Open Left - primary campaigns

Olympia Snowe will join Democratic Senate caucus in, at the most, 945 days

Chris Bowers — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:45:00 GMT

At the absolute latest, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe will join the Senate Democratic caucus by Tuesday, June 12, 2012. She may not actually register as a Democrat, but she will start caucusing with Democrats by that date--or even earlier. Here is why:

Snowe is up for re-election in 2012.
The Maine primary is held on the second Tuesday in June. So, in 2012, this means June 12th.
Snowe is losing to a generic conservative primary challenger 59%-31%, among likely Republican voters.
Maine has a closed primary system, meaning that only registered Republicans can vote in Maine Republican primaries. Same day registration is allowed, but that won't change the outcome in such a lopsided campaign.
It is a rock-solid guarantee that conservatives will primary Snowe from the right in 2012. Not only is she pro-choice, but her lifetime Progressive Punch score on critical votes is identical to Arlen Specter's (27%). If they are not going to primary challenge Snowe, they are not going to primary challenge anyone. And we all know they will keep running primary challenges.
In 2012, all major Republican Presidential candidates will endorse Snowe's inevitable primary challenger. This is both because that challenger will comfortably lead Snowe in the primary, but also based on the pattern we just witnessed in NY-23. It didn't take long for all leading Republicans to fall into Hoffman's camp once he proved more viable, and more popular among the Republican base, than the moderate Scozzafava.

Republican Presidential candidates looking to appease the base will make sure that he entire Republican establishment lines up behind Snowe's primary challenger.
In the past, Harry Reid has approached Olympia Snowe about joining the Senate Democratic caucus. He confirmed this to me over the phone more than three years ago, right after the 2006 elections.
Without establishment support in her own party, trailing badly in the polls, and with an offer to join the Democratic caucus, Snowe will bolt the Republican Party and join the Democratic Senate caucus by June 12th, 2012, at the very latest.

So, sometime in the next 945 days, Senate Democrats will pick up another seat.

Might be a time to start preparing a primary challenger to Olympia Snowe of our own in 2012.

NY-Sen, PA-Sen: Maloney, Sestak Lining Up Primary Challenges

Chris Bowers — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:01:17 GMT

Defying the wishes of the national Democratic Party leadership, today comes news that both Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) will mount primary challenges to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Arlen Specter, respectively. Good for both Sestak and Maloney. If the leadership can't control their own Senate caucus enough to pass progressive legislation, then they shouldn't be able to prevent progressive primary challenges, either.

Although neither Sestak nor Maloney are making their official campaign launches at this time, in the extended entry I discuss polling, voting records, and other important information that will help you make sense of these campaigns.

Voting records
DW-Nominate places both primary challengers to the left of the incumbent Senators. Here are the most recent comparisons, from 2007-2008 (-1.000 is the most liberal possible, and 1.000 is the most conservative possible, although no one really ever scores beyond 0.750 in either direction):

Gillibrand ~~0.233 vs. Maloney~~ 0.442 (Difference: 0.209)
Specter 0.091 vs. Sestak -0.287 (Difference: 0.378)

So, Maloney has a more progressive record (she is actually a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, though she did vote for the Iraq war), but the gap between Specter and Sestak is much greater.

Polling
In New York, Gillibrand and Maloney are already tied:

Quinnipiac (6/21): Maloney 27%, Gillibrand 23%, Tasini 4%
Schoen (5/31): Maloney 34%, Gillibrand 32%
Marist (4/29): Gillibrand 36%, Maloney 31%

Normally, is would be extremely bad news for an incumbent. However, Gillibrand and Maloney have equal name identification, so this really is a dead heat. One advantage Maloney (who represents parts of Manhattan and Queens) might have is that 60% of the 2008 New York primary electorate came from New York City (50%) and Long Island (10%), theoretically providing her with a larger geographic base than Gillibrand (who is from the Albany and Hudson Valley region). Then again, Long Island votes more like Upstate than like New York City, meaning there is no advantage in either direction.

