Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL-20), one of the few remaining in the House of that endangered species known as "Blue Dog" Democrats, has been anointed Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Representing yet another crack in that infamous glass ceiling of DC political leadership, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is the first woman to be elected by the full body of this formerly male-dominated bastion.
The President appears to have chosen her for her political smarts and ability to raise large sums of money, as well as for their shared political views. So how independent will she be? There is talk that this presidential campaign will cost $1 billion dollars - a new high, or new low, depending on how you look at it. It is truly shameful that "da money" remains the dominant theme of our political discourse, instead of finding and championing real solutions to the issues that we face. Instead, it appears that the DNC's sole function will continue to be to raise scads of money that will help propel our President to a second term.
But is that enough? In these very difficult times, the DNC should also be focusing on expressing a vision for America that captures the heart and imagination of the voting public. The people are hurting and will be far more cynical about this president and whatever theme(s) his advisers come up with to replace "hope and change" this time around. Frankly, considering how much the populist campaigner of 2008 didn't deliver on his promises, Obama's campaign advisers will have their hands full just convincing voters that "hope and change" wasn't really "bait and switch."
So, Mr. President, you are going to have your work cut out for you this time. Talking the talk won't be enough, especially after you spent the first couple of years of your administration selling out to every corporate special interest imaginable. And, frankly, killing bin Laden won't be enough to win you re-election, either, as stunning an achievement as that is. We're going to need more, and this time you're going to need to deliver.
Obama for America, Obama's army of grassroots volunteers and paid operatives, will hit the streets and man those phone banks up through election day handling GOTV. What will they get in return this go around, since this is, after all, a quid pro quo business? This can be a new beginning for our President, but only if he rises to the occasion with bold action that serves the needs of all Americans, instead of the privileged few.
As the 2012 campaign moves into high gear, the phone calls, e-mails and letters from the DNC have already begun, asking for more and more dollars, for us to give until it hurts. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and her fundraisers need to remember that the money they are seeking will come at the expense of our own personal or family needs, money handed over from us, hard-working Americans otherwise known as the "ordinary people," to them, the "elites" who run the machine of DC politics.
The DCCC and DSCC will also be searching high and low for donations. Why can't they be folded into the DNC, with an overarching, singular message? The Democratic Party brand has been deeply tarnished for sometime, lacking a coherent message or philosophy, which makes them difficult to separate from that "other" party, since both look to be squarely in the pockets of corporate interests. Obama ran on changing the way Washington does business, yet he has never embraced public funding for campaigns or pushing for the Fair Elections Now Act or, more importantly, the need to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, another tainted decision by the right-wing activist "justices" on this Supreme Court that handed our government over wholesale to corporate special interests. You must run as the leader of the people's party and not the corporate party, Mr. President. Recapture the Democratic party's illustrious history and core democratic values, which are also embraced by over 130 member nations of the U.N. who support The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, introduced in December 1948. There alone is a blueprint for those democratic core principles you and your party seem to have forgotten.
Another challenge is that right now the DNC is still perceived as the "establishment" that Obama's supporters rebelled against in 2008 in working so hard for him against the party's "chosen one," Hillary Clinton. Tired of being given little more than lip service by the likes of Bill Clinton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, these people got behind the man who proclaimed unabashedly that he was different, from his name to his ethnicity to his upbringing. He connected with the people because he declared himself to be one of them (with a back story to support that claim), and not one of those elites who attend all the right schools and come from all the right families that had dictated every misstep Democrats had made over the past decades.
For the DNC to become relevant again, it needs to truly embrace that spirit of "change" from 2008 and support some real progressives for Congress in 2012. PDA, CPC, DFA, Bold Progressives, Progressives United (the organization recently set up by Russ Feingold), Labor with its AFL/CIO in the lead and other such organizations should publicly identify and support a slate of Progressive candidates that represents an American Progressive agenda for Main Street. No more pussyfooting around, to borrow from Sarah Palin. The Democratic Party must identify, train and mentor a new crop of progressives to run for office, under the DNC banner and in cooperation with the DCCC and DSCC. And when these newcomers are on the campaign trail, they should have a high-profile Progressive member of the House mentoring and appearing with them, aiding them in raising their profile and promoting their message publicly, as well as assisting them in raising funds. And the Democratic Party should certainly be ready to supply some needed kickoff funding to launch their campaigns at the beginning. Put a stop to supporting tepid, backboneless Democrats, keeping them in office into perpetuity. They do little to advance a better way of life for working Americans, and are little more than a hindrance to the Party's efforts to connect with new generations of progressives that will be needed to keep the Democratic party moving into the future. Just a few days ago, Richard Trumka, President of the AFL/CIO, was pretty clear in issuing a warning to Democrats that it is not a given they will be supported by labor simply because they are Democrats. They have been placed on notice.
