2013-05-24T16:00:55-04:00 Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=malcom-glenn Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Malcom Glenn Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1942693 2012-10-05T11:30:10-04:00 2012-12-05T05:12:01-05:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
Education is not a partisan issue.

And you're forgiven if you think otherwise based on words written on these very pages, but evidence at nearly every level of government bears it out: there is a genuine thirst from Democrats and Republicans alike to find common ground on all issues related to education reform, including what some people call the most contentious among them: school vouchers and providing more educational choice to low-income families.

When Jack Jennings wrote last month that politics is the reason Republicans support vouchers for children from low-income families and those with special needs, he argued that the so-called shift is a recent one--that not until the past two decades did the party embrace public and private schools as partners in delivering education in this country.

The problem is that, historically, that's simply not true. William Henry Seward, Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State and a governor of New York, in 1839 proposed using public funds for private schools as a way of combating growing illiteracy and poverty among many public school attendees. Accusations that Ulysses S. Grant held animus towards public/private partnerships had little to do with actual ideology and more with drawing contrasts with his opponents.

Historic support for educational choice from Republicans is real, just as is modern-day support for those same policies from Democrats, myself included. There are no political motivations involved--there's not a whole lot of political upside in making friends with the folks on the other side of the aisle, as the last year of the bitter presidential race has made clear--but it's a testament to the collective commitment to solving our education crisis that traditions of blue and red are becoming varying hues of purple.

Just ask Michelle Rhee. Defenders of the education status quo are quick to paint her as outside the mainstream of Democratic dogma because she's aligned herself with other reform-minded governors--yes, Republicans--like Indiana's Mitch Daniels and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal. It begs the question: do bipartisan policy solutions mean that one side is a secret puppet for the other? Or can we finally be willing to uncover the diamond-like truth in the rough of modern-day American politics--that education reform is being embraced by the unlikeliest of bedfellows?

The fact is, when it comes to education reform, traditional party breakdowns no longer apply. Perhaps because of that fact, the subject isn't a conversation that a lot of folks are eager to have in the midst of a presidential campaign, but is it not the true test of presidential leadership to advocate for what's most important, not to follow the fleeting whims of the media story of the moment? There's no doubt that people care most about the economy, yes, but there's arguably no more important issue to the future of our economic standing in the world than how we educate our children.

And in a country when more than one student drops out of school every 29 seconds--in which egregious inequality has become a defining, and sadly acceptable component of our lagging educational system--we do an economic disservice to ourselves by steering clear of the legitimate crisis at hand.

Sure, it may not win political points, but the best politics is an awareness of, and an engagement with, the big problems that are most pressing to our future.

Including the vice presidential debates, there are still three more chances left for the candidates to truly engage in this issue--to give it more than a passing reference or two in the midst of the partisan back-and-forth.

At least two of those debates will be about domestic policy. And there's much agreement that the best way to truly get our house in order is to make sure our schools are, too.

Malcom Glenn is the National Director of Communications for the American Federation for Children. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1272272 2012-02-13T10:42:05-05:00 2012-04-14T05:12:01-04:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
And in addition to the fact that Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow had one of the most storied college football careers ever -- winning two national championships and a Heisman trophy at football powerhouse Florida in the sport's best conference -- and New York Knicks sensation Jeremy Lin never as much as sniffed the NCAA tournament during four years of relative obscurity at Harvard, it's in the consumption of their stories by the public that we see the biggest difference between the two sensations.

Neither has made any secret of their relationships with God -- just take a look at their Twitter feeds. Tebow ends most messages with "GB²," a dual-purpose sign-off meaning "Go Broncos" and "God Bless," while Lin's profile picture mock-quotes Jesus with a Twitter-relevant request to "follow" Him. And both athletes are stand-ins for the underdogs everywhere, the undersized and unskilled who were cast off as ill-prepared for the big leagues.

But Lin's broad band of followers represents much more. In addition to the devout, who love both, Lin is inspiring an entire country of fans an ocean away, one that hasn't coalesced around an NBA player since he was 7'6" and spoke little English. This time, he's more than a foot shorter and a native of the Bay Area. Not a native but no less loved.