In Pennsylvania, Specter currently holds a roughly 20% lead on Sestak. The Pollster.com trendline shows Specter ahead 40.6%--23.7%, and the four most recent polls show an average of Specter 47.8%--25.0% Sestak. However, as I discussed in more detail last week, Sestak is already ahead among Democrats who know both candidates. Further, Sestak's strongest demographic groups are actually the less Democratic, less-liberal sections of the party, meaning that Specter is in the awkward position of having to hold down a liberal base while being challenges from the left.

Money (as of March 31st)
Specter: $6,735,915
Sestak: $3,343,701
Gillibrand: $2,202,825
Maloney: $1,339,081

Primaries
Both primaries are "closed," in that only registered Democrats can vote.

The Pennsylvania primary takes place on May 18th, 2010
The New York primary takes place in early September, 2010

Banking On Specter's Lack of Principles

Chris Bowers — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:51:02 GMT

A member of Congress once told me that Representatives who consider changing their votes based on only a dozen or so phone calls from constituents are referred to as "bedwetters" by the other members of Congress. I thought it was funny, but in retrospect I should have asked for a list of the so-called "bedwetting" members. After all, knowing who they are would make it a lot easier to influence congressional behavior. "Bedwetters" are useful to activists.

In this light, Nate Silver is right: Specter's obvious lack of principles is best ray or hope in his entire party switch story. Given that voting data shows Specter has slowly moved to the right in recent years, then our best hope that his party switch will also result in a broad, overall leftward voting switch will have to come from his lack of principles:

But if you're a Democrat, would you really want Arlen Specter to be anything other than a soulless, unprincipled hack? If Specter were more concerned about self-consistency -- and less about self-preservation -- he'd probably still be a Republican right now. Moreover, Democrats had better hope that Specter is as nakedly power-hungry as possible, because his best move from the standpoint of self-preservation is probably not merely to become a Democrat but to become a reasonably liberal one, along the lines of Bob Casey Jr.

Indeed. We better all hope that Specter's obvious lack of principles translates into a massive shift in his voting habits. While Specter has said publicly that there will be no such shift, is there any reason to trust such an obviously unprincipled, power-hungry politician? Further, to help guarantee Specter's leftward voting shift, it is important that Joe Torsella stay in the primary campaign, and that Representative Joe Sestak continue to keep the door open to a primary run as along as possible. Clearly, Specter's behavior can be altered by the presence of real threats to the continuation of his political career.

Specter is an unprincipled wanker. So, let's use that to our advantage.

Make The Progressive Window More Progressive

Chris Bowers — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:46:53 GMT

Back on Wednesday, I argued that, if we do well enough in the 2008 elections, our once in a generation opportunity for real progressive change at the federal level will have arrived.

Of course, even if we do pull off a 75+ seat majority in the House, 60 seats in the Senate, and also win the White House this year, the key term to emphasize in the previous sentence is that this is still only an opportunity. Just having the these large majorities does not guarantee that good, progressive legislation will be passed to address the many huge problems we face. Will we go far enough to fix our climate change problems? Our food problems? Our health care problems? Our education problems? Our cradle to prison superhighway? Our housing problems? We are facing numerous major crises as a nation, and there is no guarantee that the still largely New Democratic dominated Democratic caucuses will go far enough to fix these problems.

One way to make sure that the upcoming progressive governing window will go far enough is to elect Ed Fallon to Congress, or at least push Leonard Boswell to the brink of defeat. Primary campaigns like these are just about the only way we progressives can hold our more conservative members of Congress accountable, and change their voting behavior for the better. For example, the only two Democratic votes we flipped on Iraq in 2007 came from Democrats who faced progressive primary challenges.

As the primary season winds down, Ed Fallon's progressive challenge to Leonard Boswell in the Iowa 3rd is one of our last chances to influence the behavior of the massive, incoming Democratic majorities in Congress. Let's make it count. Already, we are at 70 82 donors for Ed Fallon, and we can push that up to 100. Donate to Ed Fallon today, and build a progressive governing majority in D.C.

Ed Fallon For Congress

Chris Bowers — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:06:02 GMT

Over the few days, we have held a fundraiser on Open Left, and right now we stand only $3,000 short of our financial goal. However, for the next week, we are putting that fundraiser on hold, and instead asking you to contribute money to Ed Fallon instead, whose primary against conservative Bush Dog Leonard Boswell is only seven days away.

