Over 150 prominent activists, authors, and academics have launched a petition with a statement that begins:
"We the undersigned share with nearly two-thirds of our fellow Americans the conviction that our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should be ended and that overall military spending should be dramatically reduced. This has been our position for years and will continue to be, and we take it seriously. We vow not to support President Barack Obama for renomination for another term in office, and to actively seek to impede his war policies unless and until he reverses them."
I'm running for Congress against Stephen Lynch in the Democratic Primary (MA-9) because we don't just need more Democrats -- we need better Democrats. And to get Better Democrats, we need to do more to hold those "Democrats" who vote against the interest of working families accountable.
During his time in Congress, Stephen Lynch has taken some pretty bad votes. Whether it was to deny health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans, to send our troops to war in Iraq, or to restrict a woman's right to choose, Stephen Lynch's bad votes have hurt our community -- and our nation.
Today our campaign is launching a new website to get the facts out there about Stephen Lynch's bad votes, and the harm that's come from those votes. After all, if you can't judge a Congressman based on his voting record, what CAN you judge him on?
It looks like MoveOn.org members are just as excited about Elaine Marshall as DFA and the rest of North Carolina. Over 70% of MoveOn.org's NC members supported Elaine in for the runoff on June 22. The vote will determine which candidate will run against incumbent Sen. Richard Burr (R).
Elaine Marshall's popularity in North Carolina reflects her deep roots in the community. Marshall was also endorsed by Durham mayor Bill Bell and Asheville mayor Terry Bellam.
Marshall's opponent, supported by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has raised $1.2 million against Marshall's $775,003, but is still behind in the polls. It's not over yet though, and when they start spending that money on ads to attack Marshall, she will need your help.
Not as high profile as the AR race, but equally important to getting another Progressive in the Senate -- the NC runoff is June 22. DFA endorsed candidate, Elaine Marshall, just got the endorsement of the largest Progressive paper in the state: The Independent Weekly.
They reiterate what DFA members on the ground have been saying since the beginning:
. . . If nominated, Marshall would have a better chance of winning the fall election against Republican Sen. Richard Burr. The second: If elected, Marshall would be the stronger senator.
It is fascinating to observe the difference between the in-state analysis of this race vs. the calculation of the DC insider establishment who are supporting Cunningham.
The difference may be as simple as the fact that Marshall, in her bones and in her roots, is working-class. So she's not confused about what the rights of working men and women should be in a world economy dominated by giant corporations and banks. Nor is she in doubt about where the federal government should stand. It should stand, she believes, with the working class for their jobs, and against labor and trade policies that privilege capital at the expense of people and the environment-at home or abroad. No more outsourcing of America's future.
As a lawyer, a state senator and for the last 14 years as secretary of state, Marshall has been a consistent voice and vote for the interests of regular folks and equal rights for all. She was a forceful exponent of women's equality early in her career, and as a legislator she helped enact a series of laws improving women's health care in North Carolina. She has also stood for equal rights for gays and lesbians, and in this campaign came out early and strongly for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the anti-gay military policy, and of the federal DOMA, the discriminatory law misnamed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Elaine Marshall has a record of winning and North Carolinians really like her. She beat a NASCAR driver, for pete's sake.
Marshall became the first woman elected statewide to executive office in North Carolina in 1996, when she defeated NASCAR legend Richard Petty in a race for secretary of state. She has won re-election three times since and is the only one of this bunch to have won statewide. In 2008, she won more votes in a contested race than anyone but Attorney General Roy Cooper.
It looks like NC has decided who they think is the best Progressive to beat Burr. I hope DC catches up. To chip in to Elaine's campaign, give here.
On June 8, Californians will vote on several referendums, in addition to primary races. One of those referendums, Proposition 14 (aka the Top Two Primaries Act), could hugely change how those primary races are conducted, and it would definitely not be for the better. As if to add insult to injury, but it could take down a public campaign financing measure along with it.
Prop 14 was put on the ballot through the backroom dealings of State Senator (not Lt. Gov.) Abel Moldonado, the very last holdout on the budget this year. He used the budget crisis for his own profit and one of his demands was to put this measure on the ballot. Now, his reckless action is being opposed by every political party in California and numerous electoral reform groups, groups ranging from the NAACP to the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition.
