FWD: News Flash: Republicans Don't Care About Weiner's Morals

Daily Kos: News Flash: Republicans Don't Care About Weiner's Morals

Truer words were never spoken. Posted a reply to David on BMG for my thoughts on the matter, specifically about how our party reacted to it. Suffice it to say, in this high-stakes game (our lives), Republicans play for keeps... while Democrats continue to play in circular firing squads.

This episode of leadership forcing Weiner out has been brought to you by Charlie Sheen's idea of WINNING! Apparently, like Sheen, Obama, Pelosi, et al, think winning is a state of mind -- electoral politics, and the policy it drives, need not apply.

Dragging the Democratic Party on Wisconsin, Kicking and Screaming

The President and national Democratic Party clearly does not want to rise to the level of defending the Wisconsin workers. That became very clear today in Press Secretary Jay Carney's statement on whether or not public and private unions should have the same rights.

What we have said and what the President has said is that with regard to what’s happening in the states now, as the states address their fiscal situations, everybody needs to tighten their belts, everybody needs to sacrifice and work together to bring state budgets into balance, to bring stability to the fiscal situations in the states, much as we need to work together at the federal level. And that’s our position.

Unfortunately, that wasn't today's only scary sign of where national Democrats are at. Democratic Maryland Governor O'Malley, who's in the past come out strong for collective bargaining rights, wasn't so strong on it today, after coming out of a Governor's meeting at the White House.

After a White House meeting with President Obama, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley was asked if the on-going public employee union dispute was raised in their meeting. "No, not really," O'Malley replied bluntly. "We were focused today on the things that we can do together to create jobs."

"So, we didn't talk about whatever it is they're doing in Wisconsin today," O'Malley reiterated.

"I think most of us see that as distraction, really, from the most important work that we can do, which is creating jobs," he said. "All of us get things done. We're about getting things done. We're not primarily an ideological group of people."

President Obama, who, as a candidate, said he'd get up and picket with the protesters if collective bargaining was on the line, and national Democrats must get on board the Wisconsin workers. Union jobs are the jobs we need in this country most of all, so why the President and other prominent party leaders isn't sticking up for them is a very disturbing question. At the end of the day, the Democratic Party does not win without labor, not to any degree of the success that would deliver a majority -- but it looks like we're going to be dragging them kicking and screaming to this fight. The good news is it's a fight working people are winning, even if Democrats in Bizarro Land (Washington, D.C.) are too scared of the Republican Boogeyman to realize that yet.

What does a good coordinated campaign look like?

Cross-posted at Blue Mass Group.

Tonight, a few members of my Town Democratic Committee got together to discuss the past election -- and most of it revolved around the Coordinated Campaign, what we liked and what we thought could be improved.

We all universally thought the Coordinated Campaign was a good idea and was largely responsible for our State Party's success, but that doesn't mean there weren't some frustrations observed by members that should be resolved going forward.

In that effort, I created a trusty Venn Diagram that attempts to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the groups that comprise the Coordinated Campaign -- the local campaigns, the Statewide Party (including State Campaigns) and local town, city and ward committees.

(Click for Larger)

Obviously, this is an overly simplistic look at the players, their strengths and weaknesses -- and I encourage anyone's thoughts, critiques and improvements in the comments.

Understanding the strength and weaknesses between state and local campaigns, as well as state and local committees, is of paramount importance to correcting any of the mistakes made in the last election, as well as improving the things we did well to maximize our effectiveness.

The lesson that really screams out to me is that the more local control that's given, the more powerful the effort is going to be. The larger the organization or campaign is, the more capable it is at creating powerful tools and having ample resources, but the less able it is at dealing with local problems. Therefore, the State Party should set the basic strategy and goals, and provide the resources local organizations can't provide for themselves (including training in how to run good grassroots campaigns), but the local campaigns and committees have to be the on-the-ground commanders issuing the orders when push comes to shove, because they're the ones who know the conditions in which the battles take place. This includes GOTV -- and being responsible for lists used on Election Day.

I think John Walsh and the State Party realize the importance of empowering local individuals and committees, and certainly the trend in this state has been in giving these groups more power and tools, not less. In a world that's becoming increasingly difficult to reach people at the macro level, where phones are ineffective and mail is thrown away, empowering people at the local level is inevitable -- because it's going to be the only way that works. We're moving in that direction, but not completely there yet -- and we certainly haven't perfected this new way of organizing.