And unlike Denver's favorite son, Lin's numbers don't have to be explained away because of late-game heroics. And, most importantly, the guy looks like he's having fun.

No knock on Tebow -- this writer was among the most excited when his hometown team regained relevance last fall, as well as among the first down on one knee to salute the lefty savior. But the Lin phenomenon can best be captured in a single image, during Game 2 of the Harvard Hero's ascent to the main stage.

After draining a jumper late in a game against the Utah Jazz, Lin backpedals down court at Madison Square Garden, a smile slowly creeping over his face as he nods his head, tongue out, as if to acknowledge that -- despite his remarkable poise and humility -- he too recognizes the extraordinary nature of what's going on.

No less humble but far more fiery is Tebow, who looked borderline manic in his most exuberant states following some of the Broncos' most unlikely wins last year. And perhaps that's what we should expect.

After all, Tim Tebow is a superstar masquerading as an underdog. He's been a winner at the highest level his entire life. Throwing motion be damned -- should we really be surprised that he's a winner in the NFL, too?

Lin played spoiler in leading his high school team to an improbable state champion, excelled in perhaps the only Harvard extracurricular that goes underappreciated by the student body, never heard his name called on draft day, and yet, in his first extended minutes on the biggest stage, he absolutely blew away even the most bullish expectations.

There are no gimmicks involved in his game, either. He plays comfortable, fundamentally sound, fearless basketball. No topic divided NFL analysts more this year than whether the Broncos would be successful in the long run with Tebow at the helm. The biggest question facing Lin now is whether Carmelo Anthony's impending return from injury will do more to help or hurt the Knicks' success.

Outside a handful of passionate fans from Cambridge and Northern California, the world is just discovering a man who has scored more points in his first four starts than any player since the NBA/ABA merger. Before being taken a first-round pick in the 2010 draft, we all knew who Tebow was.

Lin, however, is the ultimate underdog -- dismissed because of his race, his size, his education, and embraced when folks finally recognized his true skills. Tebow has always played from ahead, highly recruited and, when faced with real questions of his skill, irrationally vilified by a chorus of loud detractors.

Tebow fans like to surmise that he uses those who count him out as motivation when he takes the field. And if that's true, perhaps we shouldn't fault him for an intensity that, while effective, is at times off-putting.

Lin is rightly being embraced far and wide. Tebow's not hurting for fans, but if he wants to become the sensation on the grand scale that he is in the Mile High, he should take a page out of the now widely-read book of Lin.

Then again, maybe he can't. Perhaps it takes a true underdog to transcend borders, to become a unifying force. Perhaps because his validation came not years ago but days ago, he's able to just nod his head, wag his tongue, and smile.

Malcom Glenn, who was born and raised in Denver, graduated from Harvard in 2009.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1240704 2012-01-30T10:52:26-05:00 2012-08-21T13:07:01-04:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
Gone was the standard rhetoric from backers of the educational status quo intent on maintaining a system that puts the safety of a system over the performance of its pupils. Quiet were the cries of anger at policies that give children the best chance to succeed.

Last week was different. It was National School Choice Week, a chance for a diverse set of parents, students, teachers, and other reformers to come together in support of giving disadvantaged kids the options they deserve. There's frequent talk of how the school choice debate no longer falls along traditional ideological lines -- of how courageous Democrats are embracing charters, vouchers, and other reforms for low-income kids. Last week was proof positive of the turning tide.

Few states showcased the shifting dynamics in the world of education reform more than Colorado. With Democratic leadership in the capital city, the statehouse, and a majority of the state's Congressional seats, you'd expect anything but unanimity in support of an issue traditionally dominated by Republicans. But many Colorado Democrats know what's being understood by others across the country: no comprehensive plan for reforming our nation's most struggling schools can be complete without the inclusion of expanded educational options.

Rep. Jared Polis -- for whom an embrace of reform is not new -- began founding charter schools years ago and last week editorialized in strong support of a host of public school choice measures. And Denver Mayor Michael Hancock joined Governor John Hickenlooper in signing official proclamations in recognition of the week.

