And those kind of people are out there in abundance right now. I worked with dozens of them in the 2004 election, and they're all over in peace and environmental orgnizations. They are not, however, interning in their uncles' K-Street firms.
Exactly. If we are really committed to building state parties, a national field staff would be redundant now, and it really could be built at the last minute with no ill-effects (as opposed to our current strategy of building EVERYTHING at the last minute).
Here's an offensive statements, but one I believe: the kind of people who make good field organizers are exactly not the kind of people who do a good job climbing DC career ladders. I hope like hell this project is being staffed with young, wild-eyed provincial types who can't wait to work 90-hour weeks. If the DNC is doing the hiring (and not the state parties) I hope they're not screwing it up.
Wedge against whom? The whole reason the House GOP voted this way was to get around this as a wedge. Bush doesn't have to get elected again, so his veto can be the bogeyman that allows a lot of Republicans to vote with the mainstream (ie, pro-stem cell researach) position.
I've emailed you. I just wanted to point out here that it might require an entire other directory, or some sort of firewall to make sure that people know whether they're looking at PACs/527s or for-profit stuff.
Is there a plan to have a "private sector" category, for "netroots certified" political services companies, internet consultants, etc.? It would be cool to compile that sort of stuff, for candidates who want to find staff/consultants who share their mentality, not just open the phonebook to "Shrum."
Reaching out to the blog sphere is not spamming, it's smart politics.
Indeed. I think the gripe is with someone posting the same exact thing multiple times without adding any content to the community. To "reach out" is to engage. To dump press releases or one-liners is like using MyDD as just free advertising.
Clearly, this might just be one well-meaning guy, and not an act of the campaign itself, and everyone in this thread is right that she looks like a good candidate. But to think that a proxied one-liner constitutes genuine engagement is to truly not get it. And from a more cynical standpoint, her campaign would be smart to realize that the candidates who get the most blog money are the ones who give the most in return.
By and large, I hope she gets a better internet outreach strategy than having a volunteer spam the MyDD diaries.
OH-02 is not the swingenest of districts, but it definitely can be competitive, and Wulsin does look like a good candidate. Warren County actually has somewhat of a good activist/donor base--especially of upper-midde class women--hiding in places you wouldn't expect it. The district isn't wired, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is wire-able. I hope the Wulsin campaign will start asking the netroots for help in positioning the resources to get that done (yeah, I realize it might be smart to give her a week or two in the race before assuming anything).
I'm not sure what "formal" means in this context, but this clown's blog is underwritten by and and published for the DLC (which, from a non-ideological, technology standpoint is cool. I wish there was more progressive blogger patronage).
First off, who the hell does this guy think he is? Just because you don't like what a person did 35-40 years ago, doesn't give you the right to ban her movies.
Actually, it does. I think "ban" is a poor choice of words, but he owns the business, and the government can't make him show a certain movie. Don't get me wrong, this guy is clearly a dickweed, but he appears to be well within his rights as a dickweed.
If you owned a hamburger stand, would it be wrong of you to refuse to stock W-brand ketchup? No. It wouldn't be anybody's business but yours.
I should add this:
Public-opinion research during the 2004 cycle showed well over half of Americans support either marriage or civil union rights for gay couples. This is with exactly zero prominent Democrats making a public case for marriage rights.
How many Republican politicians who hate gay people declined to "come out" and say so during 2004? My guess is, well, zero. Now, how many Democrats who think gay people deserve equal rights declined say so to voters? I'm guesing it's more than zero, folks.
Who told the DC Democratic leadership that it's even possible to fight for a position of compromise? They're running a race with the goal of making it halfway to the finish line, yet somehow they're still losing.
That's a hot post and a smart call-to-arms. I think that an important part of the GOP's establishing a cogent image of the public is the way in which they are seen as dealing with unpopular issues. Bush is no doubt winning points somewhere with some anti-social-security-privatization voters because he's "sticking to his guns" or some such horseshit.
I'm not convinced at all (empirically or qualitatively) that earnest and unequivocal support of gay rights would be politically unpopular for Democrats. That being said, I also don't think that fighting, boldly and from a place of principle, on ANY issue could be bad for voters' perceptions of Democrats. The homophobes are the cowards here, so let's not act like we are. That has to start with having the courage to support equal rights.
Oh yeah, and there's that whole thing about denying rights to gay people being sick and Unamerican.