My second recommendation is on improving communication -- something that may be best done in between elections, anyway. It behooves everyone to improve this aspect of the campaign -- local committees and campaigns need to know the State Party is listening to their concerns and answering their questions, and the State Party needs to be responsive to local needs -- all the while the State Party needs to know that the local committees and campaigns are getting the job done, especially when not all local committees and campaigns are created equally.

One thing I am sure of is the fact that our State Party is only going to get better at campaigning. We could only coordinate as much as local campaigns were willing to coordinate -- and it took a lot of courage for so many local campaigns to go as far as they did this time around. Now that they know it works, they'll go much further -- and the holdouts will see that it suddenly makes much more sense.

Lastly, I think it's important to take a second to remember and thank the person who brought us this effort -- John Walsh, Deval Patrick and the rest of our statewide and local leaders who came behind this effort. Running the style of campaign that Walsh did -- and getting everyone to come on board -- is something that's almost unheard of in politics. When, in politics, anything new is seen as risky -- and anything risky is usually crushed by the virus that infects almost all politicians (risk adverseness), it is simply amazing what we did. People may have thought John Walsh would be remembered as a small footnote -- the guy who helped bring us Deval Patrick -- but it's becoming clear that he's just written the metaphorical book on how to run campaigns in the 21st Century.

Local Town Committees and the State Party

One thing I've noticed in my years of activism from within the Democratic Party is that town committees can rock. They don't always rock, but when there's a solid group, they can make all the difference in organizing a community for both local and statewide races.

One of the frustrating things, though, is the lack of tools available to Town and Ward committees, as well as other Democratic Committees (the YDMs come to mind). For example:

• The state party doesn't provide local committees with a website builder for dynamic town and local sites, which can be important both for informational purposes as well as internally. It's too costly and the technical barrier too high to expect local committees to figure this out on their own (some have, but only a very few). The state really needs to step in here and give people access to a user-friendly website builder, which offers tools and pages that can make for a powerful website.
• Voter databases. Right now, the state's pushing something called aPebble, which is a cross between a real voter database and something like facebook. You don't just sign up and have access to information -- you have to recruit for and find that information, as you would a social networking account.
  
  While a neat, little thing in and of itself, it requires getting people to actually use the damn thing to do any real good -- which is both a barrier in terms of technical skills and time. Worst of all, if it's going to do any real good, it means everyone on the committee has to use it, not just a dedicated few -- which just isn't realistic.
  
  Meanwhile, candidates now have inexpensive access to VAN, a very powerful and user friendly voter database, which has loads of information on voter files, phone numbers, addresses and tools to help create mailing lists, phone lists and walk lists (complete with maps). Now, I haven't called and asked the state party to see if any city or town committee could get it and pay the candidate price, but the State Party certainly hasn't been pushing for it. While even at the candidate price it would be expensive for local committees... this is some powerful, powerful stuff we're talking about. Honestly, I don't just see why the State Party doesn't buy the damn thing and give access to every committee and group within the State Party.
• Institutional support. The party isn't terrible at this, just not very proactive. For example, John Walsh came and spoke to my town committee about a year or so ago, and certainly the Patrick campaign has been involved, but Patrick's camp is there for the elections and that's pretty much it. The State Party should be investing more time and energy into organizing local committees, making sure each of them is active and reaching out to them to see what they need, which could be anything from training workshops to fundraising help. Some of this stuff is happening, but not all of it is, and not very much is to the extent that it needs to be happening.

Now, all of this would require a certain level of investment by the state party to address, particularly the last bit. However, they're all good ideas -- and I know there's no stronger proponent of Town Committees than John Walsh, the Party Chair, himself. But aPebble just isn't doing it, and there's still too many local committees that aren't pulling their weight. If infusing committees with more resources means cutting back in other areas, including the annual Party Convention, it would be a worthy sacrifice. Local committees are not only the heart of the Democratic Party and its major local source of strength to elect more Democrats, but also to elect better, people-powered and progressive Democrats, too. I know it's not the State Party's job to care what kind of Democrat its electing, but its rank-and-file membership certainly does.