Conservatives and members of the Tea Party are proud of who they are, and so too must progressives come out from the shadows and declare who they are and what they believe in. Progressives - and I hesitate to use that word because it is really all about core democratic principles, not just "progressive" - must proclaim their willingness to fight for their vision for this country and their solutions to the problems of everyday Americans. Let's go on the offensive. Taking on the Ryan Budget as the CPC did when they introduced the People's Budget is a good beginning that must be joined by a loud chorus of engaged Americans from across the country. It is time to not only respond strongly to every nonsensical "idea" presented by the right wing, but to produce our own intelligent, practical counter-proposals, and then galvanize and raise public support for them. We must prod our moribund and lifeless Democratic party to develop a party message and plan to get it to the people. As proud as we were of Obama's '08 messages of "hope and change," we must now stand up and shout that progressive solutions are the only way to bring America back onto the right path.
Let's remember that the core of Obama's support in 2008 was first-time/young voters, Latinos, African Americans, Labor and the consistent large block of senior voters who come out every election. All were responsible for moving the Obamas into the White House. Will they turn out again since their needs have been ignored by this President since he was elected? Recently, President Obama addressed Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference in New York City, an important organization to get behind him. The Reverend and the President are now buds. Now the President and his newly minted DNC chair must put all that money they're about to raise where their mouths are and come up with a message that has resonance with all 310 million Americans, with special emphasis on those of us he has so far left behind. And he will need to assure us that this time he will deliver on the promises he makes.
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, he promised change that they could believe in and provided(for the most part) DC business as usual. He seems reluctant to expend the political capital necessary to transcend the gap between politician and true leader. Personal opinion of course but while he has the bully pulpit at his disposal he seems unwilling to step up to the mic and really push his own agenda(and that agenda seems quite different from what he ran on anyway). Unless he can find a way to appeal to his entire party(as he did in the last election) or energize his voting base to a much greater extent I think he will have trouble in2012.
You make the case to the folks that you're seeking to represent and speak for, and if the unions and activists want to jump on the bandwagon, so be it.
The example that I always point to when trying to make this point to people is former Rep. Harold Ford Jr.(D-TN). As a standalone candidate, I can't honestly say that he'd be the guy that I would pick to represent my state of California. Still, when comes down to it, Ford makes an utterly clear and unabashed case for what the Democratic vision of the country is to the people of his home state of Tennessee. I wish he'd go back and run for Senate, in Tennessee, in 2012, but that's not my decision to make.
Try that bigfooting nonsense with someone else's party.
Unions and activists seem to be a lesser consideration in your plan. Surely they too have stake in their communities.Different visions for different states? The major issues in our country exists in all of the states, so there is a commonality of what an over arching message should provide.
Thanks for your thoughts. There is much to think about.
Your post may have been the "landing point", but the crux of my critique was directed far more at the aggregate of folks like you, who blog and offer opinions, and the "activists", then at anything you wrote or may believe.
Still, to answer the questions that you've posed to me, unions and activists do have a role to play and clear stakes in their communities; no one is arguing that unions and activist should be a part of the conversation. But unions and activists, especially those without stakes in the communities they seek to influence, can't just expect to "bigfoot" said conversation.
Case in point, Max Baucus; the unions may not like or support him, for whatever reason, and the "activists" may loathe him, for their own reasons, but the voters of Montana, the state that he represents and speaks for, adore the man, to the point that he's become a landmark in Montana politics.
