Republicans excel at the blame game, but we still want Dems in charge

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs sent Democrats into tailspin when he acknowledged Republicans could take control of the House in November. He's backtracked since, but his comments remind us of all the reasons we don't want to see the GOP back in power.

Read the rest at The Loop.

Democrats Should Go On The Offensive

Latest Gallup Poll results have (somewhat) good news for congressional Democrats, and by extension, for President Obama. In the early spring, Republican voters were “very enthusiastic” about the upcoming November congressional election. Democrats were “less enthusiastic” and more sanguine about the election. You got the feeling that all the Republicans were shouting at the top of their lungs while Democrats collectively went “meh” at the thought of the election. Funny what time does to the political landscape?

Read the rest at The Loop.

The Failure Of The Left

The disaster in Massachusetts whereby a Republican, Scott Brown, won Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat is a story entirely about both the failure of congressional Democrats to understand how to govern with the majority and a weakness of activists on the Left.

First, congressional Democrats should have heeded Barack Obama's campaign slogan to change the way Washington works. Even though the American public gave congressional Democrats commanding majorities in successive elections does not mean people do not want comity in the legislative process. In fact, they were quite sick of Bush, Rove and Cheney's bullying ways and by taking Republicans down a peg were actually sending a message that they wanted both different polices and a different way of achieving public policy: honest and transparent negotiating between both sides. Americans want and have always wanted consensus but Democratic leaders seem not to know this.

Read the rest at The Loop.

This Pretty Much Sums It Up

A commentator (Kall) at Matt Taibbi's blog made a passionate and excellent comment that perfectly crystallizes the frustration that many Progressives and liberals are feeling towards the Democratic Party. The comment is making its rounds in the blogosphere and I thought I'd help in spreading the word.

The idiot pundits proclaiming this as a protest to Obama’s “overreach” are just morons and deserve to be ignored by anyone with half a brain. In a just world, bankers would wipe out their savings, after which they’d be fired and have to stand in today’s unemployment lines.

The lesson Obama should take from this is that people are not fooled by Obama throwing out platitudes like “I didn’t run for President to please fat-cat bankers” and then appointing people like Tim Geithner of Goldman Sachs to Treasury, keeping Ben Bernanke around, and having people who caused the economic pain for so many people like Larry Summers and Robert Rubin as his economic advisors. And are not fooled when he does nothing but mouth platitudes, or makes a scene of phoning a bank to tell them not to buy a plane, as the largest round of banking bonuses is handed out the year after they did the financial equivalent of blowing up the world. And are not fooled when he gives a speech to Wall Street politely requesting them not to be so greedy, and that they don’t need to wait for him to enact legislation to change their behavior. And are not fooled when all the popular elements of reform like a public insurance option are gutted out of the health care reform bill in order to “pass something” and call it a win, and then lie that you “never campaigned on a public option” (for someone who ran such a new-media campaign, it’s pretty brazen to act like in 2010, people don’t have the YouTubes!).

Health care reform with the public insurance option was popular with 60% of people – the health insurance industry giveaway without it is popular with about 30% of people. And people are not fooled when he generally doesn’t enact anything meaningful because he is so comfortable in his bubble and so weak and “above the fray” of the den of rats that is Congress that he bows and scrapes to the 60th corrupt, brainless, and paid-for Senator like Ben Nelson or Joe fucking Lieberman for absolutely anything and everything.

I think Obama and his circle really believed that if he just talked the talk, and acted more empathetic in his photo-ops, no one would notice they were carrying on with the contempt Bush and Republicans had for the general public. But people did notice, and people who they counted on before to volunteer and vote for them because “they have no one else to vote for” are sick and tired of playing that game – not seeing a meaningful difference between the parties, they didn’t play the game this time and either sat out or expressed their disgust.

Whether he will take that lesson remains to be seen. He seems incredibly tone-deaf to me, and the corporate donors to the Democratic Party have no interest in that message getting through. Whether he’ll even feel the inclination to act on that lesson if it actually does sink in is also highly questionable.

I came of voting age just a little before 2000, and could never really understand why people would “waste” a vote on someone like Nader. And although I was a supporter of Kucinich in 2004, once he was out, favoring Kerry made sense to me. But I’d never really had a real opportunity to see the modern Democratic Party running things in my adult lifetime.

Now I understand why people vote third-party. When the country is teetering on the brink and can’t get by on non-solutions anymore, and avoiding failed-state status actually depends on starting to fix the problems rather than just pretending it’s trying, and EVEN THEN the Democratic Party can only respond by offering trillions to Wall Street and legally requiring people who can’t afford health insurance to buy it from private, oligopolistic, profit-maximizing companies, all because of industry’s hold on Congress… then there’s nothing else you can do. In such a sick system, all you have left is your integrity as the country goes to hell, and I understand with crystal clarity why people vote third-party.

I write for another blog in additon to MOA, Third Party and Independent Daily. One of the reasons I do so is because I feel there is a growing potential audience and constituency of people angry and frustrated by the two major parties and are looking for solid, political alternatives.