Tax and Spend Liberals

Saw this graph and it was too awesome not to post. Click on the image to see it in full.



Hat tip goes to Math4Barack, over at dkos.

Town Democratic Websites

I have to say, having spent an hour or so looking at the various town committee websites across Massachusetts, I'm most impressed at how our party's base activists have quickly taken to technology. I've been fairly involved with the development of my town dem committee's website (at least insofar as offering input, etc.), so I know it's a tremendous amount of work for any town committee to undertake. Few have the funds to hire out a professional website, but nevertheless, the websites really run the gambit. Several are quite good in terms of the content they offer and the way they're presented, even if they aren't professional sites.

I have to admit, especially given the fact that they have a cable access show to post there, my favorite town dem site -- from just the time I've spent now digging up what town dem sites I could find -- my favorite site is Acton's. I think they have a good layout, make a great case on why you should join, and I can't get over how much I enjoyed their "Local Impact" show (they get bonus points for linking to LeftAhead).

Here's a list of (a few) other town dem sites, in no particular order.

http://www.democratsoflexington.org/
http://www.framinghamdems.org/mainpage.html
http://www.arlingtondems.org/
http://www.attleborodemocrats.org/
http://www.southwickdems.org/
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeuueah/grotondems/
http://www.wdtc.us/
http://www.amherstdemocrats.org/
http://www.dracutdems.com/
http://www.plymouthdemocrats.org/towns/plymouth/

Which are your favorites? What do you think makes a good town democratic website? What features are you looking for? What features aren't you looking for? Why does it seem like small towns across Massachusetts are leading the way? (The Boston website is scary bad -- even some of the ward committees have better sites. The Springfield committee looked fantastic -- until I realized I was looking at Springfield, Virginia.) Most importantly, do these websites have any impact on you as a grassroots activist? I think Town Democratic Committees are one of the most important parts of grassroots governing, so it's important that tools are created which help them thrive.

Announcements

• It's that time again -- time for people to re-sign up as supporters of my scholarship request. I lost last time, but I finished in the top 5 in total supporters. If I can get that high again, I should win, as 10 scholarships are being given this time. All you have to do is click here, sign in/sign up to Democracy for America and click "add your support" under the "grassroots supporters" section of my page. Takes two minutes -- and I can't go without your help. Please remember that even if you signed up last time, you need to resign up again, as they wipe the original supporter lists for each round. Sorry, I don't make the rules!
• Tomorrow is the state convention. I'm going with a media pass. I'll be covering it instead of voting in it. Then, at the workshops, I'll be heading up the Social Networking group discussion breakout session at the electronic/netroots workshop. If you use social networking sites, please, please, please come. The more people who come, the more others can learn how to use these sites effectively in terms of campaigns and organizing. As usual, I have some of the answers, but not all of them! Your advice and input is desired! We'll be serving Peter-Pan styled entrees at the breakout group.
  

The Platform Podcast, HRC & Medical Bankruptcies

An open thread:

• Check out the LeftAhead Platform Podcast with Sabutai as our guest. We spent time on the blandness of the Democratic State Platform, as well as what delegates can do to stop it.
  
• Human Rights Campaign continues to prove that it's not only worthless, but counterproductive. If people want to donate money to them, why not flush it down the toilet? Or donate it to GLBT bloggers and organizers so they can continue to blog and organize?
• 62% of bankruptcies in this country are due to medical expenses, a 50% increase over 5 years ago. Of those medical bankruptcies, 75% had medical insurance.
  

Sab is right: Fight the platform

He's pushing to thwart some of the American-cheesiness of the proposed platform. I hate to take a public stand against this year's proposed platform, but it must be done. I really respect John Walsh and can see why he's trying to water down the platform. Past platforms came complete with such prickly things as actual positions and ideas and stances... those are all things that, if one is focused on the negative, can lose a few supporters and challenge the political elite to actually reflect the people who put them in office.

Furthermore, from a campaign perspective, speeches are better when a politician keeps them broad, allowing people to see the picture they want. It's always more exciting to a crowd when you say, "I believe in a fully-funded, high quality education system from K through college." No one will disagree with that -- it can mean anything and sounds fantastic. If that same politician talked about how such an idea included capping charters, revisiting the MCAS and a dozen other proposals, people in the crowd will disagree with at least some of it. Or they'll be lost in the technocratic details.