Matt's post earlier today covers many of the issues where Boswell is a Bush-enabling conservative, and an old post of mine from last August tackles several more. Suffice to say that at Open Left working toward a progressive governing majority is our tagline, and changing Bush Dog behavior was one of our very first campaigns (heck, Matt actually coined the term "Bush Dog.") It is difficult to find a clearer opportunity to take a step toward accomplishing both goals than the IA-03 primary campaign. Defeating Leonard Boswell would send a message to all 39 of the other Bush Dogs: stop supporting Bush policies, and start voting your districts, or you will be held accountable. If you support the founding missions of Open Left, then supporting Ed Fallon is a no-brainer.

Fallon is a serious candidate, and a proven winner in this district. Even before the Des Moines Register endorsement today, Fallon defeated an incumbent Democrat for state assembly in a primary in 1992, and did so by a 2-1 margin. Ten years later, also by 2-1 margins, he fended off party-backed primary challenges for his seat. In 2006, he won this district in the Gubernatorial primary. He is experienced at winning primaries in this district, and surely with the endorsement of the DMR he will be charging hard at the end of this campaign.

Join the final push by donating to Ed Fallon. There are going to be huge Democratic majorities in Congress next year, but we need to work to make sure those are progressive majorities. Fifty new donors for Ed Fallon would be a big step in that direction.

Can Clinton Still Win The Popular Vote? No.

Chris Bowers — Sun, 11 May 2008 19:24:21 GMT

While the nomination campaign might very well be effectively over, especially given the vast, pro-Obama superdelegate movement over the past week, it remains possible that at some point between now and June 3rd, the Clinton campaign will argue that it leads in the popular vote. It needs to be pointed out now that in the broadest possible count of the popular vote, the count that includes all people who participated in the nomination process, that such a claim will simply be false. As I argued back on April 23rd:

In keeping with the principle of one person, one vote, the only good metrics to use are the ones with the broadest popular participation. As such, when measuring the popular vote, it is best to throw the widest possible net. This means to include Florida. It also means to include the estimates from caucus states that did not release popular totals, which stand at Obama 334,084--223,862 Clinton. Finally, it means to include Michigan, but also to allocate Obama 72.91%, or 173,368 of the uncommitted vote. This number is derived by dividing Obama's exit poll support in Michigan by the combined exit poll support of Obama, Edwards and Richardson, and then multiplying that number with the total uncommitted vote.

A second look at the official Michigan results indicates that the Obama uncommitted vote estimation should actually be 173,664. My earlier estimation was slightly lower because it did not use the official Michigan results.

Any popular vote count that does not allocate the Michigan uncommitted is invalid, because it is based on the rather absurd notion that the over 238,000 Michiganders who selected the "uncommitted" choice weren't actually supporting any candidate. In truth, several campaigns existed that pushed Obama and Edwards supporters to choose uncommitted, as even the Clinton campaign has argued on numerous occasions. For example, from the Fact Hub:

Second, the Obama campaign's allies in Michigan organized an effort to get people in Michigan to vote for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary, helping to bring the uncommitted share of vote to 40 percent. So the Obama camp can't reasonably argue supporters participated in the GOP primary and didn't vote in the Democratic contest.

Either some of those uncommitted votes were for Obama, or none of them were. In this passage, the Clinton campaign states that at least some of the uncommitted votes were for for Obama. To then argue that Obama gets zero votes in a popular vote count that includes Michigan just isn't "reasonable," in the Clinton campasign's own phrasing.

At the same time, it would be inaccurate to re-allocate the entire Michigan vote based on exit polls, since it retroactively takes votes that were in fact cast for Clinton and shifts them to other candidates. The only fair and democratic way is to give Clinton all of her Michigan votes, and then to allocate the uncommitted votes based on exit polls of Obama, Edwards and Richardson support, as those were the three candidates who removed their names from the ballot. So, 173,664 is the total for Obama from Michigan.

Overall, this means the best one-person, one-vote popular vote total is the bottom most total from Real Clear Politics, plus 173,664 for Obama. This leads to the following current, grand totals:

Obama: 17,087,483
Clinton: 16,690,099

This gives Obama a current margin of 397,384, which Clinton is very unlikely to erase during the final six contests. There is talk of up to two million people voting in the Puerto Rico primary, considering that there was 80% turnout in their last gubernatorial election. However, that was a general election, not a primary. Also, the local gubernatorial election is bound to draw way more voters than a Democratic primary, given the lower level of campaigning that has taken place and the more indirect impact it will have on Puerto Rican affairs.