Third parties and independents operate at a severe disadvantage in the American political system. If people like the commentator I quoted above want political alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans they have to really want it enough to work for it and make it happen.

The good news: there are people and activists who have been working the independent and third party beat for years -- even decades. The angry commentator and those who share her anger should seek out and familiarize themselves with this marginalized sector of American politics and work to make it stronger and more viable. That's the only way we're gonna get alternatives to the status quo.

Democrats in 2010

Here is an interesting article from the Huffington Post regarding the Democrats' chances in the 2010 elections.

Democrats Do Not Need to Become More "Moderate" to Win in 2010 - Four Rules for Victory in November

[T]he Democratic agenda needs to become more "moderate" or "centrist" and that this would somehow be more attractive to Independent voters.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

"Moderating" our goals is not a recipe for victory. It is a recipe for failure. Last fall, voters overwhelming voted for change, and they knew then -- and still know now -- the kind of change they wanted.

They wanted to end the stranglehold of the private insurance companies that continues to put every American a single illness -- or one layoff -- away from financial catastrophe. They want to take bold, clear action to assure that America is in the forefront of creating the clean energy jobs of the future -- and leave a thriving healthy planet to our children. They wanted to fundamentally change the bull-in-the-china shop foreign policy of the Bush years and re-establish American leadership in the world. Most importantly, they rejected the failed economic policies that allowed the recklessness of huge Wall Street banks to plunge the economy into free fall -- and cost millions their livelihoods. They desperately want leadership that will lay the foundation for long term, bottom-up, widely shared prosperity.

In other words they wanted... and still want... fundamental change.

The author then outlines four steps Democrats need to take to make victory possible:

1). Democrats need to demonstrate to the voters that we are fighting tooth and nail for the goals they support
2). Democrats need to deliver.
3). Not only do we need to forcefully rein in the power of Wall Street and the Big Banks -- we need to frame the political dialogue in decidedly populist terms.
4). We must continue to forcefully and proudly stand up for progressive values.

My reaction:

I think the author is spot-on correct in his advice to the Democratic Party on what they need to do to be victorious in the upcoming elections and how watering down a populist and progressive approach in favor of appearing more "moderate" and "centrist" is a recipe for disaster. But I just can't get fired up about this article although I basically agree with much of what the author had to say.

(1) Appearing to be progressive and populist and sounding like one on the campaign trail is very different from actually being progressive and populist once you are in office and in a position to influence the creation of and vote for legislation. Much of the national Democratic Party is heavily influenced and beholden to corporate and Wall Street interests. Progressives like Dennis Kucinich play at best a marginal role in national Democratic politics. I don't see any of that changing anytime soon with the election of more Democrats into office in 2010.

(2) Democrats had a historic opportunity -- by being the majority in Congress and holding the Executive branch -- to make fundamental changes that would rein in the power of Wall Street, deliver real and comprehensive healthcare reform, draw down the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and make fundamental changes in the way the US conducts foreign policy, etc. Today we are still on the same boat as when we started in regards to the issues above. When push comes to shove the Democrats have shown themselves to be unwilling, uninterested, or unable to deliver actual, fundamental change or to represent a progressive and populist perspective. Why should electing more Democrats into office change that?

(3) People will say if you don't support the Democrats despite the misgivings above this creates an opportunity for the Republican Party to take back power. I say I am tired of being politically held hostage by the Democratic Party. They rely on my and the vote of Progressives to win elections but don't deliver on any of the issues I care about once in power. That's no reason for someone to vote and retain their loyalty. That's just politically blackmailing progressive and independent voters.


I applaud the author for his ideas. As an independent I see myself supporting Democrats in elections if they run campaigns and govern the way the author is describing. But I just don't see the Democratic Party taking on any of his sensible advice except on the symbolic level to use in speeches and in campaign advertising. Beyond the rhetorical level I don't see the national Democratic party willingly representing a more progressive and populist direction.

Which begs the question -- if you care about progressive values and see issues from a populist perspective, what do you do politically? Where do you turn to if neither major party is interested in representing your interests?

Getting Out the Vote and the Myth of the Stupid Voter

An important, highly intelligent and well-argued blog post at Open Left discusses the myth of "stupid voters" and the weaknesses of the Democratic Party in getting out the vote in elections. This is highly recommended reading. I would love to hear a response from an official Democratic Party official on it.

Key points made in the article:

Year in and year out, voter-discouragement is an important part of the ongoing Republican campaign.

The Democratic Party seems to fall asleep between elections, and it has been historically very poor at the kind of message development and dissemination done by think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Foundation, the Heritage Foundation

Democratic voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts have been spotty at best, and it’s notable that the individuals and groups doing the best job of this (ACORN recently and Jesse Jackson a couple of decades ago) have been very little appreciated by the ruling group in the party.