It's easy to see how one can go from understanding that a broad speech is better to make the jump that a broad platform would be, too. Perhaps, if the goal was just to elect more democrats, damn whatever kind of democrat they are, that would be a correct assumption. The problem with that, though, is Massachusetts has no problem electing Democrats. Our problem is in making sure that the democrats we elect reflect the progressiveness of this state. So, when John Walsh set out to create a broader, more accessible document -- in a lot of ways I see how it could make sense. That is until one realizes a platform isn't a campaign tool. A platform is far more important as a means to organize the base or talk to elected officials than it is in electing more democrats.

Moreover, even if we agreed with John Walsh that this document should be broad and accessible to everyone, it's still an 11-page whopping failure. Nothing is accessible to the general public at 11 pages. So what does that leave us with? This platform will not only be a massive failure in the recruiting department, it will now fail to do the few good things the current platform can do. As a statement of the party's beliefs, it's a weapon against DINOs -- not the best weapon, but one of the few against powerful incumbents. With a neutered platform, constituents can't even talk to their elected leaders and tell them that they're going against the party. Furthermore, for people looking to seek political office, the current document can serve as a basis for ideas. If it's watered down, there's no ideas in it from which to borrow from.

What we have left is an abdication of responsibility. Maybe that's the real purpose? This is a free pass for DINOs to continue to be DINOs. This is a party deciding against providing a base from which new candidates can decide to campaign on, should they actually seek to represent their party. This is a party deciding to run away from what we actually believe in, act as though our ideas are something to be ashamed of. This is the exact sort of thing that's gotten us in a lot of trouble in the past. Republican-lite and bland wishy-washy crap never won us a congressional seat: standing up for S-CHIP, stem cell research and an end to the war in Iraq did. American cheese is a philosophy of failure. We don't need more evidence.

While speaking broadly from the stump can be great, the best candidates have backed that up with powerful, technocratic ideas and position platforms. Both Deval Patrick and Barack Obama armed themselves with detailed, lengthy plans online and available to everyone -- even as their rhetoric was one that was open to everyone. If asked questions, they could be downright wonkish when they needed to be. If we lose our core ideas and beliefs, we will lose our spirit -- and subsequently support. We can do better and, for that reason, delegates should oppose the platform as currently constituted.

Wonderful State Senate Press Release

So glad the Globe's willing to print anything sent to them.

Just a summation: Some in the Senate, still throwing a temper tantrum over the Governor, decided to push a proposal that would limit contributions one can make to state parties, because (apparently) Patrick's done well with cross-fundraising.

The Globe tries to say this is all about some joint-fundraising effort called the Seventy-First Fund, but the Senate's proposal - as I understand it from the article - is far more wide sweeping than the fund itself. The 71st Fund is for people who max out both to the state party and Governor Patrick -- $500 for Patrick, $5000 for the state party. However, the Senate proposal limits all contributions to state parties in Massachusetts to $500.

Why would the Democratic Senators of Massachusetts want to do that? I suppose the fact that John Walsh, one of Patrick's closest allies, has nothing to do with it. He controls the state party and has brought quite a bit of change as a result - most for the good. He's also helped the Governor a great deal from within the State Party. Apparently, that means the State Party should be punished. That's a great idea, except for the fact that the state party's efforts are critical in electing democrats in the legislature too. It's nice to know Walsh isn't as petty as Senator Frederick Berry, the lead in pushing this proposal, because Walsh is actually out there trying to elect other Democrats - including in the legislature.

Loved John Walsh's quote, btw.

"If it applies to all parties, we support it, " said Democratic Party chairman John Walsh, who was Patrick's campaign manager.

Bluff called, Senator Berry?

--

Who wants to bet that this proposal goes no where? Makes for a great press release, but when legislators find out how many thousands it'll cost them in individual, competitive campaigns, bye-bye spiteful rule.

