, some are flat out weirdos. But Obama's are a special breed and are certainly smarter and less wacky, they still have their own Culture and Language. Here are some terms you may never hear spoken in the light of Day. But an Obama staffer will testify to their existence. Well Maybe. Like AFTER the Election that is.
10. Barackoderm A converted Republican who now stands for Obama.
9. Obamatron A term that describes some O Supporters who want to talk about nothing but Obama. They also have no sense of Humor. Ahem.
8. Breaking Baracks in the Hot Sun When a new person is brought in to help the Campaign, they sometimes get their mettle tested by being sent to walk a, Uh, NOT nice neighborhood. Like where Zeke lives. Scary scary. If they come back, the rookie gets promoted.
7. StreetBaracker Term to describe some people who come from "Out of State" to help. Usually on the Greyhound. Some are doing it, Zeke thinks, just to get some free food and a place to sleep. They never bring a suitcase.
6. Obamabud Comes from Hawaii. Maui, in fact. Very fresh, brah.
5. BarackStar™, Energy Drink Instead of Coffee or even Latte's, Obama Activists drink a strange fluid made up of Kool Aide, crushed Berries and "Something else". I don't wanna know...
4. Wrong Side of the Railroad Baracks Some times Party Activists who are "Not as enthusiastic as they should be", don't get called anymore. To return to "Barackstar" Status they may have to go "Break Baracks in the Hot Sun".
3. Obamazombies After being hung up on and yelled at on hundreds of "ID calls", some Obama Supporters become desensitized and actually try and eat the brains of the living. Scary stuff. Beware.
2. Barackitis Sometimes people who had once been an avid supporters suddenly "find a reason" that they can't help anymore. This rare disease, is similar to Hillarytosis and Paulobia.
1. Obamormon Yep. Believe it or not, many conservative Evangelicals and Mormons have started working for Obama. These mainly young volunteers often "leave out" their religios leanings as they feel they are "weird" for opposing their hardcore parents leanings.
If reporters had nabbed former presidential candidate John Edwards lying about his extramarital affair, Hillary Clinton would have captured the Democratic presidential nomination, her former communications director said.
"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com in an interview released Monday, because internal campaign polling showed "our voters and Edwards voters were the same people. They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama."
I used to argue that Obama benefited from having Edwards in the campaign. However, the evidence, as I discuss in the extended entry, not only goes against Howard Wolfson here, but also proved me wrong.
(Okay, so this post covers a lot of the ongoing horror story of how the media continues to uncritically repeat baseless GOP "voter fraud" claims, but eventually it DOES deliver on the promised morsel of good news from Virginia--hopefully a sign that the tide is starting to turn. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
We spend a lot of time in these news updates showing how charges of voter fraud are used to discredit voter participation efforts and prime the pump for voter suppression efforts, such as the passage of voter ID bills, pushing for proof of citizenship, engaging in draconian voter purge efforts, and imposing sever restrictions on voter registration drives. We have also spent a lot of time carefully delineating the politics behind these efforts, starting with our March 2007 report The Politics Of Voter Fraud and continuing on in these diaries to name but two venues.
Remember 2004? When the incumbent Senate Democratic Leader was beaten when he was running for reelection in South Dakota? The first time the Republican Senate Leader Bill Frist broke one of those so called DC "gentlemen's agreeements" of not actively campaigning against the leader of the other party?
You want that to happen again in 2010?
No? Then follow me below the fold to see what you can do NOW to stop the Republicans from beating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010!
How are you commemorating National Nurses Week—this week set aside annually to honor the everyday heroes in the nursing profession?
During National Nurses Week and throughout the year, SEIU nurses want to be united, not divided—with other nurses, with other healthcare workers, with patient care advocates—to work for a quality care environment.
But sadly, SEIU nurses in Nevada and around the country are spending the week renewing their call for an end to the divisive actions of the California Nurses Association (CNA), which is busy declaring “real war” on nurses. The outcome of an election over union representation remains in balance for 1,000 nurses at three Las Vegas hospitals, after months of CNA's lies and false promises failed to capture enough votes to lure nurses away from SEIU.
CNA is devoting massive resources to divide nurses at a critical time when workers need each other and patients need them most. In addition to the Vegas raid attempt, the CNA is actively trying to decertify SEIU nurses throughout California and elsewhere in the country. In March, the CNA waged an aggressive "vote no" campaign in Ohio, forcing the cancellation of union elections for 8,300 nurses and hospital workers in nine hospitals. In recent years the CNA also has raided other unions or intervened in other unions' organizing drives in Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and other states. For more information on any of these, go to www.shameoncna.com/.
So back to the question of how best to commemorate National Nurses Week. How about by signing a mutual no-raid agreement? SEIU is offering to sign one with the CNA and its allied organizations anytime and anywhere.