Key quote:

The Democratic Party is a business like any other, and just as newspapers get their money from advertisers, and not from readers, the Democratic Party gets its money from donors rather than from voters. Bringing new voters from the lower orders into the party would almost certainly require policy proposals which would negatively impact the big-money people, and even if the Democratic Party started winning elections that way, the boodle coming in would be reduced, and boodle is what pays the mercenary pros at the party headquarters.

In large part this explains the constant refrain from the Democratic leadership: we’d like to do the right thing, but political realities make it impossible. The truth is that the Democratic leaders are very happy with the political realities and don’t want to change them. If it were "politically possible" to pass single-payer, for example, the Democratic Party would lose incredible amounts of money from key donors in the medical biz. Single-payer might make the voters ecstatically happy, but these happy voters are not at all likely to replace the money the party lost.

Some food for thought the next time you hear someone invoke the theme of "we agree with what you say in principle but what you want is politically impossible."

Book Review of Indispensable Enemies: The Politics of Misrule in America

I first heard about this book in an Open Left blog diary by John Emerson and was immediately intrigued by Walter Karp’s unconventional views and his conclusions on the political behavior of political parties and politicians.

Originally published in 1973, Indispensable Enemies argues that to truly understand power in American society, one should look closely at the two major political parties, the Democrats and Republicans. Rather than looking at prominent politicians or elected leaders, lobbyists, or corporations, Karp argues that to truly understand power in America, the focus should be on party organizations and the bosses who rule these organizations on the local, state and national level. Karp argues that nothing happens in American politics, government and hence, society at large, without the approval and consent of these bosses. However, these bosses and the decisions they make, although they have a big impact in society, are largely invisible to the general public.

Emerson does a nice job summarizing the main thrust of the book at Open Left so rather than recreate the wheel I will paraphrase the next several paragraphs from his essay to illustrate the book’s main points.

- The parties and the party professionals work for themselves first and foremost. A party's ruling clique always would rather maintain control of a losing party than win elections and lose control.

- Parties do not depend on elected officials for funding. Elected officials who don't have their own organizations and who can't self-finance are pretty much dependent on the parties. The parties get their funding from donors, and donors give money to prevent action as they do to get action (or have no action at all).

- Party leaders do not want reform, progress, or change. Anything new makes their job harder and threatens to bring in new, competing leaders.

- The two party oligarchies support each other against insurgents of either party. Often, disputes are highly-choreographed dog-and-pony shows leading to predetermined conclusions.

In addition, the parties and bosses take the following steps in order to keep their control and power over the party hierarchy:

- They can sabotage a popular candidate within their own party because he is an insurgent or because he seems a likely candidate to take over the party organization.

- They concede small or large areas to the opposition party. This ensures a standoff where leaders of the two parties broker deals at the expense of their supporters.

- The bosses can split their own party so that one faction can be played off against the other. They can also build campaigns around wedge issues, peripheral to the actual business of governance, which can set a faction of voters in one party against a faction in the other party.

- The bosses can neglect or sabotage outreach to new supporters. The party pros do not want enthusiastic new supporters if these supporters are likely to make unfamiliar and inconvenient demands. What they want is predictable, tried-and-true party regulars making specific, limited demands. Voter enthusiasm is not a good thing, but rather a problem to be solved.

- The two parties and the liberal and conservative wings of each party often secretly collude with one another by killing inconvenient measures that their adversaries need to seem to support, but do not want to see passed.

Unrelentingly dark and pessimistic, Indispensable Enemies was an exhausting book to read all the way to the end as Karp gives example after example of actual events in U.S. history seen through the lens of his analysis of party power politics. Karp skewers both Republicans and Democrats including damning passages about some sacred cows of American Progressive politics such as Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, the New Deal and trade unions.

The shining light in an otherwise, dark and depressing book is Karp’s belief that the antidote to the power and chicanery of the political parties is an engaged, active citizenry.

“[I]t should be clear that the essential and inherent danger to party power is independent political ambition, the presence in public life and public office of men who ignore and defy the dictates of party bosses and oligarchies. To preserve their power, party organizations must try constantly to eliminate the political condition that breeds independent political ambition. That condition, in general, is the free political activity of the citizens themselves, their own efforts to act on their own behalf, to bring into the public arena issues that interest them and to encourage by their activity the ambition of public men.

[T]he condition safest for party power is public apathy, gratitude for small favors, and a deep general sense of the futility of politics. Yet there is nothing natural about political apathy, futility and mean gratitude. What lies behind them is not ‘human nature’ but the citizens’ belief that politics and government can do little to better the conditions of life; the belief that they are ruled not by men whom they have entrusted with their power but by circumstances and ‘historical forces,’ by anything and everything that is out of human control; the belief that public abuses and inequities are somehow inevitable and must be endured because they cannot be cured (Karp, 110).”

Karp’s book, therefore, is a manifesto for citizens to actively oppose and depose the party bosses and political parties who, by their actions and behavior, have betrayed the public trust. It is a call for citizens to be active participants in deciding their civic fate and a call for ordinary people to take back the reins of American democracy from those who have taken it away.