It is now virtually guaranteed that Obama will win a narrow plurality of the popular vote / participation in the Democratic nomination campaign. Neither candidate will have won a majority, but the "will of the electorate" will still have been served by the outcome. That is a very good thing, since I know that I would not have been the only person extremely uncomfortable with nominating a candidate who did not receive the most popular support in the process. The day we nominate a candidate who did not receive the most popular support / participation will be a dark day for the party.

BlogPac: From Blue To Bluer

Chris Bowers — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:26:59 GMT

Cross posted at Daily Kos

Every two years, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) releases it's "red to blue" list of top challengers for Republican-held U.S. House seats.

Five years ago, starting with his Presidential campaign and continuing with his tenure as DNC chair, Howard Dean introduced the idea of a "fifty state strategy" to the Democratic Party. The basic premise of the fifty-state strategy is that in order to truly revitalize the party Democrats needed to organize everywhere in the country, no matter how red or how blue a district may be, and not just in a select few "swing district" districts.

More recently, progressives have utilized Democratic primaries as a means to successfully change Democratic behavior. So far this year, this strategy has worked in districts such as the Illinois 3rd where Dan Lipinski changed his vote on Iraq because of his primary challenger, the Iowa 3rd where Blue Dog Leonard Boswell has suddenly become a progressive on a range of issues now that Ed Fallon is running against him, and the Maryland 4th where Donna Edwards handily defeated the more conservative Al Wynn. It is in the spirit of all three of these projects that BlogPac is announcing a similar program to reform safe, blue seats at the local and statewide level: From Blue to Bluer.

From Blue to Bluer seeks to first identify, and then help elect, progressive, grassroots candidates who are running in competitive Democratic primaries in blue districts around the country. The primaries can either be for open seats or against incumbents who are either too conservative for their districts, or who are simply corrupt, or both. The goal is to find a handful of proudly progressive primary candidates for local and state legislative races, and then provide them with the national support they need to help put them over the top. Through this program, we can show Democrats across the country that that a fifty-state strategy means blue districts too, and that all Democrats, no matter how local, can be held accountable for not representing their districts or for selling out progressive ideals.

The city where I live, Philadelphia, is a perfect example of why we need From Blue To Bluer. With the city regularly voting for Democrats in general elections by more than 80%, Philadelphia is about as deep blue of an area one can find anywhere in the country. However, while there are very few elected Republicans in the city, that does not mean most of our elected officials are progressives.

In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. Many of our local Democrats are beholden to an often-corrupt, non-transparent political machine that governs to dole out appropriations and city jobs to friends, family and local party officials. Dozens of local officials, including members of city council and state Senators, have been indicated and / or are currently in jail. There is even a public, specific price that someone can pay the local machine in order to become an elected judge ($35,000, the last time I checked). Philadelphia politics are definitely Democratic, but we still have a long way to go until we can be accurately called progressive.

In deep blue areas like Philadelphia, Democratic primaries for open seats and primary challenges against Democratic incumbents are just about the only way local progressive reformers can make a difference on the electoral level.

Here in Philly, we've already had some success, electing Michael Nutter mayor and defeating a machine backed incumbent for city council in 2007. One year earlier, local progressives defeated two-machine backed candidates in open primaries for state assembly seats. This year, Anne Dicker (website, get involved, contribute), who in 2006 finished ahead of a machine backed candidate in an open primary for state assembly, is running for State Senate. Her campaign has already had real success, as Vincent Fumo, the repeatedly indicted incumbent in the district, dropped out of the campaign two weeks ago. Here is a video introducing both Anne and the Blue to Bluer campaign:

At BlogPac, we want to identify, and help elect, the best progressive primary candidates in blue districts around the country. Let's find more Anne Dickers! The first step in this campaign is finding the right candidates to support, and that's where you come in. If you have a suggestion for a local or state-level candidate for us to support, please fill out the form below and email it to natasha[dot]the[at]gmail.com:

From Blue To Bluer Submission Form

Please send your emails as word documents with the subject line "From Blue To Bluer."