But it's hard not to forget Polis's forceful rebuke of the highly successful D.C. voucher program last spring, or Hancock's backpedaling on his support for private choice during last year's mayoral campaign. And there's been hope by education advocates that Hickenlooper will make choice more of a focal point of his administration as its second year begins.

It's easy to say the right things when the wind is at your back, and you can share the spotlight with peers and like-minded national figures. But when the rubber hits the road, we need to be able to count on Colorado's Democratic leaders to stand up for kids by embracing all options.

Polis should ask Democratic colleagues like Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois and Sen. Dianne Feinstein in California, both of whom favor the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and, in the case of the latter, has never faced questions of loyalty from liberals. In little more than the past half-decade, Democrats from five states have supported private school choice measures. And there are more Democratic mayors in favor of the issue than there is room on this page (including former D.C. mayors Anthony Williams and Adrian Fenty, former mayor John Norquist in Milwaukee, and Newark's Cory Booker, just to name a few).

With the conclusion of National School Choice Week cannot come leaders on the left who are now fearful in the months and years ahead to say the same things they were saying just days ago. For so many, it's a calculus based not on ideology but on politics. So common is the private refrain from Democrats that they support private choice, yet public pressure from special interests scares away any such similarly public proclamations.

The onus to change that reality lies in two camps. First is among the many in the reform community who place partisanship over hopes of broadening the coalition. Ideological rigidity cannot stand in the way of best options for kids, and an embrace of a pol from the other side far outweighs thousands more children failing to succeed as a result of unfair circumstances.

Second, though, is with Democrats who must shed their fear of reproach from campaign coffers and a largely reform-averse establishment. What may hurt one candidate in an upcoming election will lay the groundwork for a new generation of bipartisanship that gives low-income children access to as many options as possible.

That was true last week, and it's true the other 51 weeks of the year, too.

Malcom Glenn is the National Director of Communications at the American Federation for Children and the Alliance for School Choice. He is the coauthor of the School Choice Yearbook 2011-12, which was released last week.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.872656 2011-06-07T16:47:52-04:00 2011-08-07T05:12:02-04:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
Besides that last part, Anthony Weiner's lived a condensed version of the Hart saga in the course of a week. But while Hart -- unelected and running for president at the time -- stepped away from the race, should Rep. Weiner resign?

A section of the chattering class bridging ideological divides seems to have coalesced around the affirmative. Weiner is guilty of many transgressions, depending on the source. He has "obliterated the bond of trust" with his constituents, says a local paper with a knack for quippy headlines. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus says Weiner has doled out "scandal-tainted money" to fellow House Democrats, and according to one fellow scandal-ridden TV host, the Twitter-obsessed pol should step down only "if [he] believe[s] in [himself]," whatever that means.

There's agreement across the spectrum that Weiner's offense -- allegedly sending "inappropriate" pictures and messages to a half-dozen women through various social media outlets -- is resignation-worthy. All, however, want him to do it for different reasons. That's because there's no clear moral hierarchy when it comes to impropriety; instead, our leaders tend to value political motivations over a real grounded sense of what they believe to be right and wrong.

Take a look at a short list of politicians who became embroiled in sex scandals yet continued to serve: Sen. Larry Craig, Gov. Mark Sanford, Sen. David Vitter, President Clinton, and, as of today, Weiner.

And those who have failed to survive the storm of sexual indiscretions? Just recently, we've had Sen. John Ensign, Rep. Chris Lee, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Rep. Mark Souder, and Gov. Jim McGreevey.

If you don't notice a difference between the two lists, it's because there isn't much of one. Both include men from both parties at varying levels of elected office, both statewide and federal, whose indiscretions range from staffer affairs, admitted fraternizing with prostitutes, social media blunders, and declarations -- confirmed or otherwise -- of closet homosexuality.