Despite having been published more than twenty years earlier, Karp’s book still deeply resonated with me and his analysis of American political power and history rang true for today’s politics. It might be a bit outdated in this age of 24/7 news cycle, the Internet and web 2.0—but I still give Indispensable Enemies five out of five stars! If you can find a copy in a library (it was out of stock in Amazon the last time I checked) I highly recommend borrowing it. This book is highly recommended to get an essential understanding of power politics.

Serious As A Heart Attack: The Independents' Story

The following article was forwarded by Nancy Hanks of The Hankster. It was written by independent activist Jackie Salit. In it, Salit provides insight on the impact of the independent vote.

Personally, I think the story that Jackie outlines in this commentary below is a "sea-change" story that "big media" picked up on briefly in 2006 and again in 2008 (election fever) but is now somehow completely missing from today's analysis. More than 40% of the American electorate identify as independents. And that growth was produced in large part by the progressive wing of the independent movement. If you blink on this, you will miss the story.

Thanks!
Nancy

SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK: THE INDEPENDENTS’ STORY

By: Jackie Salit

When we finally get far enough down the road on health care reform, it will become clear that a driving force in the intensity of the fight was a heart attack. Not the medical kind. The political kind.

Independents swung decisively to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. And it is this shift by independents – who repositioned themselves from center-right to center-left – that gave the Republican right the political equivalent of cardiac arrest.

In 1992, 19 million independents voted for Ross Perot. In 2008, 19 million independents voted for Barack Obama. Over the span of 15 years, the largely white, center-right independent movement re-aligned itself with Black America and progressive-minded voters.

This did not happen out of the blue. It did not happen by magic. It happened because the progressive wing of the independent movement did the painstaking and often controversial work of bringing the Perot movement and the Fulani movement together at the grassroots. The Fulani movement refers to the country’s leading African American independent, Dr. Lenora Fulani, who exposed the black community to independent politics and introduced the independent movement to an alliance with Black America.

No doubt the dramatics that the right wing brought to the Town Hall meetings this summer were intended for the television cameras. But the organizers, strategists and radio personalities who orchestrated the theatrics had a particular audience in mind: Independents. If they could tarnish Obama’s image with indies, they could damage the black and independent alliance and re-establish the Republican Party as an influential force amongst independents. Some of that could be accomplished, they felt, by claiming Obama’s health plan would drive up the national debt – a concern that animated the early Perot movement. Some Republican strategists felt that if they simply branded Obama a socialist, it would scare independents away – not from the health care plan (everyone recognizes a plan of some kind will get passed) but away from the center-left coalition that elected him.

If indies are feeling somewhat disillusioned with President Obama over the health care reform fight, it has more to do with fears that he is being overly influenced by the partisans in Congress. Since independents voted for him to be a more independent president, it’s easy to see how some felt disappointed by his handling of the Republican onslaught. Obama’s independent appeal was based on his challenge to the prevailing culture of Clintonian opportunism in the Democratic Party and partisanship inside the Beltway. Put another way, the independent vote for Obama was an effort to define a new kind of progressivism, one that was not synonymous with Democratic Party control.

After years of hard work and organizing, independents have become a sought-after partner in American politics. They elected President Obama and New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, arguably the country’s two most independent and pragmatically progressive elected officials. No wonder the Republican Party right wants a clawback.

Independents are vulnerable to being peeled away by the Republican right. The Pew Research Center reports that were the 2010 midterms to be held today, independents would lean towards Republicans by a 43 to 38 percent margin. But, the evolution of a 21st century independent movement is not that simple. First, the movement is very fluid and very new. Historical movements develop through twists and turns, not in a straight line. The far right has attempted to take over the independent movement before. In 1994, Newt Gingrich crafted the “Contract with America” to woo Perotistas back into the Republican tent. And in 2000, social conservative Pat Buchanan hijacked the Reform Party presidential nomination, though he was roundly repudiated by independents in the general election.

If Republicans are increasing their influence among independents, it’s also because the Democratic Party Left has not been a friend to the independent movement. Sure, Democrats were happy that indies broke for Obama. But they were disappointed that we didn’t become Democrats. They equate progressivism with being in the Democratic Party. But they’re wrong.

Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has been enthusiastic about the development of indies as a third force. For different reasons, surely. But they share a common goal: to maintain the primacy of two-value logic (where there is only one or the other, never neither) and make sure independents are passive companions. That’s one reason that the fight for open primaries – which allow independents to cast ballots in every round of voting – and the campaign to appoint independents to the Federal Election Commission are so important. Those fights are about our right to participate and our right to represent our interests in changing the political culture.

The independent movement went left in 2008, after many years of grassroots organizing to link it to progressive leadership. Now the right wants to peel it back. Obama, presumably, wants to hold on to the partnership, but must also privilege his own party, which turns independents off and makes them more susceptible to Republican attacks. Meanwhile, independents are working hard at the grassroots to hold our own.