Just because a seat is blue does not mean it can't become even bluer. Let's build a truly national movement, and make a more progressive, reformed Democratic Party nationwide. Send in your suggestions today. The candidates we help support will only be as good as the ones you suggest.

Absent Edwards, Clinton and Obama Tack Rightward

Chris Bowers — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:16:34 GMT

John Edwards received far fewer votes than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton when he was still in the campaign, but he did at least keep the other two in line on progressive rhetoric. Now, with Edwards gone, either Obama or Clinton or both are tacking right on a whole range of issues: health care, national security, mercenaries, taxes, and who is more bi-partisan, to name a few. Attacking the other candidate from the right has been a consistent theme from both the Obama and Clinton camps ever since Edwards left the campaign. And, in the general election, expect a right-ward shift on immigration, too:

Titled "Winning The Immigration Debate," the study was put together by the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Center for American Progress. Its findings, which have been sent to Capitol Hill and have been part of briefing sessions in both the House and the Senate, are based off of polling conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates.

Taken as a whole, the report presents a new prism through which the Democrats should approach the immigration debate. "It is unacceptable to have 12 million people in our country who are outside the system," it reads. "We must require illegal immigrants to become legal, and reform the laws so this can happen."

Polling for the study revealed that a larger swath of the public was supportive of "requiring" undocumented immigrants already in the country to normalize their status than there was for only offering them legalization as an option. In addition, the report pushes Democrats to argue that immigrants should be required to pay taxes, learn English, and pass criminal background checks to remain in the country. Those who have a criminal record should be deported. All of these policies were included in last year's immigration reform compromise legislation, which ultimately failed.

"Our view is that this argument threads the needle in favor of comprehensive reform in the most effective way," Jen Palmieri, communications chief for the Center for American Progress, told the Huffington Post.(...)

"There has been no consensus around the Democratic rhetoric in regard to immigration," said one party official who had knowledge of the report. "But it has usually been framed around opportunity, and it was less framed around this punishment rhetoric. We are going to require these people to become legal or we are going to deport [them]? It doesn't challenge the immigrant scapegoating direction of the conversation. It plays right into it."

In this campaign, neither Obama nor Clinton are making any attempts to transform American political discourse away from its current, conservative dominated conventional wisdom. Instead, they throw conservative jabs at each other about being too partisan, Harry and Louise, national security fearmongering, supposedly raising middle class taxes and, at some point, probably about coddling illegal immigrants (arguably, Clinton was already skewered on that back in late October at the Philly debate). This just is not transformative progressive politics from either camp. Right-wing frames are consistently being employed to attack Democrats.

Russ Feingold, who yesterday I characterized as the one clearly transformative progressive in the U.S. Senate, harshly criticized John Edwards for talking like a tough, transformative progressive, but not standing up to fight like one in the Senate. While that is a reasonable criticism of John Edwards, at least he was talking like a transformative progressive. In the current debate, I feel as though we are getting neither the talk nor the walk. Instead, apart from a few comments about NAFTA (which are bogus), mandates (when neither health care plan offers much of a progressive solution), and the AUMF vote on Iraq (which, while important, was also in the past), pretty much all we get are Clinton and Obama attacking each other from the right while reinforcing right-wing frames. It really sucks.

Even though I live in Pennsylvania, I kind of want the primary campaign to end on March 4th, mainly because I am sick of the right-wing jabs Obama and Clinton are throwing at each other, and because I'm tired of the Clinton campaign's long litany of states and voters that don't matter. However, maybe it is better that the primary continues on for another seven weeks, because otherwise the nominee might just shift even harder and faster to the right. At least during a Democratic primary there is the hope of having a progressive influence on Obama and Clinton. If the direction of the post-Edwards campaign has shown us anything, it is that progressives will probably have no leverage on Obama and Clinton whatsoever once the general election campaign begins. Once they feel they don't need us anymore, this campaign could get really right-wing and ugly, fast.

Update: To clarify, my thesis is that right-wing attacks in the nomination campaign have outnumbered left-wing attacks since Edwards dropped out, while left-wing attacks in the nomination campaign outnumbered right-wing attacks while Edwards was still around (he dropped out on January 30th). I also believe that there is a good chance this trend will only grow worse over time.