Some resigned after just hours, some took weeks and months. Some saw their popularity plummet following the revelations, while others were re-elected even after the facts became public. But what's perfectly clear across every example is that, beyond the growing cliché that no party holds a premium on issues honesty, moral fiber and family values, the political whims of the time and a set of roving standards govern how we treat -- and most importantly, what we expect from -- our sex-starved elected officials.

Recent days have seen comparisons between House Speaker John Boehner's response to Lee's Craigslist fiasco to that of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in light of Weiner's revelations. Whereas Boehner reportedly called for Lee's head immediately, Pelosi is urging calm and an ethics investigation. Boehner's no better on the issue of caucus discipline, it's just that it's easier to tell a second-term congressman from upstate New York to pack his bags than it is to tell the same thing to the former presumptive frontrunner in the next New York City mayoral election.

Partisanship has fueled calls from Priebus for Weiner's resignation, and for a blowhard like Ed Schultz, any deflective attention paid to another is less time spent focusing on his highly unfortunate use of words directed at conservative commentator Laura Ingraham. Had Weiner been a Republican, there'd be silence from Priebus and pitchforks from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And had the other Schultz, Ed, used a better choice of words, he'd be much more sympathetic to Weiner -- one of Schultz's frequent guests and an ideological kindred spirit -- than he is as he tries to rebuild his credibility on MSNBC and the radio.

Until we come up with a set of consistent measures by which we can judge the severity of these sadly common situations, we can't pretend to stake the moral high ground in the name of political expediency and only when there's no accountability from case to case. It's not unfair to say that Weiner should resign; it's simply unfair to say so because of political motives hidden behind phrases like violations of trust and broken bonds with voters. If he should resign, let's base it around something that can be applied during future political scandals, not impulse or politics. Is breaking the law the breaking point? What about staff fraternization? Where the line sits is a debate worth having, but whether there should be a line is not.

Pictures can be worth a thousand words. In the most recent case, though, one of those words is not "resignation." Should it be? Maybe, but let's assess the facts in the context of situations and based on real standards, not as responsive episodes that help fuel our political agendas. We can't treat scandal the same for politics' sake.

After all, what's good for the Weiner isn't always good for the Hart.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.838365 2011-03-22T10:35:39-04:00 2011-05-25T18:40:24-04:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
"There's nothing more at war with who we are as Coloradoans and Americans than the image of fourth grade children doing first grade math," Bennet said.

Duncan too spoke of his commitment to reform, saying that he wants to "challenge the status quo when things aren't working."

The reality is that the most transformational education policy arises at the state level, but even as federal employees, the two former city school superintendents still have a chance to put action to their sweeping rhetoric by supporting the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP).

Authorized by Congress in 2004 to provide low-income kids in the nation's capital scholarships to attend eligible schools of their parents' choosing, the OSP is the practical application of the educational platitudes we hear often from our elected officials. The program has improved reading scores for students involved, raised graduation rates for program participants to 91 percent, and has provided kids with a secure environment in which they can be safe and their parents can have peace of mind. And in addition to expanding the OSP, the current legislation to reauthorize the program also provides additional funds to D.C. Public schools and the city's charter schools.

In short, the bill to reauthorize the program -- aptly called the Scholarships for Opportunities and Results (SOAR) Act -- is the very challenge to the status quo to which our nation's foremost voice on education policy said he was committed, and the OSP's significant record of improvement -- identified in studies commissioned by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Studies, no less -- are just the very kinds of gains Bennet said were consistent with American ideals. These gains come at the expense of no one, yet when the OSP was up for reauthorization two years ago, Bennet and his colleagues opted to phase out the program, while Duncan revoked 216 scholarships and publicly endorsed prohibiting new students from joining.

At issue is a program that can help kids from some of the lowest-income neighborhoods in D.C. while improving the resources available to the rest of the city's schools, too. Those who prefer that actual District residents to have a say in the matter -- as opposed to members of Congress who admittedly aren't accountable to D.C.'s voting-rights-strapped citizens -- need only look to the 74 percent of District residents who support reauthorizing the program. Consultation with local leaders, the overwhelming majority of whom support the OSP, has made the process highly democratic. So why isn't support for the bill more Democratic?