--

Finally, love the faux drama. This funding is controversial, dammit! Why? Because the Boston Globe said so! Question: if it's so dammed "controversial," why hasn't the paper been writing articles on it for years now? Current campaign limits are nothing new, after all. Instead, we get articles on pirates and how Craigslist is ebil. Peddling the current Beacon Hill fued - what a way for the Globe to try to prove its relevance!

Draft Platform: Broad Brush Strokes

I once went to lunch with John Walsh about a year ago and he had a particularly great quote about political messaging: "paint with broad brush strokes." That way, people see what they like and like what they see. Just one quick look at speeches from Obama and Hillary Clinton and you can quickly see the difference between Obama's broad strokes and Hillary's wonkish policy details. Hillary comes off as competent, Obama comes off as inspirational.

However, there's a difference between a political speech and a party platform. Sabutai is correct to note that the platform's about to be watered down this year -- and it's in that very same quest to paint with broad strokes that John and I talked about at that lunch. Except, when it comes to a platform, a broad document is no longer inspirational -- it's a cop out. Who isn't for higher education excellence, or paying teachers fair wages? Even Republicans are for that. The difference - or should I say Devil? - is in the details.

What we needed -- and what I thought we were going to get based on what I was hearing from party insiders -- was a one-page "this is who we are" type document that acted as a mission statement, to be followed by a more detailed and nuanced platform - the best of both worlds. Maybe that's still the intention, but if so, why water down the other 11 pages?

As Obama and Patrick showed in their campaigns, one can paint with broad strokes and be detailed at the same time. Having a 1 page mission statement that quickly covers what it means to be a Democrat in Massachusetts would be an excellent thing to pull out as we convince people to register as a Democrat, but what if these people wanted to know more on a specific issue? As Obama and Patrick had detailed platforms and plans on their websites, so should we have a party-endorsed, detailed platform. People don't care about agreeing on every technocratic detail, but they do want to know if our party is going to stand up and believe in something. We should never be afraid to express our hopes and aspirations as a party through our platform. That's why the platform exists in the first place.

Specter Switches to Dems!!!!!!!!!!!!!

60 seats as soon as Franken's seated.

Fucking A!

(And there ya go, Republicans, for going to the whacko fringe right.)

Update: Okay, just for something a little more sobering:

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

I don't care if he becomes the super-duper liberal I'd every Senator to be, but EFCA is one of the most important bills that can possibly pass. It needs to. If Specter won't sign it, he'll face a Democratic primary challenge.

In any event, though, this is a good day for national democratic politics.

John Walsh at Tonight's Town Dem Meeting

Dem Party Chairman John Walsh made a visit to tonight's Town Dem meeting in Swampscott. He came chiefly to talk about transportation, an issue that's critical and, obviously, something the Governor is pushing. It was a pretty crowded room, so he had a pretty good sized audience. We usually get 30-40 people at our quarterly meetings - a few more actually showed up tonight.

His point was a great one. When this state was going through the Big Dig and how to fund it, who was over in the Corner Office? Walsh went back to 1998, when Paul Celluci was in charge, and talked about how Celluci pushed on the Pike, with Republican-appointed boards, a $1.9 billion bond loan the state needed to finish paying for the Big Dig. The Pike was then more than solvent and was easy pickings for Celluci. The bond was a 40 year bond -- the first 10 years of which the State had to pay nothing. The state also borrowed, under that leadership, on employee salaries -- so now the Pike is paying $130 million a year to fund the last 15 years' salaries.

It was a broken model by a group of Republican leaders who loved Government services, but refused to actually pay for them. Now, when the bill is due, Democrats are forced to pay for it. Governor Patrick wants to do it through a gas tax, an entirely reasonable way of doing it, which will cost the average citizen around $100 a year. That's the difference between Republicans and Democats: Democrats are the adults who clean up the mess, who understand values have costs and must actually be paid -- and that they make the state a far better and more prosperous (not to mention profitable) place.

Nuclear Option Should be On the Table

The Republicans are clearly showing they want to destroy this country. Democrats should grow a set and play a card from the Republican days. Even talk of the nuclear option may just get this vote moving. When will the dems stop bringing knives to gunfights?

Obama and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. It's as if they haven't figured out that the American people gave them the majority for a reason. Stoopid.

Today's Globe

• Horrifying. Racists burn down nearly finished mostly black congregation in Springfield, angry about Obama becoming President. Can we double or triple Obama's secret service, please?
  