But big business wants this to pass because of the control it could give them over elections (explanation below the fold). So your help is needed - $5, $10, $100 - whatever you can chip in to prevent California from descending further into a mess of broken government.
So I was sitting around my house today, putting off doing my Latin homework, when it hit me - instead of just opening the fridge a dozen times and checking my facebook a hundred times, I could be putting this time to good use! And I did. I started doing some online phonebanking for Marcy Winograd's campaign for Congress in California's 36th district.
If you're bored, feeling helpless and alone amidst a sea of political currents fighting against you, excited about the upcoming primaries and election, overcome with energy you need to spend on something, or feeling any other emotion, this is for you! Marcy has been a member of the Netroots for years and is a firebrand progressive. Since she's running against a corrupt Blue Dog (Jane Harman), this is one of the best races in the country for progressives to get involved in.
I live in Pennsylvania, yet I'm still able to help Marcy's campaign, because of a neat online phonebanking tool that has been set up. Follow me below the fold to learn how you can help, too.
This is my response to a Docudharma / DailyKos blog post, called SHHHHHHHHHH!!!! - wherein we are (sarcastically) urged to "yell louder".
While sympathetic with the sentiment, I took exception to consideration of such a notion as either a optimal long term, or even optimal short term, strategy.
I present a sketch of an approach that I consider to be a much smarter and, frankly, less frustrating and emotionally taxing
If there was ever a doubt that committed activists could shake things up and make a difference, let the recent grassroots PA-Sen Straw Poll stand as an example in your mind.
The problem: Political insiders were dominating the contours of the PA-Sen primary, trying to clear the field for Arlen Specter. The grassroots had no meaningful voice.
The solution: A Straw Poll supported by tons of national and state progressive actors -- where thousands of activists could weigh in on whether the most talked-about potential challenger was good enough to be drafted.
The theory of change: By creating one place where the public, political insiders, and the media could look to see the grassroots discontent with Specter and the level of support for Joe Sestak, progressives could alter the environment in which potential challengers made their decision about whether to run -- and alter the media dialogue to make the idea of a primary challenge less far-fetched.
Below are over 35 media stories and blog posts about the Straw Poll's launch and the final results -- personally, I'm most thrilled with all the local media coverage.
And John Morgan of The Pennsylvania Progressive (a Straw Poll partner) got some video of Sestak talking about our collective impact. Thanks to all who partnered and voted and believed that we could alter the political terrain together.
The grassroots Straw Poll has ended, and over 7,500 votes were cast!
The results: 85% in Pennsylvania and 86% nationally said YES -- draft Rep. Joe Sestak to run against Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary.
Joe Sestak just sent over this statement thanking all who voted!
"I am honored that so many of you took the time to vote in the recent grassroots Straw Poll. Let me tell you, I and many others were paying attention. If I decide to run it will be in large measure because of the grassroots energy of so many people like you. Until I and my family make that decision, please accept my thanks and my best wishes as you continue be active participants in our people-powered democracy. Thank you so very much!"
The goal of this Straw Poll -- sponsored by the PCCC in partnership with OpenLeft, Daily Kos, Digby, CrooksandLiars, the Pennsylvania Progressive, Keystone Progress, and many others -- was to allow the grassroots to have a meaningful voice in a process previously dominated by party insiders.
Not only does there appear to be grassroots energy for a primary -- but Sestak seems to be someone many folks could rally around.
Sestak obviously is paying attention to the voting results, and a big grassroots draft fund would also likely influence his decision even more.
If he runs, he automatically gets all draft donations, giving him a boost. If he doesn't, funds in that account go to ActBlue -- a vital piece of progressive infrastructure that has revolutionized people-power campaigning by making online contributions to Democrats easy. (Thanks, ActBlue!)
After serving nearly five terms in the U.S. Senate as a Republican, Arlen Specter switched parties - and now he expects to be the Democratic candidate for Senate in 2010 despite his consistent opposition to a public option for universal healthcare.