It should be. The party is full of former educators, education policy wonks, and administrators who have seen firsthand the dire need to reform the country's many struggling schools. Two of Colorado's most outspoken voices on the issue are Democrats with extensive education backgrounds as a state education board chairman (Rep. Jared Polis) and as the head of the state's largest school district (Bennet). But rightly so, the Democratic mantle as the party for education has been lost, as commonsense ways to help the students who need it most have been shoved aside in favor of political expediency.

Last week's vote to reauthorize the OSP in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee passed almost exactly along party lines. Assuming the measures passes when it comes before the full chamber in the coming weeks, the Senate will have a real chance -- and, frankly, a more pressing need -- to draw upon a more diverse coalition to reauthorize the highly successful scholarship program. Joe Lieberman's introduction of the bill is a first step towards that, and among the cosponsors is Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Democrats who so staunchly defend their education bonafides have an opportunity with the OSP to positively and immediately affect the educational future of struggling children in D.C. -- they just need to demonstrate the will to do so.

And there's nothing more consistent with who we are as Americans than that.

Malcom Glenn is a communications coordinator at the American Federation for Children, a national education advocacy organization that promotes school choice, and at the Alliance for School Choice, a nonprofit organization that educates policy-makers and the public on school choice programs.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.821027 2011-02-09T16:53:08-05:00 2011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
The Akron, Ohio mother was sent to jail last month for tampering with records so her kids could go to a better school in another district. Had she lived in the Centennial State, she would have been able to take advantage of a state law that allows children to attend any public school, regardless of where they live.

But for many families, even that would not have been enough. Factoring in additional costs associated with traveling further to a different school, and it becomes clear that low-income families need help when it comes to getting better educational options. Bolar-Williams' story is compelling in the way that it has united outraged partisans on both sides of the aisle in support of the Ohio mom. It has injected something of a twist into the traditional narrative about school choice: that Republicans support it and Democrats don't.

There have been historical political trends regarding school choice--which includes, but is not limited to, charter schools, private school vouchers, and scholarship tax credits--and regardless of party, the opposition sticks to a familiar script. Why they're against it runs the gamut: the entrenched position of teachers' unions as superlative donors to Democratic campaigns, fear from opponents that public funds may be used in religious schools, and a worry from some public school teachers that losing kids most prone to seek out scholarships and vouchers will ultimately create a worse environment for those that stay in public schools.

The reality, however, is much different. The organized opposition to school choice may argue that it's not good for their jobs, but they can't argue with the fact that it is good for kids. Comprehensive studies measuring the effectiveness of school choice programs in three disparate parts of the country (Milwaukee, Florida, and Washington, D.C.) last year showed immense gains in graduation rates, standardized test score performance, or both. And the fiscal case against school choice falls flat--generally, public schools keep a portion of the per-pupil spending when a child leaves a district for a charter school or a private school, meaning that the amount of funding for traditional public school students actually increases as a result of school choice programs. And there is no agenda behind the bulk of advocates for school choice, other than a commitment to the fundamental idea that every child deserves access to a quality education as a basic civil right.

As more and more Democrats have embraced that simple fact--that it's unfair to punish some children because of things over which they have no control, like we're they're born--the party has seen a massive increase in the number of school choice supporters. Morality knows no politics, and many have seen their moral compass point them in the direction of giving children a chance. Democratic mayors, governors, and elected officials in legislative bodies both in Washington and in the states have begun to embrace doing what's best for kids.

And there are some underlying facts about school choice that show some significant consistencies between the modern-day school choice and progressive movements. Think about school choice at its core--an infusion of funds into the education sphere, targeted largely at low-income children and those with special needs, in order to grant them better opportunities than they'd otherwise have access to. These programs are often centered in especially urban areas, the bastions of Democratic voting blocs, and they often disproportionately target minorities, another loyal constituency for progressive candidates.