There are pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gun rights, pro-gun control, pro-union, pro-right to work, pro-free trade, pro-fair trade, pro-isolationist, pro-interventionist, pro-public education, pro-voucher, pro-alternative energy, pro-nuclear power, pro-gas and oil, pro-banking, pro-agriculture, pro-environment, and a host of other ways for folks to identify themselves as Democrats on certain issues, but they still stand tall as Democrats, believing in that same underlying principle that Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama(D-IL), was able to give voice to, for the first time on a national stage, in his 2004 address at the Democratic convention.
Abandoning that utterly utopian vision for the party, in the name of putting every potential candidate to a test from a single chunk of the party, is something that I don't want to be part of, even if that means the Democratic Party loses every single race, for lack of union money or the "energy" of the "progressive" activists.
If that's what it's going to take, it's not even worth winning.
The Democratic Party doesn't have a "unifying manifesto" that you would be inclined to point to, because that singular message, encompassing all of the various ideals and principles of what it means to be a Democrat, doesn't exist.
The message and campaign of President Obama, as far as I'm concerned, came about as close to delivering said "universal manifesto" as the party is ever going to get, but you, and folks like you, reject those ideas, out of hand.
The message is important as is a philosophy.That currently is missing from the Democratic Party. What indeed do Democrats stand for?
What ever manifesto the President has delivered changes like the seasons. Consistency and delivering on promises is needed. Hopefully in this election cycle he will understand that and work a little harder so that folks like me won't reject his ideas out of hand and we will support him.
A little while ago, I read and article that, at the very least, tried to rationalize what people seem to always miss. It was by David Brooks, a guy that I don't agree with all that much, but a guy who is still a serious voice, with an opinion that I consider and respect.
The clearest definition of the Obama vision of government that I've ever heard came as a "a moderately activist government restrained by a sense of trade-offs". A government that fights to solve the issues and challenges of the day, without actively impacting the "dynamism" of the market.
Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12brooks.html?ref=opinion
Make your own opinion about it.
And thank you.
And I no longer listen to their promises, their "republican boogie man" threats, or their stories of hope. I just judge by their actions. And when I see the WH scheduling donor events for wall street and putting together a "critical response" team, well I know that means more platitudes and no meaningful work for the common tax payer. I'm so disgusted by the missed opportunities that I can't watch the president on TV anymore. (In other words--right back to where I was with Bush.)
Progressives provide the majority of funding to the DNC, DCCC, DSCC--and the majority of the money is spent on electing blue dogs who don't represent progressives.
Well--this progressive refuses to donate to the above mentioned groups. I only send my money to known progressive causes and individuals. And I let the DNC, etc., know why--via their own stamp--every time they send me a mailing.
Will they ever get the message? I don't think this administration ever will.
I do not contribute to the DNC, DSCC or DCC, but do write a few terse words right across those donation forms. Such as, WHEN YOU SUPPORT SINGLE PAYER ( H.R.676) I WILL THEN DONATE. Of course there are countless other issues that beg to be aired in those donor envelopes as well.
Thanks for letting me know about (candidate’s name). I looked through this candidate’s web site and, while I found many positions and statements that I agree with, I was unable to find anything about the need to remedy the Citizens United decision or any statement of support for public funding of election campaigns.
I don't think that individual candidates, even if victorious, will be able to create and maintain the changes necessary to make our country work for all Americans. As long as corporations and the super-wealthy dominate our private campaign funding system and, thereby dominate our government, even the election of “good” candidates is not going to be enough. We need to rebuild our democracy and we need candidates who are ready to help.
Candidates who have my support are candidates who recognize the problem and are willing to work with their fellow citizens to fix it. They speak out about the need for a remedy to Citizens United, they support publicly funded elections and other pro-democracy reforms. I hope that this candidate will join in the work of re-storing an honest government, one that works for all of us.
I was with Rep. John Conyers just yesterday we talked about the CPC taking the lead on this with other progressive groups and work to identify and push such candidates and help them get . elected.. That was my previous post Frank whicch I hope you saw, CAN THE CPC BECOME RELEVANT. Please check it out and some of my other HuffPosts We are definetely on the same page.
HEALTH CARE or the lack there off is a symptom of all that is wrong in our society. and must be really addressed to resolve all of our other societal woes.
Thanks for your obvious passion.
We have to push them and our President to do the right thing.