When we reach 5,000 signatures we will deliver this letter to Arlen Specter's office here in D.C.
Read the letter below:
Dear Arlen Specter:
After serving nearly five terms in the U.S. Senate as a Republican, you've switched your party affiliation from Republican to Democrat - and you expect to be the Democratic candidate for Senate in 2010 despite your consistent opposition to a public option for universal healthcare.
Mr. Specter: Support a public healthcare plan or allow a real Democrat to run for Senate
87 million Americans went without healthcare at some point over the last two years. This is unacceptable.
Pennsylvania voters had a choice in the last election to elect a candidate who would fix our nation's healthcare woes or one who would kick the problem down the road, and they voted overwhelmingly for President Obama.
Your constituents deserve a Senator who will work to fix our nation's healthcare system. If you can't be that Senator, we suggest you clear the way for a candidate who will.
Watching Larry King and he has a panel of two Democrats, two Republicans to analyze various things, and the two Democrats are Paul Begala and Joan Walsh.
Interesting because both of them referred to the fact that they were Hillary supporters and had been critical of Obama to build up their subsequent praise of him in how he had won them over the past month or two.
It made their points more effective I thought, lending them some additional credibility beyond your usual partisan flacks. This is an advantage of having a hotly contested primary I hadn't considered. I don't know if Obama's campaign had anything to do with them appearing on CNN, but if so, it is a smart play.
Remember back in June, when Barack Obama "clarified" his positions on a whole raft of issues-including warrantless wiretapping-all in a rightward direction?
At the time, I felt there were three things worth noting:
(1) Some shifts away from majority positions to rightwing minority positions were presented as shifts "to the center". Most notably, even most Republican voters now see "free trade" as more bad than good.
(2) We were told that this was a "political necessity."
(3) We were told that this "always happens."
(1) and (2) were particularly dubious when Obama backed away from his criticism of NAFTA, given how crucial Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are to winning the White House, and how hated NAFTA is among the very blue collar voters that Obama needs in order to beat McCain there. But #3, at least, seemed plausible to those who don't recall the elections of 1968 and 1980. Even those who do recall those elections are likely to insist that they, too, followed the standard pattern of running away from the center in the primaries, and towards it in the general election. And now, at least, I'm not inclined to argue with them, because now we clearly have a counter-example on our hands: John McCain ran center in the primaries, and now is running right.
In my last post I talked about some of the bills that have been introduced that attempt to address the mess that our Presidential nominating contests have become. All of these pieces of legislation would seek to federalize the system in one way or another standardizing the process. There is some question as to legality of these remedies. In this post, we'll look at some of the legal issues that complicate a purely federal solution to the Presidential nominating process.
Florida's delegates are to be seated at 1/2 vote each. Michigan's pledged delegates are to be reassasigned 69 Clinton-59 Obama and all delegates then seated at 1/2 vote each. New totals: Obama 2053; Clinton 1876.5; magic number to win: 2117. Obama now needs 64 delegates to clench the nomination.
I don't have a strong opinion on what should have happened here, but I will say the 1/2 strength compromise does mirror the punishment the RNC meted out to Florida and Michigan so that should cut down on their ability to yammer about the Democratic party not living up to its name.
The popular vote is a fallacy, as I've written before. A brief recap: 1) Candidates would camp out in large urban areas like LA and Brooklyn and never spend so many millions trying to split 200,000 votes in the whole state of NH; 2) No state would rationally hold a caucus, thereby disenfranchising its say in the nomination selection; and 3) unlike the general election concept of one person, one vote, allowing independents or Republicans to vote in some states but not others badly skews the simplistic moral argument underpinning popular vote.
Tuesday night, I am watching two numbers. First, if Obama takes down a combined 98 pledged delegates then pledged delegate checkmate can officially be declared, with the remaining 37 proportional races guaranteed to give Obama at least a minimum 1 vote and thus put him over the top on the minimum viability alone.
Second, I want to see Obama erase Clinton's PA popular vote gain, which would finally drive a stake into that argument.
This diary is a straightforward analysis of what it will take to regain 214,224 votes.
STATE BLOGS