OH-10: Kucinich In Trouble

Chris Bowers — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:17:59 GMT

Dennis Kucinich might be in trouble for re-nomination to Congress, if fundraising is any indication:

Cleveland Councilman Joe Cimperman raised nearly five times as much money last year as incumbent Dennis Kucinich in their 10th Congressional District race, according to financial disclosure reports filed Thursday.

Kucinich, who has spent the past year running for president, raised $47,000 - a third of which was raised in the last three months of 2007. The filing period runs through Dec. 31.

Most of Cimperman's $228,000 in contributions came from lawyers, developers, bankers and business associates. Forest City Enterprises' Ratner family contributed $11,000, and $13,800 came from the Goldberg family, who are affiliated with AmTrust Bank, the former Ohio Savings Bank. About 40 people gave Cimperman the maximum amount of $2,300, including Scott Wolstein, head of Developers Diversified Realty Corp. and lead developer of the Flats East Bank neighborhood; Legacy Village developer Mitch Schneider; event promoter Mike Belkin; and Republican investor Jeff Jacobs.

I don't really know anything about Kucinich's main opponent, Joe Cimperman, but most of his donations do appear to be from large donors with corporate connections. It would definitely suck if Kucinich were to lose against a corporate challenger, potentially canceling out the momentum we gained from Donna Edwards last week.

At the same time, it needs to be said that the main criteria for a successful primary challenge is for the incumbent to not take care of his or her district. If the member of Congress being challenged is home a lot, stays connected to activists on the ground, listens to voters, and conducts good constituent services, that member of Congress will be virtually impossible to defeat in a primary no matter the ideological differences s/he has with the voters of the district. Given that he decided to engage in a second quixotic run for President instead of taking care of his district, Kucinich might be in some real trouble. Kucinich brought the opening for a primary challenge upon himself by running for President again.

Second, it should also be noted that over the past year Kucinich has actually raised way, way more money than all of his primary challengers combined. According to his most recent FEC report, Kucinich's presidential campaign raised $4,319,601 through January 31st. This far surpasses the cumulative totals raised by his seven primary challengers, who collectively did not surpass $600,000. Kucinich clearly has the ability to raise money, and if he had not ended his presidential campaign with a net financial deficit of $400,000, he would be able to swat all of these challengers like so many flies. Instead, he has only $13,383 cash on hand.

In other words, while it would be terrible for Kucinich to lose to a corporate challenger like Joe Cimperman, or to Iraq Bush Dog in waiting Rosemary Palmer, he has brought both the opening for a serious primary challenge, and the financial deficit he faces in that campaign, on himself. As such, while I have tremendous sympathy for the plight of a progressive Democrat targeted by corporate interests and Bush Dogs, I do not have a huge amount of sympathy for Kucinich himself. Presenting a series of good policy papers and having a decent voting record in Congress are extremely important, but they are not the only necessary factors for being an effective progressive. It is also necessary to be smart politically, and to have an actual strategy to achieve your legislative and electoral goals. Politics is not just about sending a message, or making a statement. There will never be a progressive governing majority in this country unless we pursue effective political strategies and execute them with the proper level of organizing work. Frankly, I don't think that Kucinich is doing this, and it is really annoying that he has made himself so vulnerable to right-wing challenges because he wanted to grandstand at a few debates.

Kucinich would have been far more effective for the progressive cause if he had taken care of his home district, and used his national fundraising profile to help other progressives, like Donna Edwards or Mark Pera, get elected in primary challenges against conservative Democratic incumbents, open blue district seats where we can make meaningful progressive gains in Congress, and in Republican-held districts where progressives have a real shot in the general election. That would have actually been an effective way of spending nearly $5,000,000. Instead, he throwing even more progressive money into his own personal sinkhole, and creating a potential to erode all of the hard work actual progressive movement types put into the Donna Edwards campaign. As A few months ago, Matt wrote that Kucinich is a distraction for the progressive movement, and the predicament Kucinich has put himself in demonstrates Matt's point. I hope Kucinich wins, but more than that I hope he starts making smart political decisions and working to build up a movement rather than just himself.

Black Agenda Report has a different take on this campaign.