It's no coincidence that the director of the education documentary Waiting for "Superman" is the same director of An Inconvenient Truth, the rallying cry for environmentalists that helped former Democratic Vice President Al Gore win a Nobel Peace Prize. And Democrats are so prone to preach about choice in other, socially divisive contexts; should choice not exist when it comes to education? There's nothing particularly polarizing about the idea of creating a generation of higher-achieving Americans that are better equipped to compete for jobs and opportunities both at home and globally.

I'm sure Republicans support this issue for a multitude of reasons as well. Democrats must remember that it is intrinsically at the center of some of the party's core beliefs. It is one of the most legitimate opportunities where meaningful bipartisan legislation can take shape. All that, and it's the right thing to do.

Malcom Glenn is a communications coordinator at the American Federation for Children, a national education advocacy organization that promotes school choice, and at the Alliance for School Choice, a nonprofit organization that educates policy-makers and the public on school choice programs. He is coauthor of the Alliance's School Choice Yearbook 2010-11, which was released this week.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.808887 2011-01-13T19:05:09-05:00 2011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
It's a good thing he has that ability, too, because a heartfelt, reasoned, and uplifting message came on the evening in which it was so desperately needed. After a day of bickering and back-and-forth from pundits and elected officials past and present, we heard a message that celebrated the very best among us, as opposed to an immature discussion of who is the worst. And, for whatever catharsis the president provided for our fractured political discourse, Senator Mark Udall has an idea to help put our broader political culture on the mend.

Our country has a host of ingrained traditions, but for only one night a year do we so actively sanction the divide in our politics: the State of the Union address. Congress lives out the disdain captured in the designations of left- and right-wing, moving homogeneously, devoid of much independent thought or autonomous action. When we chastise those we feel have contributed to tragedies like the one perpetrated in Arizona, we blame these people for breeding like-minded followers of a flawed thought process. In short, we criticize them for doing what we allow to take place.

And with a simple proposition from Colorado's senior senator, we have what is at least a symbolic solution to a gargantuan problem. By shuffling seats and putting Republicans next to Democrats during the president's annual progress report, we may begin to think beyond a political culture that is only binary in nature. We're by no means ever going to destroy those divides--human differences and the thirst to beat the opposition are too strong. But what does it say about our governmental structure when it condones--in reality, promotes--those actions?

It says that the spirit of engaging in politics and creating policy is predicated far more on competition than on results. A legislative "victory," for example, is rightly praised as such, but let's make sure we're calling it a victory for the Americans it will help as opposed to the victory of one political party's triumph over the other.

Americans watching on television will be looking for a reason to be inspired. In the aftermath of a terrible tragedy, Obama's words made clear that all except the most heartless among us are receptive to a little bit of inspiration right now.

It's time that we have that same confidence in our other elected officials. The 534 members of Congress in the House chamber should do more than just tell us there are things bigger than politics, as they have done so wonderfully in recent days. It's time for them to show us. We constantly hear rhetoric about Democrats, Independents, and Republicans working together. The first step is sitting together.

After all, it's exactly what the one who won't be there--the one who has inspired an entire nation from a hospital bed in Tucson with her desire to live--would want.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.806205 2011-01-11T17:38:25-05:00 2011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
The president doesn't hail from the Mile High City, nor did his former chief of staff leave a Denver congressional seat to serve in the White House, only to return to run for mayor. And the new chief of staff isn't the current Denver mayor's brother.

In the first half of odd years, local politics rule, and let's be honest: the most newsworthy movers and shakers are either in or were in Chicago. A larger-than-life personality with a penchant for R-rated language, a guy who fainted in front of the president during his last introduction to a high-powered Washington job, and a host of Obama administration mainstays shuttling to and/or from the Windy City. These guys make for good copy.

But they're not the only folks at the nexus of an upcoming election. The New York Times realized this on Friday, when they took one of the most in-depth looks at our lame duck mayor and soon-to-be governor. That's a start, but with Chicago's mayoral election six weeks away, three months will remain before the next notable election anywhere in this country. The focus should eventually turn to Denver, but not simply because it's the default locale. There are gripping reasons why Denver's mayoral election should--and will--garner the national attention it deserves later this year.