Jackie Salit is the president of IndependentVoting.org and the campaign coordinator for Mike Bloomberg’s mayoral campaign on the Independence Party line.

Democrats Find Their Spine? Public Option Back in Play

A must-see episode of MSNBC's the Rachel Maddow show. What a difference a weekend makes when the White House seemed to have abandoned the public option in health care reform. This resulted in a huge uproar among Progressive activists and bloggers the past couple of days. The result: the White House says it fully supports the public option.

I particularly liked the segment where 60 House Representatives draw a line in the sand and sign a letter saying they will NOT vote for a bill that does not include a public option.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Political Outsiders Part II: Progressive Democrats

I recommend reading a couple of books and a blog post to get a good background on the insurgency within the Democratic Party by Progressive grassroots activists.

- Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics

- Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era

- MRZine: Guide to Democratic Party and the Democrats

Both books make the point that Internet and advances in social media technology have the capacity to empower ordinary people who have felt powerless and shut out of the political process to effective political participation. More than that, they have a potential to and in many cases, have had real impact in challenging and toppling entrenched interests in the Democratic Party and in traditional two-party politics. The blog post provides context on where this Progressive insurgency fits within the various groupings of the Democratic Party.

Just who are these Progressive insurgents? These are regular readers and contributors to blogs such as Open Left, Daily Kos, MyDD and Firedoglake. They attend conferences such as the Netroots Nation and America’s Future Now (formerly Take Back America). They are members of political organizations such as Progressive Majority, MoveOn and Democracy for America. They have trained or taken part in seminars offered by the New Organizing Institute (NOI) in Washington, DC or Wellstone Action in Minnesota. For political jobs they peruse listings and professional development opportunities for activists and organizers in the NOI and Democratic GAIN job boards. While not an exhaustive list the examples I cited give a scope of participation by grassroots Progressives in various capacities.

I find myself extremely impressed by the breadth of activities and membership associations that I described above. They seem to suggest—dare I say it?—an actual, attempt to form a bona fide political opposition movement to challenge not only the influence of the powerful right wing but the right wing from within the Democratic Party as well. In lurking at Progressive blogs and mingling with people from within this movement in person in Washington, DC, the phrase “movement-building” is a phrase that I have overheard being used. More than just cocktail party chatter, the breadth of existing organizations and activists suggest people are actually doing it and taking organizing seriously.

Are there critical things to say about this movement? My review of the book Taking on the System sums up what I have to say that is critical:

My questions for Zuniga — and I am still speaking as a Progressive here — what if I am not a Democrat and don’t want to be one? Nothing against Democrats but what if I disagree with the strategy of electing Democrats into office as the primary way to define victory in the fight for Progressive politics? What if I adhere to beliefs and political positions that just don’t jibe with mainstream Democratic policies? Is there room for someone like me to make an impact in small “d” democracy in America or should I just resign myself to being in the fringes, marginal and irrelevant?

After all, being a Progressive within the Democratic Party seems to be no great shakes either. We’ve all seen how politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Progressive perspectives on foreign policy, trade, domestic policy, healthcare, etc. pretty much are marginalized in the Democratic Party. Even in newly-elected President’s Barack Obama’s administration, Progressives are outnumbered and outgunned in his cabinet appointments which are populated primarily by the DLC, corporate-friendly Democrats.

Conclusion

From the perspective of this Progressive Independent, there is a lot of positive to say about this Progressive insurgency. Not only do they represent a revitalized Progressive movement, they also represent the first, wide-ranging organizing effort among Progressives to actually organize ordinary folks into becoming effective activists and participants in small “d” democracy. I’m a believer in grassroots, populist, power to the people, up from the bottom philosophies. The Progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party is an example of such a movement. Hence, these grassroots activists deserve kudos and respect in my book.

If there are critical things to say in my perspective, it would have to be the movement’s narrow focus on the Democratic Party and electoral politics as the primary strategy to realize Progressive goals. I am a believer of what political scientist Adolph Reed has to say regarding Progressives hitching their hopes solely on the Democratic Party. I also believe that a Progressive political movement has to be larger than any political party and would have to be inclusive of people who are outside of the two major parties—independents, third and minor parties, the Left, etc.

But this Democratic Party insurgency is a great start and I can’t wait to see how American politics will be re-shaped in the future as a direct result of their efforts.

• Part I of the series

The Future of the 50-State Strategy

I just got this email from the organization Democracy for America.

What a great week, right? Finally, we have a President intent on getting America back on track and he hasn't waited a single day to get started.

But why can't we say the same thing about his leadership of the Democratic Party?

The 50 State Strategy will go down as one of the most successful long-term programs the DNC has ever implemented, providing resources for increasing voter registration, maintaining a national voter file available to local parties, developing leaders at all levels of office, and employing official DNC staff in every state.

This week, word leaked from Washington that the DNC might return to the short-sighted policies of the past and only focus real resources on swing states in preparation for the next Presidential election.