• Renee Loth throws a fit. She's angry and outraged, mostly for good reasons, though more in the full-of-sound-and-fury, signifying-nothing kinda way, ie she offers no prescriptions. And did she really have to go into a video-games-are-evil meme at the end? So tired.
  
• Cape Wind is winning. Yay!
• Howard Dean's going into the private sector. Doesn't sound like he wants to. It's amazing to me that Obama didn't take Dean on. The 50 state plan, which wouldn't have happened without Dean, was a huge boon to the Democratic Party.
• The Globe editorializes that the state needs to step in to get schools to cut costs through measures like buying energy in bulk and the GIC, but in the end, the only way to really enforce large savings in budgets is to regionalize more schools. At the middle school and high school level, it's actually beneficial to kids, because it opens up more options, APs and other goodies. Then again, what would we do without all those wonderful Thanksgiving Day games?
• Varitek talks with Henry. Varitek was stupid to listen to Borass, who told Varitek to not accept arbitration, which would have assuredly granted V-tek $10 million or more next year. Now, no one wants the Captain, not even really the Sox, who seem more than content to trade for a young gun. That said, the 'Cap is going to have to take a pay cut and will almost certainly hit better than he did last year, a year in which he got divorced. If I got divorced, I think I'd play like horse manure too. So I hope he can suck it up, realize he made a mistake and pay the (admittedly stiff) price. For the right price, I'd love to have him back next year.
• Finally, don't forget to check out my first video blog, on Obama's inauguration and what it'll take to make sure his priorities match the progressive movement.
  

People are Excited

Tri-Town Democratic Committee Annual Holiday Party tonight... pretty sure there's going to be about 100 people showing up. Would even half that number show up if it weren't for the buzz and excitement from this year's election? I doubt it.

Party Politics at its Best

Here's the latest press release from Sonia Chang-Diaz's campaign, photo included.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERSHIP ENDORSE CHANG-DÍAZ FOR STATE SENATE

Governor Patrick: Chang-Díaz a "Great Choice for the Democratic Party"

BOSTON -- Before a standing room only crowd of supporters and community activists at the Harriet Tubman House (United South End Settlements), Governor Deval Patrick, Speaker Sal DiMasi, Majority Leader Byron Rushing and Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh unequivocally endorsed Sonia Chang-Díaz as the Democratic Nominee for State Senate in the Second Suffolk. Chang-Díaz won the Democratic Primary on September 16th.

"To be absolutely clear and unambiguous: As your governor and as a Democrat, I endorse Sonia Chang-Díaz ," said Governor Patrick. "Sonia comes to this role and to this challenge as a teacher at a time when the schools need us…and as an experienced politician, frankly – at a time when we need all the wisdom we can get up on Beacon Hill. Ladies and gentlemen, this a great choice for the Democratic Party and a great choice for the 2nd Suffolk."

Patrick also gave a nod to the hard work of the Chang-Díaz campaign. "I saw a sign just outside that said 'This District is Not for Sale,'" he said. "And by the way, that sign is right. This district is for not for sale…this nomination was earned."
Speaker DiMasi also threw his strong support behind Chang-Díaz : "I am here to wholeheartedly and completely endorse the campaign of Sonia Chang-Díaz …She is a hard worker….She has a great ability to lead in this district. She is absolutely right on every single one of the issues that this district faces…[and] I will do everything I can to help her get her elected in November."

Majority Leader Byron Rushing, who emceed the event and offered his own strong endorsement of Chang-Díaz, read out the names of the elected officials and State Party Committee members who had endorsed. The list included State Senate President Therese Murray (who was traveling outside the country), Representatives Jeff Sanchez, Marie St. Fleur, and Marty Walz, City Councilors Bill Linehan and John Tobin, as well as Sheriff Andrea Cabral.

Chang-Díaz spoke at the end to rousing applause. "Over the next four weeks," she said, "with the help of the Mass Democratic Party and those here today, we will again reach out to the voters of the Second Suffolk District. We will again go door to door and talk to people about their real problems and their real concerns and about what we can do together through State Government to build real solutions. And we will again ask them to join us in this campaign for new leadership."

