Candidate Watch

I know, I know, she is no Rachel Maddow (the one with the sultry voice and totally sapphic resume), and most certainly couldn't measure up to my official platonic boo, Donna Brazzille. But Lady Almighty,  Campbell Brown (btw, a totally "top" name for a girl if you ask me) totally knows how to make a feminist squeal with delight.

You can read the whole transcript at CNN.com :

I call upon the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower who will wilt at any moment.

This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong, she is tough, she is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff.

[...]

Democrats are divided over whether appealing to the moderate center or galvanizing their progressive base is the better strategy. Given the public's declining confidence in Republican leadership, either strategy may enable Democrats to win at the polls. But neither approach will give them the electoral mandate required to govern effectively and retain the public's support once they're in office.

Fortunately, choosing between these two strategies is unnecessary. There is an alternative to left-right politics and by adopting it Democrats can remain true to progressive principles while attracting millions of voters from the non-ideological middle.

The step beyond the "New Deal," the "Fair Deal," and the "Great Society" is a "Dignitarian Society." The slogan is Dignity For All.

What does this mean in practical terms? How would we translate it into legislation? In a word, what is the platform for the party that champions a dignitarian society?

Before answering this question, I want to qualify my answer. While it's tempting to guess at what others would want, that's contrary to the spirit of the dignitarian process--which requires asking the people whose lives are affected what they want.

So, with this proviso, I'll simply indicate the kind of legislation that I personally would expect from my congressional representatives if they want my vote. I hope others will add to this list, which is only a start:

* Compensation for my labor that enables my family to live with dignity.

* Access to quality education for family regardless of our financial circumstances.

* Affordable basic and specialized health care for my family.

* A system for funding campaigns that enjoins lawmakers to put the public's interests above special interests. Incumbents should be barred from using the power inherent in their position to gain an unfair advantage over challengers.

* Protection of my privacy and autonomy against unwarranted intrusion from my fellow citizens or the government.

* An equitable tax policy. The word "equitable" acquires meaning through national dialogue. What we agree to be fair is fair, until we change our minds. Periodic renegotiation occurs in the form of a democratic political process that gives electoral weight to the interests of every citizen, no exceptions. This means devising a way to give electoral weight to the interests of those too young to cast their own ballots. The interests of one-third of Americans (those under 18) are unrepresented in the electoral process. As the electorate ages, the result will be calcification and national sclerosis.

* A national defense that deters would-be aggressors and defeats them if they mount an attack, and international policies that avoid giving the kind of offense to others that incites their revenge.

* Participation in global treaties that foster international security and environmental sustainability.

Some of you may have followed my various analyses and Act Blue pages covering several key states in 2006. My goal has been to not only target close races, but also to generate momentum to actually SWEEP some states, or at least come close. My personal favorites to focus on have been NY and NV, but today Salon.com is telling us what their picks are for top races of 2006. I want to use their analysis and build on it to discuss what some of our really important fights are. Please read, discuss and, if you feel it is worth it, donate.

This is adapted from the Salon.com analysis with additions and comments of my own.

1. CT. Senate race: Lamont stirring up trouble for the lame, timid Democratic leadership. I think you all know about this one already! I was avoiding getting involved with this one because I considered it tilting at windmills. But Lamont is mounting a strong challenge to Mr. Kisseyface, so what the hell!

2. Iowa House races: Iowa, where my father was born and where the Kunkel Sporting Goods store in Davenport, co-founded by my great-grandfather, still stands today. One of the most up-for-grabs seats in the nation is the open Repub-held seat IA-1. Then Leonard Boswell in Des Moines, who always faces a daunting reelection fight in a district that split 50-50 in the 2004 presidential race, is considered the Democratic Party's "most vulnerable incumbent." Iowa is considered one of the "purplest" of states and this year is a chance to shift it much more solidly blue. Finally add a race for Sec. of State and Elesha Gayman, a Democracy for America rising star, and you have many races well deserving of our attention. I urge you to help turn Iowa solid blue, defending one of our most vulnerable seats and targeting an open seat now held by a Repub. Help me turn my father's state blue.