Please, rather than dividing the too-few nurses who already have a union voice, let's unite the 85% who don't—for patients and for the profession.
When I took a leave of absence from my job in Washington in 2000 to work in the Montana Senate race, I didn't have much clue what I was in for. Growing up on the East Coast, I thought of the Intermountain West as a huge, far-off, mysterious place of square states and cattle herds - and like many people on the coasts, I didn't know much else.
In the years since that first campaign, I have been working in and reporting on the West, telling people what I say in my new nationally syndicated newspaper column today: That this region is the most politically misunderstood place in America.
I have now lost two posts about the Las Vegas caucus to my evil browser, so this one is going to be a picture tour. I'll just say, for all the whining about caucuses - and they are problematic in many ways - the ones in Las Vegas were just awesome. Cocktail waitresses, cooks, maids, nightclub PR flacks, pipe fitters, random Las Vegans all came together in the Wynn casino on the strip in a gaudy ballroom to pick a President, and it was... exactly like Iowa. It was raucous, cheerful, and exciting, as that video above shows. People are all the same, and when they are empowered it's just wonderful to observe.
These two guys are holding signs that say 'I support the union I support Hillary', the union being the Culinary Workers whose leadership endorsed Obama. The signs were paid for by the Clinton campaign, which outworked and out-organized Obama.
My full picture set is here, or you can follow me on the flip for a guided tour.
Imagine if, the day after the 2000 election, the national media simply didn't care about what happened in Florida, and instead acted as though Al Gore had won the election because he won the popular vote. Imagine if all cries from the Bush campaign about something called "The Electoral College" fell on deaf ears, and everyone just acted like Gore won and the popular vote was the only thing that mattered. States? Who cares about the results of individual states? Only the popular vote matters, dummies!
While that would have been perfectly fine with me, since I think the Electoral College is an anti-democratic institution that favors the will of geographic areas over the will of American citizens, it isn't what happened. The reason it isn't what happened is that everyone knows Presidency in America is determined by electoral votes, not popular votes. As such, electoral votes, not popular votes, are the main focus during any Presidential general election.
However, today the media decided that the Electoral College doesn't matter, and because Al Gore won the popular vote he won the election. Or, more accurately, the media decided that because more delegates to the Nevada state Democratic Party convention in April indicated they would support Clinton than Obama, it doesn't matter that the way the state delegates are arranged by geography actually projects to Barack Obama sending more pledged delegates from Nevada to the Democratic National Convention. Just as the Constitution indicates that the Electoral College, not the popular vote, determines the winner of the Presidency, Democratic Party by-laws make it quite clear that delegates to the national convention, not the popular vote and not delegates to the state convention, determine the winner of the presidential nomination campaign. Strangely, however, even though Obama is projected to win the most delegates to the national convention, Clinton is projected as the winner.
Before the mainstream media descended on Nevada, I spent several days with the Clinton campaign there in early December. The field campaign, led by State Director Robby Mook and field director Marlon Marshall turned out to be an incredible example of passionate, yet cool-headed management and results-focused organizing.
Every single night, for almost one year up until today, in the modest Las Vegas offices of the Clinton campaign, young, exhausted organizers have reliably reported the results of their hard days' work to a regional field director in incredible detail. Every night, without fail.
For the mainstream news media, a few seconds of "tears" or a last minute robo call will always trump the story of a year of meticulous organizing by disciplined armies of young campaign staff and volunteers. Though it's difficult to report comprehensively on scattered and closed-mouthed presidential field operations, there are reasons to believe that high-quality field organizing has been decisive in the first contests of 2008. This week in Nevada, Obama had a surge in the polls and an endorsement from the powerful Culinary Workers union on his side. Meticulous organizing and good management by the local Clinton Nevada staff have made the difference.
I've discussed the 'swing liberal' block before, noting that this group moved from Obama to Clinton between Iowa and New Hampshire. Unfortunately, we can't really fully understand this trend in Nevada because the entrance polls aren't great. Still, while the not great, it is the only data set we have to go on.
In Iowa, Obama beat Clinton by 16 points among those who consider themselves as 'very liberal'. In New Hampshire, they were even. And now in Nevada, Clinton simply destroyed Obama within that block by 16 points. In other words, while it's not entirely clear who 'won' Nevada, whatever that means, had Obama run even with Clinton among those who describe themselves as 'very liberal', he would have soundly defeated her at the caucuses outright instead of having to play delegate games.
Both Edwards and Clinton dog whistled hard on Obama's Reagan remarks. Many readers and friends simply don't believe me that the stuff he said about Reagan was bad. Here's what it sounds like to people who lived through that period, which is still a majority of the voting universe. Digby helpfully wrote this in a frame of reference many will understand. Imagine George W. Bush in 2000 saying this.
