I like the idea of having a handful of the closest states in the previous presidential cycle go first. This approach helps raise the visibility of our candidates where we most need it. Under such a scenario, Iowa and New Hampshire would still be up first.
You can rightly argue that such a system punishes states that are most supportive of Democratic presidential candidates, but it does the same to states that are least supportive of our candidates. Under Dean's leadership, we're going to be reenfranchising such states, but it still makes sense to me for our candidates to have more of a presence in the closest states.
All little-known candidates with no elected experience have a tough time being taken seriously until they can demonstrate that they have a modicum of support in the field.
Unless Pennachio can spend a ton of money to get his name out there, he's going to have to work the grassroots and get his message out town meeting by town meeting-- just like every other underdog candidate before him.
Though I disagree with some of his positions on social issues, I think Casey would win and that's the goal, isn't it? Santorum's so far right that Casey looks almost progressive in comparison. Hafer might have a shot too, but an unknown probably wouldn't; so as much as Pennachio's views might line up with mine, I wouldn't vote for him in a primary.
I don't think there's anything wrong with compromising some ideals for the sake of victory. For instance, I voted for Dan Hynes in Illinois' Senate primary last year despite being a long-time admirer of Barack Obama. I was worried that the name would be trouble in a statewide election, and if Jack Ryan hadn't turned out to be a perv, that probably would have been a very close race.
If Pennsylvania Democrats were actually trying to cancel the primary and pick the nominee, that would be reprehensible. But getting upset about them trying to clear the field is absurd.
They just want to win.
The recent news that G/G was in the White House before Talon News was formed is shocking. He was provided with press credentials before he was even affiliated with a news organization.
It leads one to the conclusion that he was there for some purpose other than to disseminate propaganda and what could it be other than sex?
As press secretary McClellan admitted, they knew him to be Jim Guckert. If there had been a background check they would have discovered that he was no journalist. The only thing that makes sense to me is that he was spared the background check and provided a fake name and a fake job so he could keep boffing whomever it was he was boffing.
So, who was he boffing? Clearly it was someone
powerful. White House peons wouldn't have had access to the memos that G/G received. Only someone high level would have known that Bush was going to announce the beginning of the Iraq War four hours before the President did so. And only someone powerful could have gotten him the credentials and the level of access he had.
Now that we know that Talon News was formed after G/G was in the White House, it appears to me that it was formed to provide cover for G/G. The founder, Eberle, was a Texan who had long been involved with Bush's campaigns and Talon was certainly not a serious news organization. Who, other than a Texan, would have made these arrangements with Eberle?
High level, male, Texan. Doesn't that pretty much narrow the boffee down to Karl Rove or President Bush? I think one of them divulged the Plame information.
I really appreciated Kerry's appearance on Meet the Press. He effectively countered the notions of a Social Security crisis and that pro-choice equals pro-abortion, and was kind to Howard Dean. He even mentioned Dean's balanced budgets, which is what most impressed me about the governor from Day One. Dean was my choice in the presidential primary and he's my preference for DNC chair
But I don't like some of the online snarkiness in the battle. Blogs are an incredible source of information that have opened the DNC chair selection process to the public eye for the first time, really. They're definitely making the Democratic Party more democratic, so it's disheartening to see blogmasters sniping at each other about their personal preferences.
I'm not all that keen on a Roemer or Leland chairmanship, but I'd be fine with any of the rest of them. They're all strong, proven, effective leaders.
There's no doubt in my mind about that, no matter how many people call him a DINO because of ads he ran in his last, very difficult Congressional campaign. He's a good guy and he put up a good fight against DeLay. I'd be OK with him as DNC chair, but I wouldn't expect significant accomplishments.
I think Gov. Dean is going to be the next DNC chair, and the talking heads, from Bill O'Reilly to Cokie Roberts, will rant about the sell-out to the "liberal" wing of the party. And during the two weeks or so it takes for the media to tire of it (days after the public has tired of it), the new DNC will have raised over $100 million.
I believe that there can be great synergies between the netroots and the grassroots. Put more money into state and local organizations and we can open the process to different ideas (in everything from voter outreach to candidate recruitment). Engage online activists and we can generate the awareness and funding to grow and support the good ideas.
You hand that potential to Martin Frost and he'll wonder if it's a baby or a bomb. Howard Dean knows what to do with it.
I saw the conference on CSPAN this weekend. I didn't know much about Donnie Fowler, but, man, is he a bad speaker.
I really admire Martin Frost. He's a good, honest man. I said a few prayers that he'd somehow overcome the bad odds in his new district and was disappointed on election night. He put up a great fight.
Tim Roemer? Didn't he abandon his Congressional seat because the district was about to be redrawn? This is the person we're going to have lead the party? No way. If it's gonna be an ex-Congressman, I'd prefer the one who stands and fights.
But I'm for Dean. Once again, he's setting the agenda. Grassroots activism, decentralization of DNC power and money, empowering local and state Democratic organizations and a 50-state effort. Rosenberg is saying the same thing and very well. He's clearly a very intelligent man and seems to be a helluva good manager.