If it ain't broke, don't break it. We must step up our aggressive campaign to immediately reinstate the 50 State Strategy...

Yesterday, local DFA members delivered our "Reinstate the 50 State Strategy" petition with signatures and comments representing over one million DFA members nationwide.

We can't sit idle and wait for a response. Local elections for Mayors, City Councils and School Boards are coming up fast. Congressional elections in 2010 will need the grassroots groundwork we lay right now. And in 2012, Barack will need a strong people-powered Democratic Party nationwide.

Since President Obama appointed Gov. Tim Kaine to be the new Chair of the DNC, both Barack and Tim have said many nice words about the 50 State Strategy. But praise is not action and over 200 organizers have been let go with no announced plan to replace them.

Keep up the pressure and make sure Gov. Kaine understands that if it ain't broke, don't break it.

Apparently the Democratic Party is seriously considering doing away with the highly successful 50-State Strategy for political and community organizing and going back to the short-sighted focus on swing states as its main political strategy. This relates to an issue percolating late last year where 200 local community organizers were fired by the DNC after Howard Dean stepped down as DNC chair.

What Happens to the Obama Grassroots?

from the Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington -- It is the biggest and broadest American political force ever created -- a vast, electronically linked network of activists, neighborhood organizers and volunteers who raised record amounts of money and propelled Barack Obama to the White House.

Now, as Obama turns from campaigning to governing, his advisors are struggling to harness this potent web of supporters to help him move his agenda over the next four years.

But it is no simple task to convert an insurgency into a standing army.

That challenge has sparked rare discord among Obama advisors who ran a highly disciplined operation with no public disagreements throughout the long campaign.

Traditionally, the new president would blend his campaign operation with his party's national committee. Some of Obama's closest advisors lean toward that pragmatic view.

But others, who built the grass-roots organization, worry that linking it too closely to the party could cause the unusual network to unravel -- and squander an extraordinary resource.

The Obama machinery relied heavily on idealistic political outsiders committed to breaking free from old ways of doing politics. The worry is that these enthusiastic activists might drift away if they are turned over to the Democratic National Committee, where the party might ask them to support Democrats and target Republicans.

Full article at the Los Angeles Times

The key quote in the article was how do you transform an insurgency into a standing army? I would bet that many of the people who supported and voted for Obama are independents and non-ideological voters who do not have a particular affinity towards nor loyalty to the Democratic Party as exemplified by the DNC.

I agree that attempts to turn these followers into a partisan organization would only serve to alienate them (hell, it would alienate me! I consider myself an independent voter who voted for Obama). I would urge Obama's team to encourage models of political and civic participation that is not designed solely for the benefit of the Democratic Party but to model its efforts along pragmatic and realistic solutions to the country's problems based on a core set of Progressive principles. The focus should be on problem-solving. Not party politics.

Obama and the Gender Gap

This map illustrates the gender gap in the 2008 Presidential Election. The darker the blue the larger the advantage for Obama among female voters.

Analysis
In just two states, Nebraska and Arkansas, did Obama receive fewer votes from women than men. In Arizona and Utah, Obama received the same number of votes from women and men.

The gender gap, or the pro-Democratic nature of female voters, is so common that textbooks regular include a discussion of it in chapters on voting and political participation.



The real question is, why?
Women perceive the Democratic Party to be more concerned with domestic issues that regularly affect their lives (i.e. education and health care). This is contrasted with a Republican Party that cares more about inanities such as zero-based budgeting that just don't resonate with Joanne Six-Pack (Ha! that was an awful line - I promise not to use it again).

And, here's another reason. The truth of the matter is that a clear majority of women are pro-choice. As long as the GOP is a bunch of men telling women what to do with their bodies, the GOP will be on the wrong side of this gender gap.

Why Is Obama Losing?

Here is an excellent article by Rabbi Michael Lerner on the current situation concerning Barack Obama and his election prospects. The article echoes an essay that I have written (but have not published) entitled "Why This Black Progressive Cannot Vote For Obama".

But in addition to Obama's missteps, I believe that Race will be a determining factor in this election, at least for a significant number of voters; enough voters that it may likely swing the election to McCain (barring some miracle by Obama).

Democrats in the West

There's theory going around in some circles, which I vehemently disagree with, suggesting the Democratic Party can permanently succeed without the South.

While I believe the Dems need to spend more time in the South and the GOP needs to invest more effort along the coasts, there is some merit to concentrating (but not limiting) resources in particular areas.

A recent story in The New Yorker looks at Colorado as a case study of how the Dems have succeeded in the West and how it might serve as a template for nationwide success.

Analysis
The socially conservative wing of the GOP overreached in Colorado. A paramount focus on social issues and an unwillingness to bend on even the pragmatic virtue good government can do left many Coloradoans uneasy with the GOP. Westerners tend to be libertarian on social issues and while they may not like gay marriage they'd rather legislators fully fund education than worry about whether Tom and Harry can marry.

