The act of allowing chartered groups on campus is not endorsing or funding. That is the false logic.
They are rejected a campus group based on a claim that it is counter to the tenants of the university. They are not simultaneously endorsing or increasing support to the College Republicans (or the College Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, whatever).
Read the quote you pasted. You are making a long stretch to associate the permitting of clubs bearing the name and ideals of the parties as "any political campaign". Further the "funding" part is problematic in that the clubs (at most universities) receive no University funding, they are self sustained or cease to exist on their own.
I'm not supportive of Liberty U's decision, and I find it to be wrought with evil political intent. Take care in what line of legal or rhetorical assault you take giving us a better chance at a victory.
The reasons many schools opt to ban recruiters on campus are not political, they are based on problems created by the lack of quality oversight and less than ethical behavior among recruiters - particularly when they use stress periods on campus to recruit the kids when they are at their lowest point.
I'm not a lawyer, but I used to work for a 501 C3 and if Liberty claims tax-exempt status they can't endorse a political party. It could be an interesting case if the IRS decided to review their status.
I'm also not a lawyer, but I recognize this as a trail of false logic. Liberty is rejecting college Democrats because the University contends the platform to which the College Dems subscribe is contrary to the Universities values of what is "good and moral" - or something like that. They aren't banning any other party affiliated groups (nor do I know if any others exist). The question is to apply this to a different group and see how your reaction would differ or would it remain constant? If the group was the 'Junior Klansman' or the 'Future Trial Lawyers' or the 'College Communists'...what if the group was the 'Jews for an end to Christianity'?
Is what they are doing disgusting? Yes. Is there a potential for it to impact their sources of public funding and tax exempt status? Possibly. Bring evidence and a fully connected arguement rather than doing what our awful traditional media "journalists" do with a half-baked accusatory question.
Having had the experience of campaigning for Democrats in the community in question, I know there are Democrats there. Certainly outnumbered, but present nonetheless, and growing. Should we support these young Dems? Absolutely. Should we engage in deceitful rhetorical tactics? Pass. Bring it with truth.
The large blocks of strong religious republicans in Western Iowa are also strong peace advocates in the regions, specifically in Sioux County (Steve King's IA-5 seat).
It makes this election difficult to predict, given that this group is heavily torn between their desires for social (and fiscal) conservatism and ending the Iraq war/general violence-first postures.
Rob Hubler in IA-5 has been working hard in that district, very tough ground but certainly not outside the realm of possibility to win.
IA-4 was a bit of a strange situation going into this year with the expected candidate being last cycles surprise candidate who withdrew after launching a new attempt for the seat this cycle. The DCCC/etc had reasons to be skeptical of pursuing this seat and certainly there are other places where it is easier to have impact in...
It is difficult ground to organize given the mostly rural nature of the district, Becky Greenwald overcame that by bringing in several Dodd for President staffers who worked the region for the caucuses to run her field operations.
As far as Emily's Lists goes - like any other organization, they have their own self-interest at stake with every investment they make. They are more influential when they deliver victories and thus have incentive to scrutinize how many races and which races they invest in. Limited resources and it is very difficult to evaluate the quality of "new" candidates and their campaigns...makes it like jumping into an empty swimming pool head first some times...
Pull the floor speeches on the 07 Iraq funding bills, you will find that Biden gave a strong speech for funding while Dodd gave the strong argument against, Obama and Clinton failed to disclose their positions in advance of voting.
I highly respect Senator Biden, he stood up and made the arguement, we need that from every Senator, Congressman and certainly our President.
Senator Dodd not only stood up and made the arguement, but in my opinion he was right, that is important too.
I would support Biden as the VP nominee, but I would prefer Chris Dodd.
Rooting through Congressional Records is just such a blast, we really need to improve that system and make it easier to link to content within the records.
Wow, I had no idea you were talking about filling EVERY staff position with Clinton Admin staffers - that really is laughable.
I was talking about the true senior level positions, the people that will set the tone for the new administration at the direction of their President.
Of course we should root out the cronyism and other varieties of incompetence and partisan hackery. We should not boast about "bringing back the good old days of the Clinton Administration" - for the bulk of undecided voters, that is not a positive connotation, yes, the Bush Admin is bad, but lets not compare to the past, lets look forward at a better government in Obama's image.
You start talking about the Clinton White House staff you will get more discussion about Whitewater and Monica cover ups than about "good government" - we want to win this election, don't we?
Was Clinton's Government better than Bush's? By leaps and bounds. Is it the standard we should project as the future? Hell no. We can do better.
As a logistical aside...eight years later, the majority of the Clinton staff have likely progressed in their careers well beyond their position in his administration, maybe a few of them would step back in service to country, but most of them would expect to move up the ladder several rungs, leaving you with out anyone to fill a majority of the jobs anyway.