When a candidate wins a primary, it's of paramount importance that the party unite behind that person. Sonia Chang-Diaz won a hard fought, hotly contested battle - which has left some bitter and angry and acting like a bunch of toddlers throwing a tantrum. Thankfully, this party's leaders have a firm grasp of the situation. This is how people who consider themselves a part of a political party should act. I'll always encourage primary battles, but if you want to be a member of a party, you shouldn't work against the person who wins that primary. Enough said.

Thoughts on Convention, Night 2

• Hillary's Speech: amazing. Seriously, she can't do anything more than that, so I hope the media just shuts up about this Hillary/Obama divide. Will 100% of Hillary's supporters vote for Obama? No. That's not how politics work. However, neither will 100% of Mike Huckabee's voters vote for John McCain. Where's all the media obsession on that?
• Seriously, can CNN stop digging up the one or two whacko Hillary supporters that aren't "feeling it" for Obama? Who need the "two months" to decide (and their 15 minutes). You can get anyone to go on TV and say anything. How about getting one of the vast majority of Clinton supporters in the convention to talk about how they're going to enthusiastically vote for Barack Obama for 2 minutes? Is that too much to ask?
• On MSNBC: Sorry, guys, but Luke Russert is not an expert on young voters. That guy needs way more experience before he's capable of talking on national TV about politics. K?
• I figured MSNBC would be a safe channel to watch most of the convention, mixing talk and the speeches. Oops. I completely missed Deval's speech - one of the two speeches during the night that I was actually interested in. C-SPAN tomorrow...
• That said, Rachel Maddow rocks. I'm so glad she has her own show now. It will kick ass; She'll be better than Keith.

Supremely Disappointed in Obama

I'll tell you, I was starting to get excited about Obama, but I can't state how much of a disappointment this is for a stalwart Democrat.

Asked specifically why he's supporting the current FISA bill when he'd promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that "national security" overrides the question of telecom immunity.

First of all, we've managed to pass FISA extensions for years now: it's not as if there's a choice between national security and the constitution. That's a Republican fallacy that, sadly, Obama seems all too happy to promote. Second of all, it can't be described how weak this is on Obama's part: it's something we may have expected out of a Democrat in 2002, not today.

There's an opportunity here to further brand the RNC as the party of fear mongering and political manipulation, which is all true, if Obama is willing to take it. All we need is a minimum of patience and some political courage to turn this into a conversation of "do you support the Constitution or not?" Apparently, Obama's too afraid of being called a Muslim, or something.

For the naysayers: anyone who says "AT&T deserves immunity, because the national government demanded it," is either a hack or an ignoramus (no offense to the latter). In no way whatsoever did the Federal Government vote to sanction our intelligence community to wiretap US phones without going through FISA and getting a warrant. The Bush administration is not the federal government; it's just one branch. As such, it had no authority to demand telecoms bypass FISA whatsoever.

All of these Telecoms have lawyers enough to populate entire communities, they knew Bush had no such authority, so that argument just doesn't fly. Point in case: not all of the Telecoms did Bush's bidding, some refused and demanded the BushCo. compel them, which the White House could never do... because it wouldn't be constitutional. No, there were other reasons why most of the Telecoms went along with it - a hint: it rhymes with squid bro fo.

The "Government" didn't force the telecoms to do anything; certain agencies, under the auspices of Dick and Bush, asked for that information, maybe even bullied for it, but nothing changes the fact that ultimately the Telecoms chose to give up the goods (your 4th amendment rights). None of them kicked and screamed and took the Government to court to protect you, their paying customers, from being spied on by the Government. Swallow that while considering the thousands a year we all pay these companies - the very same companies that are now asking for immunity, for protection against us.

No, these Telecoms deserve whatever punishments eventually come their way, criminal or otherwise, if we can somehow prevent them from cashing in early on some of those quid pro quos - in the form of the ultimate get-out-of-jail free card. With millions of people in this country's prison system, we're going to decide that the white collar executives at AT&T, who have teams of lawyers and never suffer from wont of anything, are the ones who deserve retroactive immunity? With all the lawyers they had on staff to give them sage legal advice, these are the people who deserve to be free from 'frivolous lawsuits?'