Today, Colorado has a Democratic governor and state legislature. Dems now talk about a green environment: a way to be both environmentally friendly and pro-business at the same time. Not pressing on social issues and developing a pro-family reputation have provided big dividends for Western Democrats.

The problem for Dems in the South is race. The West does not have race hanging around every public policy issue the way it does in the South. The trick for Dems is to keep its African American base while appealing to the growing number of Southerners (typically Northerners-moved South) that don't believe government is the enemy (per Reagan) but instead believe government (if used wisely and efficiently) can be part of the solution. Dems won't ever win social conservatives, but if they can keep blacks and better appeal to non-evangelical professional whites, the Dems can be competitive in Dixie.

Building the Party, One State At a Time

Thanks to ThickCulture for pointing this out to me. The American Prospect writes about Senator Obama's grand ambition of building the Democratic Party for the long haul, well past his (potential) presidency has come and gone.

Of course, Karl Rove and George Bush entered office in January 2001 with similar ambitions. Failures on Iraq, Social Security, a bloated budget and the return of deficits have disabused most die hard conservatives that the current Bush administration would be the return of Reagan. Instead, Bush, Rove and Cheney followed policies that divided, rather than united.

Analysis
Learning from this lesson, Obama's campaign is investing heavily in states it knows it probably won't win in November. Why? To build the infrastructure and provide monetary support to down-ballot candidates that can win. Doing so enables the Democratic Party to build a deeper and stronger farm team of capable candidates to run for office in places Dems previously would not have thought possible. In short, Obama is investing money from the top to help Democrats build from the bottom.

Obama Moves In On The DNC- Changes Money Rules

Hat tip: DailyKos

From Politico.com:

Obama aims to make openness an issue
By MIKE ALLEN | 6/5/08 9:21 AM EST

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is moving on two fronts to make transparency a linchpin of his campaign, opening his fundraisers to reporters and clamping down on the Democratic National Committee’s fundraising from Washington insiders.

The moves, announced on his second full day as the party’s de facto presidential nominee, are designed to drive a campaign message of change versus more of the same, aides said.

His likely opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), closes his fundraisers to the press. Beginning last night, Obama will open all of his fundraisers to at least a pool reporter, who will share the information with the rest of the press corps.

Beginning Thursday, the DNC will no longer accept checks from federal lobbyists or political action committees, mirroring the strict standard Obama adopted for his presidential campaign.

“This is an important step that shows Sen. Obama is willing to take tough steps to change the way Washington works,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the campaign’s deputy communications director.

The policy, which will not hurt fundraising appreciably, is not retroactive.

*******************************************************************

I'm sort of surprised by this. Pleasantly so, but still surprised.

I have this feeling of dread

Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama. DNC Rules committee. Saturday. Let’s get ready to fumble!!!

The Democratic party is on the verge of doing a Leon Lett. Leon Lett was the talented defensive tackle for the Dallas Cowboys in the early to mid-90’s. In the Super Bowl, Leon picked up a fumble and ran about 60 yards to a sure touchdown. He held the football out in his right hand to begin the celebration. Don Bebe, one of the fastest men in the NFL, came from nowhere and swatted the ball out of Leon’s hand and thru it to the back of the endzone. No touchdown.

The country is sick and tired of George W. Bush and the Republicans. We, Americans, are ready to vote for almost anyone who doesn’t have an “R” after his/her name. A fight on the floor of the Democratic convention will be a deal breaker. I don’t know how we are going to choose a Democratic nominee. I thought we were going to choose by elected delegates but maybe I’m wrong. I have gotten to the point that I really don’t care any more. We have to choose. We can choose someone else. Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. We can do it by flipping a coin or by Ouija board. We just have to choose someone and choose NOW before we end up like Leon Lett, fumbling the ball at the 1 yard line.

"This is Barack Obama's party now."

From DailyKos:

Chuck Todd on MSNBC:

You know, there is a big thing we should be getting out of this party tonight, and that is the Democratic National Committee is not somehow controlled by the Clintons. Not by the Clinton campaign any more. We may have started this campaign believing that the Clinton campaign controlled, but this is Barack Obama's party now. He's already been winning the outside game, he now won the inside game. Yes it's true that Harold Ickes can threaten this stuff about the credentials, but Don Fowler really did signal today by being for the Michigan compromise that, "Guys, it's over."

That just about says it all.

Religious Right -leaning towards Democrats?

From CNN.com:'Raw Politics': Religious right leaning toward Democrats?

'Raw Politics': Religious right leaning toward Democrats?
By Tom Foreman
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For decades, evangelicals have been seen as solid supporters of the Republican Party. That could be changing.

The religious right, a cornerstone of the so-called Reagan revolution -- the battle over abortion law, and gay marriage -- wants a change.

At least some evangelicals do.

A group of influential Christian leaders are declaring they are tired of divisive politics, tired of watching fights over some issues trump all the good they could be doing.