If Obama puts the right people in the upper level positions, those people will fill the positions below them with good people and so on, where those people come from isn't important if they are capable of handling the job they are hired for. Maybe some will have had experience in the Clinton White House, maybe none will. Not really important to me, but as a campaign issue, I know its a loser.
"Obama will have to bring in people who gained experience during the Clinton era. The lack of executive experience in either candidate makes it more difficult to translate their rhetoric into coherent policies."
This is bogus and will be used as a reason not to vote for Obama. While you didn't specificly say "Clinton Administration Personnel" it is strongly implied - Obama is more likely to bring in former staffers from the House/Senate Majority/Minority leaders offices, as well as new people to government. People with Private and Non-Profit sector experience.
How can you expect change bringing in the same old hands? You do need some experience in how Washington works (or doesn't work) and you need some experience at the basic process levels, but you do not need DC/White House experience in every position.
Putting a Chris Dodd in the VP office, a Daschle in as COS or Legislative Director, etc along with a few people with Capitol Hill experience mixed with some newcomers with real world experience beyond the beltway is a recipe for real change and progress.
Just please dump the "will have to bring in Clinton experience" crap, it is toxic to indys and R's, and makes liberals/progressive think we are in for another Administration that leads the fight for non-solutions like NAFTA, DADT, etc
The 50 state strategy has not weakened his message, his message has weakened independent of the field strategy.
We need to have a presence everywhere and not allow unchecked messaging from the opposition, not allow them to build bastions of unfettered dominant support.
I've spent time in many different deep red communities, where Democratic Candidates are nearly extinct and Democratic campaigns are generally of poor quality. We must do better, we must present our argument everywhere or it will be defeated nationally forever.
Missing component - The most important part of the VP is being a person capable of filling the role of the Presidency in the wake of the most awful tragedy. Too often sheer electoral value is put ahead of that (more) important measure.
Family Medical Leave Act. First Childcare grants since WWII. Fire and Safer Acts. Advocate for Publicly Financed Elections long before it was cool. Advocate for PAYGO Rules before it was cool. Advocate against Don't Ask, Don't Tell when it was very uncool.
The loan story isn't a story and it won't carry weight during the campaign. It was an attempt to derail much needed housing reform legislation. Was nice to see all the Democrats stand up and get Senator Dodd's back...oh wait, these are Democrats we are talking about and that's why its even remotely at issue.
We SHOULD expect no matter who our candidate is, the media will skewer them, regardless of what is or is not true. We must pick a candidate like Chris Dodd who will stand up for Democratic Values and fight back.
He was there fighting against FISA when the other candidates were in Iowa.
While a candidate for the Presidential nomination, he continued to work on major legislation to help real Americans through the nation from the Infrastructure Bill (submitted the day before the bridge in MN collapsed) to Paid Family Leave to the housing bill, he didn't quit his day job.
If you look back at the positives highlighted about each of the other "VP Contenders" you will find when compiled together, it is a list of Chris Dodd's attributes.
Those that call Dodd a DC insider just don't understand Chris Dodd, he has been bucking the system and fighting for change his whole career. As a person fortunate enough to have spent some time with Gov Richardson, Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, and several other candidates and/or their spouses, There isn't a single one I believe is as capable and qualified as Chris Dodd. A league of his own.
Coal, Abortion, general rhetoric - he is both wrong and weak. Voters like conviction - Kaine lacks it.
He plays well as a good old boy in Virginia, where the center is two football fields to the right and riding the coattails of Mark Warner. But why would we want him to be the standard bearer of the Democratic Party Nationally?
We have a great opportunity to move the center back to the center and maybe, just maybe a step or two to the left, we need someone proud to be a Liberal on the ticket.
Chris Dodd continues to be my choice, I believe he is exactly in line with what Obama says he is looking for, while he has been a Senator and Congressman for 30 years, he has continually defied expectations within the beltway, making real change by working the system like no one else has in the same time span. If you want to change the system for real, you need to fully understand all of the functions and processes, Dodd is a person with that knowledge, and a person who has fought for publicly financed elections, transparency of government, rule of law, improving education, health care, paid medical leave, etc etc etc... Add to it an unmatched level of foreign diplomatic experience with actual success brokering peace (Ireland, Central/South America), and you have someone who fills the only real requirement there is for being Vice President: The capability of stepping in as President in the wake of the most unimaginably terrible tragedy. Leadership beyond George Bush's instruction to go shopping in the wake of 9/11.
We need to demand stronger DEMOCRATS across the board, we can't allow the beltway pundits to force another weak-knee moderate or turncoat (Lieberman) candidate upon us. 2008 is our chance to stand up and be proud, to make the argument Nationally that has not been made since...before I was born. Conservatism has taken the lead because they have been unafraid of speaking up and speaking out with confidence. Why are we afraid?