NY State Republicans may not quite be as corrupt as their counterparts in Ohio, Missouri and Kentucky (the three most corrupt Republican State Parties in the nation), but, my own NY State is not immune to the largely Republican Culture of Corruption. Some time back I brought up the hypocrisy and corruption of Republican Congressman John Sweeny (NY-20) who did his best to distance himself from the Republican mega-scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramhoff but is himself just as much a part of the Republican-Lobbyist Culture of Corruption as any Republican. I also have blogged extensively about some corrupt ties between a particular developer (Bruce Ratner) and New York politicians (Republicans Michael Bloomberg and George Pataki (Ratner's law school chum)...as well as Democrat Marty Markowitz). Today I want to review Sweeny's corruption and introduce a new target of my campaign against corruption in NY State: Congressman Vito Fossella (NY-13).

How do you know that Team Hillary is definitely planning a run for 2008? When James Carville starts writing Op-Eds that make the threadbare case that she can be elected.

Carville's case is essentially this: Hillary got elected in 2000 to the Senate despite objections from the naysayers; some of her polling numbers are not catastrophic; she has a net positive rating of 54%-42%; having been through the right-wing slime treatment for over a decade, nothing they can say, supposedly, will stick; and besides, those people who like her really, really like her.

Wake up, James (if I may call you that). It ain't so.

Hillary got elected in 2000 because of four factors: her willingness to work very hard for it, her own glamour as First Lady, her luck in having a weak opponent, and because New York is a blue state, at the time a blue state still angry over impeachment. For a sitting First Lady, especially this one, to get elected against a completely unknown junior Congressman in this state is not illustrative of anything. Whatever naysayers there were, not that I can really recall any, were at best marginal; after all, Rangel and Moynihan recruited her.

Sometimes I wonder about Democrats. We don't know whether the elections were stolen in Florida, 2000, Georgia, 2002, and Ohio, 2004. Think about that. We DON'T KNOW. Other elections around the country, including a couple in San Diego, California, have had suspicious outcomes and flaws.

One concern are voting machines. America, after 2000, decided it needs to upgrade its voting machines. Fine. That sounds good. But ONLY if it improves the efficiency and accuracy of our voting system.

Today in NYC and around the nation we are faced with a choice: upgrade to DRE machines where the vote is all done on a touch screen, or PBOS machines where the vote is done in Scantron fashion with a real paper ballot, but computer tabulation. These are the only choices being offered by manufacturers.

Democrats got burned potentially in three election years in a row. And part of the problem are these new machines. Both DRE and PBOS machines have had problems. The difference is that if an election board wants to completely check the accuracy of an election, it can be done with PBOS machines. It can't with DRE machines.

With PBOS, as a last resort, a non-partisan or bi-partisan election board can fairly and accurately count the paper ballots that are left as a record of the vote. In fact, the voter him or herself can check before leaving the voting booth to see that the vote is properly cast. With DRE machines it is all in the computer and the software is a company secret. That means, with DRE machines we will never and can never know how the votes are recorded and tabulated. Only the company knows. That puts private companies in charge of our vote, and puts oversight of the accuracy of an election in the hands of the companies that are selling us the machines.

Chris Owens (standing on the right hand side of Howard Dean): candidate for Brooklyn's 11th Congressional district. Endorsed by Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Norm Siegel, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, and Democracy for NYC.

Chris Owens (on the right hand side of Howard Dean): candidate for Brooklyn's 11th Congressional District. Endorsed by Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, Norm Siegel, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats and Democracy for NYC.

Bill Batson: candidate for Brooklyn's 57th Assembly District, endorsed by Central Brooklyn Neighborhood Democrats and Democracy for NYC

Eric Adams: Candidate for Brooklyn State Senate District 20; endorsed by Independent Neighborhood Democrats, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, and Democracy for NYC.

In the latest endorsement process, Democracy for NYC is following the trend of delivering the expected results. The difference between DFNYC's endorsement vote and those of IND and CBID, previously covered, is how lopsided the DFNYC vote was.

DFNYC collected paper ballots over an eight day voting period. To receive a DFNYC endorsement a candidate must secure 55% of the vote, each of the following candidates surpassed that threshold with ease.

Chris Owens for Congressional District 11 in Brooklyn with a record 93% of the vote. David Yassky was a VERY distant second, showing yet again that Yassky is losing the progressive and grassroots votes that he has very actively wooed. Previously, the Independent Neighborhood Democrats, in a VERY divisive vote, endorsed David Yassky while the Central Brooklyn Democrats endorsed Chris Owens.