We're still having the same arguments. It's all around regulations and smaller government and it's all ... even when you discuss traditional values the frame of reference is all around abortion. Well, that's not my frame of reference. My frame of reference is "what works." When I first came out against abortion, my first line was I don't oppose all abortions, specifically, to make clear that this is not a theocratic, you know, snake-handling prayer vigil kind of approach."
I think Lyndon Johnson changed the trajectory of the country in a way that JFK did not and Nixon did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of racism and anti-communism and government refusing to raise taxes to care for the poor and the elderly, I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want a return to that sense of community and compassion that had been missing."
Bush would have lost the nomination right then and there. Conservatives simply do not run away from their past, they create narratives that reinforce it as a tradition worth belonging to. What Obama did when lauding Reagan as an answer to the 'excesses of the 1960s' (which you can very well see is a conservative meme by doing a quick Google book search) was attack and insult the liberal traditions of feminism, civil rights, environmentalism, consumer rights, and peace movement work from that time.
And he got torched by the older liberals who lived through Saint Ronnie's time and don't remember it as such an optimistic time when a dynamic man reigned in government and brought back entrepreneurship (which is not in fact true).
The right creates and protects their icons and history jealously, just as they tear down our traditions and heroes or appropriate them for their own usage by claiming that our best people were in fact conservative (hence JFK becomes a strong national security Democrat who cut taxes). The past matters. It just does. And if you want to know why, just remember that Bush has rung up a huge credit card debt that we will have to pay off. And if we can't explain that Bush rang up the bill by referencing the past, the country is going to blame Democrats for what Bush did. It's happened before. Just ask Bill Clinton and the 1994 Congressional class of Democrats, who paid the price for Ronald Reagan's binge spending.
We have been fighting Ronald Reagan's psychologically diseased followers and predecessors since, well, since they called themselves the Confederacy and fought for slavery. And we will keep fighting them if we are to retain a republic. That's why the self-identified very liberal Democrats swung away from Obama and took Nevada from him. Because he very self-consciously explained that he is not part of that fight, and they want a leader who is.
This is a picture I took yesterday of Gerald McEntee, the head of the powerful AFSCME labor union, at the closing Clinton rally. The sign he's holding says 'Culinary Workers for Clinton', and it's a dig at the leaders of the Culinary Workers, who endorsed Obama and from what I hear from good sources used incredibly heavy handed tactics to encourage their members to caucus for Obama.
At the caucus I was at, two AFSCME organizers were actually out-organizing the Culinary Workers among their own members, a sign of just how badly the Obama labor camp played their hand. Not only did the union not deliver their members, but it's probable that the aggressive tactics, which included things like explaining to members they should caucus for Obama or not show up at all, backfired and drove up support for Clinton. Remember, Clinton tried to get the strip caucuses canceled in a lawsuit, but ended up winning the strip casinos anyway, including New York New York.
While at first the Obama supporters were loud and seemed coherent, at a certain moment the number of Clinton supporters holding signs that said 'I support the union, I support Hillary', signs paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign, were suddenly the majority. One guy was saying 'the union is lying, it's not sixty thousand for Obama', and while most of the workers I tried to speak with couldn't speak English, they were clearly excited to be at the caucus and happy to back Clinton.
If I had known what McEntee was trying to say last night, I would have blogged it a bit differently. The story here is huge turnout, good organizing, and a new caucus system that was simply overwhelmed by the number of people who wanted to participate. The Nevada Democratic Party needed around 1700 new precinct chairs for the caucuses, since there's no culture of caucusing in the state on such a scale. The party recruited them, and didn't force campaign neutrality on the chairs. It's possible this is because the party is in bed with Clinton, or it's possible that party leaders just didn't think they could get enough chairs to staff the caucuses and didn't want to turn away qualified chairs. Much of the fighting over rules and claims of voter irregularities can be chalked up to mistakes and a complicated system with over a hundred thousand participants and thousands of managers new to the process.
The central claim of the Clinton camp is that the Obama labor people were intimidating members. The central claim of the Obama camp is that Clinton-affiliated chairs were telling their people to show up at 11:30 and then shutting doors to caucus-goers at 11:30 instead of 12. Aside from the fact that party rules conflict with each other on this point, many of the caucus goers really wanted the event to start and end quickly, because they were working. In the middle of the caucus I attended, about a third of the room emptied out because of a shift change (their votes had been counted). In other words, there were good reasons to shut the doors at 11:30.
Anyway, I don't buy the claims of the Obama campaign that there was voter suppression going on, and I do think that the Culinary workers were pressuring their members to vote for Obama. Unfortunately for them, AFSCME just flat out beat them at their own game.
I believe John Edwards's situation is similar to that of a third party candidate working for viability. Voters considering their choices usually do not use their votes to 'send a message' but to pick a winner, so unless a third party candidate can prove they could possibly win an election, usually support for that candidate will collapse.