One among them is the fact that, unlike in Chicago, where Rahm Emanuel is by every measure maintaining a significant lead, there's a more substantive race at hand in Denver. The insiders for Hick's job are City Council members Michael Hancock, Doug Linkhart, and Carol Boigon, experienced pols who will be able to deftly work with a council on which they once sat. Recent entrant Chris Romer, a state senator and son of former governor Roy Romer, also has clear existing political chops. The education-minded James Mejia has an interesting story and a favorite issue on which there is growing consensus. Danny Lopez is a veteran of a Denver city agency, and Michael Forrester could raise the profile of the city's growing LGBT community. When I get the scoop on Dwight Henson and Ken Simpson, I'll let you know.

Candidates matter, and so does the city itself. Chicago has chops for which most land-locked cities in this country strive, but that reputation was built on a mountain of corruption, both long-term and more recent. More rare is it than not to have an Illinois governor who doesn't face indictment, and the legendary city--while now a haven for entrepreneurs, buzzing with nightlife, diversity, and an immensely-devoted sports fan base--has a storied past filled with racial strife and tension between dueling demographic factions. Denver's chance to host the Democratic National Convention in 2008 marked 40 years since Chicago had done it. Denver's go-round was memorable and historic. Chicago's was, too--but for all the wrong reasons.

This is not meant to knock the Windy City--it is bigger, sexier, and has better and more famous defining movies (Bueller?). But what it's meant to say is that when Chicago's race ends next month, there's a more issues-driven race that can perhaps occupy the interests of the national audience. Policy rarely trumps personality when it comes to political coverage (inevitably, it devolves into standard horse race coverage, with particular interest for rumblings of or actual emergence of a scandal), but policy matters more when times are tough. Media consumers will be more engaged, desirous of how issues will affect them personally. The muck of campaign politics--while admittedly exciting and entertaining--is less tolerable when there are actual, substantive problems to tackle.

Denver residents rightly want to know how their next mayor will improve the city's schools, spur economic growth, and deliver balanced budgets. Folks outside of the state will also be curious for an election defined by an issues-driven debate in a city growing in national prominence.

The audition is already underway. But between February 22 and May 3, the nature and number of eyes watching will begin to change.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.294125 2009-09-21T20:00:21-04:00 2011-05-25T14:05:19-04:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
In my accompanying bio (which you can still view as it stood then by clicking my photo at the top of any of my pieces), I disclosed what I considered to be pertinent aspects of why I was writing about issues relevant to my state. Namely, the fact that I spent my formative years there, I covered national politics extensively in the capital city a year ago, and my broader experience in journalism gives me insight into tackling both the policy and political considerations of the burgeoning and increasingly relevant Western political region.

I also acknowledged my political leanings, in the form of my disclosure that I am currently employed by a Democratic-leaning polling/strategic consulting firm. In that I am a registered Democrat is the only way in which such information is relevant.

Four days after my piece was published, David Sirota, a self-proclaimed journalist himself, questioned my motives for writing about a candidate for public office considering my affiliations with a private organization that, among other things, helps elect candidates to public office.

As a former president of a daily college newspaper, let me be abundantly clear about one thing: I understand conflicts of interest for journalists better than most, I recognize where the lines between honest commentary and propagandizing lie. I have come nowhere near crossing those lines.

Let me say that again: any and all opinions you read under my byline are solely mine, and in no way reflect the opinions or views of the company by which I am employed.

Furthermore, never have I -- nor will I -- write about any candidate that the organization I work for calls a client. I will not write about the opponents of clients, either, as to avoid even as much as approaching a potential conflict of interest.

During my college years, I was privileged enough to lead a newspaper institution for a year, presiding over an institution encapsulating nearly 137 years of history. While I wrote and edited, my primary duty was to uphold the traditions, reputations, and integrity of that organization. I did not take that task lightly then, and as I apply my words to new pages, I continue to respect the tenants and ethics of journalism to the greatest degree.

Of Mr. Sirota's swipes, the only one that carried with it any shred of validity was the one calling my piece "overwrought and almost laughably clichéd." As a reader, he, like everyone else, is entitled to that viewpoint.