Eric Adams for Senate District 20 in Brooklyn with 74% of the vote. So far Eric Adams has the reform/progressive endorsements sewn up, easily winning IND, CBID and now DFNYC endorsements.

Bill Perkins for Senate District 30 in Manhattan and the Bronx with 81% of the vote.

Bill Batson for Assembly District 57 in Brooklyn with 75% of the vote. Previously, Bill Batson won the CBID endorsement. IND does not cover this district.

Here are some comments from outsiders on the actions of IND insiders in the recent disenfranchisement of nearly 100 new memebrs by the Independent Neighborhood Democrats executive board:

From a Brooklyn activist and organizer who is watching this from as much of a distance as he can:

“If I were advising IND, I would have said that there really isn't much that they can do if the process they set out makes it possible, except change it for the future; but to change the rules of engagement during the process, as it appears they did, is simply un-democratic with a small "d". As you note, that has Tammany Hall written all over it, and it's sad to have that happen; it might be preferable to have IND make an endorsement that the 'old guard' does not agree with rather than to acquire the reputation they seem intent on getting. Short-sighted and knee-jerk, that response, in my view.

The Independent Neighborhood Democrats (IND) has been one of the pinnacles of integrity within Brooklyn politics. A reform club specifically designed to fight against the corruption of the Brooklyn Democratic Machine.

I regret to inform you that the integrity of IND is in critical condition if not outright deceased as of last night. I recently wrote about one aspect of their decline, a move by the executive board that had the stated purpose of fighting club packing, but was interpreted by many as being a move to protect the interests of favorite candidates over the wishes of newcomers to the club. Last night’s IND meeting confirmed our worst fears about the new executive board and their intentions.

To put it quite pointedly, last night's IND meeting was a giant pile of stinking donkey dung and the inescapable conclusion is that the integrity that IND was so well known for has been replaced by outright corruption as soon as the new executive board took control. Last night confirmed my worst fears, but the signs of impending corruption have been accumulating.

URGENT ACTION TO PRESERVE OUR VOTING RIGHTS

I hadn't intended this to link to my local Congressional race, NY-11, but it does. But first, a reminder of what's at stake and what we ALL have to do. We have to stop the attempts to force eVote machines on NYC and instead support the cheaper, FAR more reliable PB/OS system.

Here is a recent article outlining the CRITICAL threat to our democracy the eVote machines pose. Please read it as background. Here are just a few excerpts:

The leap to hand over our elections to private companies was an irresponsible, knee-jerk travesty. Voting machines appeared virtually overnight and quickly changed democracy in America. They were readymade and purchased off the shelf without the preconceived specifications, policies and procedures that are usually inherent in government endeavors. Safeguards were an afterthought. Three primary companies have jockeyed for the bounty of billions of dollars counties have been budgeted through federal grants to buy electronic voting systems under provisions of the Help America Vote Act...

By 2004, electronic voting machines were deployed across the nation and questionable election results ensued in Ohio, New Mexico and Florida following the November presidential contest. The greatest discrepancies occurred in districts utilizing electronic machines, while counties using paper ballots tracked accurately according to exit polls. Election irregularities first appeared in Florida and 4 short years later, voting anomalies were happening in multiple states. The proliferation of electronic voting in America has caused election problems to spread across the country like a virus on the Internet.

I just wanted to give y'all a heads up about the Matt Brown campaign. I just got off the phone from a PR call announcing their internal polling results. Their numbers are looking good.

[via Matt Brown - Brown Gaining Momentum; Leads Whitehouse in New Poll]:

Brown is leading Whitehouse, even though Whitehouse has a 16 point advantage in name identification (Whitehouse 81%, Brown 65%).

"Matt has run an aggressive grassroots campaign since day one and people are responding - but we aren't taking anything for granted until the final poll on Election Day," said Pete Brodnitz, campaign pollster. "Whitehouse has the backing of the political machine, the endorsements and money. But Matt Brown has the people. This poll shows Matt has room to grow and the more voters know about him, the more they like him."

As I said before, Matt Brown looks like a good pro-choice candidate to support. I am keeping my eye on this race because I am hearing good things that I have not heard from other campaigns here in New York :