"Our proposal in [our] manifesto is to join forces with all those who support a civil public square. ... a vision of public life in which people of all faiths -- which, of course, means no faith -- are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith," said evangelical leader Os Guinness.

For Democrats, the timing is good. The party has been pushing to overcome the "faith gap," that many feel has hurt them with church-going voters.

Candidates are appearing in more religious settings, and conversations.

"What I try to do is as best I can be an instrument of His will," Sen. Barack Obama has said.

"I obviously was fortunate to be able to rely on and be grounded in my faith which has been anchor for me throughout my entire life," Sen. Hillary Clinton has said.

Mara Vanderslice of Common Good Strategies is part of that effort.

"I think the biggest thing that we've done wrong is sort of say that we just want a separation of church and state and only speak about religion in terms of separation," Vanderslice said.

Evangelicals are now leading public support for many issues dear to Democrats: global campaigns against AIDS, hunger and poverty. Watch how evangelicals are reaching out »

Even Congressional Democrats can see the power of a partnership, according to the Ethics and Public Policy Center's Michael Cromartie.

"I think there are genuinely religious people, obviously in the Democratic Party, who've said, you know, 'we need to stop toning down how our faith relates to public policy issues,' whether it's the environment or whether it's questions of the economy or war and peace," he said.

"And we need to start framing our concerns in religious language so that it might appeal to religious believers in America."

Now, this is interesting. A couple of months ago, I posted a link to Politicalinaction.com. The blogger there put forth the premise that the GOP attacks on Obama had little to do with race, but mostly to do with religion. This blogger said that the GOP understands that Obama is the first Democrat in decades, that reeks of being a true Christian, and not just one that babbles about it. That though Obama couldn't get the hard right evangelicals, we should remember that a nice slice of evangelicals left the GOP in 2006 because of all the scandals.

That the YOUNGER evangelicals, especially, are not as rigid as their elders, and that someone like Obama could appeal to them. The supposition was - what would happen to the GOP if Obama was able to KEEP the evangelicals that left them in 2006, and just slice off a little bit more?

Game.Set.Match for the Democrats up and down the line.

I wrote this as a comment in a post down below, and but then went to The Daily Dish, which had a link about young evangelicals, which is why I put this forth in a main post.

Money quotes from the article:

Michael Dudley is the son of a preacher man.

He's a born-again Christian with two family members in the military. He grew up in the Bible Belt, where almost everyone he knew was Republican. But this fall, he's breaking a handful of stereotypes: He plans to vote for Democrat Barack Obama.

"I think a lot of Christians are having trouble getting behind everything the Republicans stand for," said Dudley, 20, a sophomore at Seattle Pacific University.

Dudley's disenchantment with the GOP isn't unique among young, devoutly Christian voters. According to a September 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 15 percent of white evangelicals between 18 and 29, a group traditionally a shoo-in for the GOP, say they no longer identify with the Republican Party. Older evangelicals are also questioning their traditional allegiance, but not at the same rate.
...................................................................

But students at a recent bipartisan political union meeting at SPU say there's something more going on with young Christians than disenchantment with McCain.

In an informal poll of the political union, the majority supported Obama.

"I think it's a new movement starting," said Amy Archibald, 19, a sophomore at the evangelical school. "Most of us would never blindly follow the old Christian Right anymore. James Dobson has nothing to do with us. A lot of us are taking apart the issues, and thinking, 'OK, well, [none of the candidates] fits what I'm looking for exactly.' But if you're going to vote, you've got to take your pros with your cons."

Eugene Cho, a founder and lead pastor at Seattle's Quest Church, which caters to a predominantly under-35 crowd, urges young Christians to look beyond the two or three issues that have allowed Christians to be "manipulated by those that know the game or use it as their sole agenda."

"While the issue of abortion — the sanctity of life — must always be a hugely important issue, we must juxtapose that with other issues that are also very important," Cho wrote in his blog on faith and politics.

Polls have shown that young Christians aren't any less concerned about the "family values" issues that have traditionally driven Christians to the Republican camp. (In fact, a study by the Barna Group, an evangelical polling organization, shows young Christians are actually more conservative on abortion than their elders.) It's just that they're also concerned about issues such as social justice and immigration, issues traditionally associated with Democrats.

Judy Naegeli, 25, who works at a Christian philanthropy, says easy access to information about the world via social-networking sites, YouTube and blogs is the reason her generation is more concerned with social justice.

"It's changed our perspective. ... Each generation chooses their cause, and ours is AIDs in Africa, or poverty or social justice," she said.

You know you read stuff, and you go HMMMMMMM and then sit back and think about it, and it seems to make more sense?

Just like that HuffingtonPost.com's 'Obama bankrupted Clinton in Pennsylvania' premise....

This ' Obama can appeal to the evangelicals' premise is something that I think we need to consider, which is the reason for
a) the Muslim Smears
b) why The Right went apecrazy over Jeremiah Wright
The attempts to marginalize Obama as a Christian.

Just some food for thought.