But to suggest anything otherwise -- especially that I have in any way written with the intention of promoting any interests of any clients or potential clients -- fails to recognize the seriousness with which I take this profession that he himself calls himself a part of, as well as the flimsiness of his attack.

The crux of my piece considered the standing of a decision made by the President of the United States, and tangential -- at best -- was the connection to any other organization. That I, an admitted Democrat, would share views with like-minded men and institutions is no surprise. In fact, it's to be expected, and I think most readers understood that. Mr. Sirota was not one of them.

It was my intention in crafting my biography to, again, highlight insights I have into the issues I will discuss, not to confusingly conflate my own views with those of the organization where I work. Unfortunately for everyone, Mr. Sirota has tried, and failed, to do that here.

Perhaps next time, he will better consider that with my well-disclosed shared ideology with more than one of the piece's subjects, I, as a writer who shares many of the principles discussed in his piece will, naturally, support those principles in the wider world. Not always -- and certainly never in an entry that bears my name -- is any conflicted interest involved.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.291374 2009-09-18T11:58:25-04:00 2011-05-25T14:05:19-04:00

Malcom Glenn http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcom-glenn/
The popular senator the state's progressives loved is now their president, and while his signature issue is struggling to find traction in institutions controlled by moderates with an eye on wild-eyed constituents back home, it's still the best chance for comprehensive health care reform since those Democratic glory days of the mid-60s (after all, President Johnson did win 61 percent of the vote in his lone foray before the voters of Colorado).

So, considering 40 years of a GOP stranglehold on Colorado presidential picks, things are going well for the state's Democrats. So why does everyone seem to be looking for a fight?

Appointed Senator Michael Bennet has (finally) found his groove on the campaign trail, coming down hard on stances (yes to a commonsense, if ill-fated public option), establishing some serious fundraising bona-fides ($1.2 million in second-quarter donations alone), and -- most importantly -- bringing with him an assortment of exposure that will ultimately make him far more attractive statewide come next year.

Now that both the president and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have endorsed Bennet, backers of former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff are up in arms as they see dreams of a contested primary -- and a more pronounced move by both candidates to the left--drifting away.

Romanoff was an early choice for progressives following former Senator Ken Salazar's appointment as Interior Secretary last year, and the disappointment was palpable when the low-profile former school superintendent got the head-scratching nod from Governor Bill Ritter.

But what's there to love on the left from Romanoff? Idealists make up the base in Denver's Democratic political circles, but is a career politician really the man the state's progressives think can be their biggest champion?

Isn't there something to be said about a diversity of experience -- the experience of someone who has lived abroad, who showed creative acumen and early leadership by leading his law journal at one of the world's most prestigious universities? A man who was deeply involved the micro decision-making process in the same small, urban communities that need the most attention when he gets to Washington?

I could just as well be describing President Obama, whose strikingly similar background was a prime talking point for progressives who caucused for him by a two-to-one margin over Hillary Clinton last year.

Is a comparable narrative less of a draw for Bennet? If so, it shouldn't be, especially if we're to extend comparisons with last year's presidential run even further. While Bennet lacks the political experience of Romanoff, Colorado Democrats would be smart to consider what they valued a year ago (a fresh take on politics highlighted largely by work done outside the sphere), as well as what they shunned (a status quo candidate whose extensive experience has made them raw to the idealism necessary for great change).

The route that Bennet took to Washington was, admittedly, an undemocratic one, and voters will thankfully have the final say in this matter. But the senator shouldn't be punished by a process that, while unjust in its means, has produced a man well-suited in the end. His remarkable effort to reach Coloradans in recent months and his aversion to naked personal ambition are a bright spot in an otherwise dull statewide political scene.

An equally dull Republican field and a favorite of the left are no reason to withhold support for a man who has the chops for the job -- many of the same chops that we valued so deeply in picking the guy for the world's most important job a year ago. It should be no surprise that both our forward-thinking president and his party's pragmatic senate campaign arm both recognized this early. The rest of Colorado's Democrats would be wise to follow suit. ]]>