Does Senator Obama and Speaker Pelosi even know what accountability means? This is perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of modern America and not only are the Democrats content to do nothing about it, they're making sure they'll never have to do anything about it ever. With immunity, what's there to be done? Ask telecoms politely not to do it again? How will we ever know the full extent of what went on if Verizon gets to Pass Go & Collect $200? On FISA alone, I'll refuse to send Obama a dime or volunteer a single minute, unless he changes course pronto.

The good news: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came around on the issue, as well as Senator Chuck Schumer from NY. If Senator Clinton follows suit, as she often does, who knows? At least, for true blue Democrats who bought into the mantra of "change," Hillary would have the last laugh if she could help lead the filibuster. Unless, of course, Obama quickly grows a conscience realizes the Constitution trumps political ambitions any day of the week, especially when, in the long run, being courageous on FISA very likely will be to our advantage - as the party that fixes things.

DSC Convention & the Blogger Workshop Presentation

I went to yesterday's convention from beginning to end, arriving over an hour early to make final arrangements for the Blogger Workshop track, which I headed up along with Kate Donoghue, Lowell's own Lynne and several others.

But first, to the day. The Tsongas arena wasn't the perfect place for a DSC Convention, but I thought it was a damn near good place. First off, Downtown Lowell is a stunningly beautiful city, with lots to do. I wish I had more time to have taken advantage of it. The parking was cheap and plentiful, the Tsongas Arena big, beautiful with lots of room for tables and booths. It had plenty of AC to cool us all off on a hot day. The only thing it was lacking was a solid plan for handicap access, as that second link points out.

The speeches were mostly an afterthought. People were too busy meeting other Democrats at first to worry about speeches. Governor Patrick gave a decent speech, with some lines memorable enough to get everyone's attention for bits and pieces, but eventually even he lost the audience. It wasn't until the day's main event came up , the speeches of Senator Kerry and challenger O'Reilly and their supporters, that people really started to pay attention. O'Reilly's speech was fiery, but not polished. He clearly gets the frustrations many in this state have for Kerry, but not the answer. Kerry's speech was the best of the evening, but he also went twice the allotted time, due to an 'oversight.' (I'll give John Walsh the benefit of the doubt - that it was an accident - but even my suspicions were raised. Walsh did offer O'Reilly 12 more minutes, to match Kerry's 24 minute speech, but O'Reilly - thankfully - declined).

I tried to make it through all the voting, but unfortunately I had to pack up at around 2:30 to leave. I only found out later that O'Reilly made it onto ballot with slightly more than 20% of the vote, with angry Clinton supporters likely making the difference - since Kerry endorsed Obama.

I had an ulta-cool press pass (why it's cool, I do not know, but I didn't have to wait in a line to get it and it was certainly a conversation starter), but didn't know where the press room was, so I didn't the truly awesome perks... such as lunch on the state party, according to Lynne. I did embrace my inner Team Unity by buying a button for Obama. I also got to visit around a dozen activists/peers/friends from around the state - from DSC members to campaign volunteers I've worked with. That's always one of the best parts of an event like the State Convention.

In other news: the Blogger Workshop presentations are online at BlogLeft Mass, in the file section. Around 50 people came to the workshop, which I thought was a big success, so definitely feel free to use the presentations. To get them, join the BlogLeft Mass Yahoo group to get access to the files. All you need is a (free) yahoo account.

There's a general overview on blogging, as well as my "tech stuff" presentation - which includes detailed instructions on creating a free podcast, as well as various tools to make your blog even better. As time goes by, I'll improve the Tech Stuff presentation to include even more detailed instructions on how to do certain things, but for now if there's something on there anyone needs help with, just send me an email. Finally, we'll get the Netroots 101 presentation up there as well.

To get a yahoo account.

Go to yahoo.com

Press "sign in" on the right-hand side of the page.

It'll take you to the sign-in page. Below where it says sign it, it says "Don't have a Yahoo ID? Signing up is easy." Click the "Sign Up" button.

Fill out the page, then click "create account."

You'll get a confirmation email to your primary email account that you have to open up and press "Important. Click here to activate your new account."

Then, to sign up to BlogLeft Mass, just click on this link and press "Join this Group." Fill out that page, then press "Join."