Democratic Convention on The Huffington Post

DNC Raises $11.5 Million In October, Outpacing RNC

2009-11-19T15:54:08Z

The Democratic National Committee raised $11.5 million during the month of October, a party source tells the Huffington Post.

The haul, the source says, is a monthly record for a non-presidential election year since restrictions on campaign fundraising went into effect under the McCain-Feingold Act.

The DNC still finds itself $4.4 million in debt. But the committee is gaining ground on its Republican counterpart. The Republican National Committee reportedly took in $8.79 million in October (up from the $8.74 it raised in September.

As of now, the DNC has $12.3 million cash on hand to the RNC's $11.2 million. They have raised $66.3 million so far in 2009 to the RNC's $69.2 million.

Joanne Bamberger: Sarah Palin: Going Rogue to the White House Or Someplace Else?

2009-11-18T14:36:19Z

Sarah Palin in 2012? Some are chuckling, but they might want to rethink their take on the first woman on a GOP presidential ticket.

Conservative pundit David Brooks laughed out loud at the suggestion, calling her a "joke". Others point to 2008 wannabes Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as more qualified and doing better in polls than Palin when people talk about GOP Presidential hopefuls. Of course, most thought that quitting her day job as Alaska Governor was the death knell for her political career, but I think this is just the beginning of Palin's national political career. After all, she was just on Oprah!

Seriously, as I have to remind some who've accused me of being a closet Republican, I'm no political fan of Palin. But when people dismiss her out of hand, I keep thinking one thing -- remember the last politician we scoffed at as not even close to being competent enough for the White House?

Yup -- George W. Bush. And then we said, "Oh, well, at least he'll only be a one-termer like his father." We were 0 for 2 on that front.

It turns out that the "smart" Bush wasn't the one people related to -- as a nation, we preferred the baseball-loving, brush-clearing, recovering-beer-swilling-guy. More people liked Bush because even though he has two Ivy League degrees, they saw the "common" man in him, and that made them connect with him in a Dr. Phil sort of way.

People also related to Barack Obama in spite of his Harvard degree because he, too, had a good dose of the "everyman" in his life story -- son of a single mom from middle America who struggled with his identity and didn't have things just handed to him on a platter.

But voters wouldn't find a working class story appealing with Palin, right? Think again. There are plenty of voters who find her accessible and according to a recent Rasmussen poll, a majority of Republicans like her and think she shares their values. You can "betcha" Palin will use that angle for all it's worth. According to an excerpt in the New York Times from her book, Going Rogue:

We know what it's like to be on a tight budget and wonder how we're going to pay for our health care, let alone college tuition. ... We know what it's like to work union jobs, to be blue-collar, white-collar, to have our kids in public schools. We felt our very normalcy, our status as ordinary Americans, could be a much-needed fresh breeze blowing into Washington, D.C.

Plus there are still plenty of women who are smarting over Hillary Clinton's loss and who just might vote for Palin if she's the candidate in 2012 because they don't want to wait one more second to see a woman in charge of the Oval Office.

Don't laugh too hard! Democrats aren't doing such a bang up job at the moment -- they're dragging their feet on Paycheck Fairness, throwing reproductive health under the bus and we still aren't further on paid sick days even though we're all spreading the swine flu to each other like wildfire.

Palin is a wily one so I'm not counting her out for 2012, but I wonder if she's got something else on her agenda. I'm betting that being President is a little too much real work for her and that she's angling for something else.

My official prediction is that Palin wants Michael Steele's job as head of the Republican National Committee. Even though Steele has taken his share of jabbing and isn't the most effective one, the position of RNC Chair can be an extremely powerful position -- maybe even more powerful than President when it comes to selecting candidates for races around the country. Plus, you don't have to worry about all those pesky voters, campaign debates and whistle-stop tours! One of the most important roles of a party chair is to be fundraiser-in-chief and that's something that Palin has proven she excels at.

As much as many would like to dismiss her from the national stage (myself included), Palin isn't going quietly. Whether you like her or not, one has to acknowledge the power in that. Whether she runs for President in 2012 or sets her sights on some other political plum, she'll definitely have plenty of pocket change to look for a pied-a-terre in the lower 48 where she can set up base camp.

What do you think? Are Palin's 15 minutes up or is she the new secret weapon to lure women back to the Grand Old Party?

Joanne Bamberger is a political anaylst and writer in Washington, D.C. and the founder of PunditMom blog, a site about the intersection of motherhood and politics. Her work appears in the just released, Kirtsy Takes a Bow: A Celebration of Women's Online Favorites and she is at work on a book about political motherhood (Bright Sky Press, Fall 2010).

Jennifer Vanasco: Gays Boycott the Democrats - Finally

2009-11-10T09:29:35Z

President Barack Obama was AWOL when it came to the marriage vote in Maine and the partnership vote in Washington.

The DNC was worse, actively working against us by sending out an email to Maine Democrats asking them to campaign for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine -- instead of asking them to staff phones in their home state, working for marriage equality.

Despite a supposed commitment to gay civil rights expressed in the DNC platform and by the Obama campaign and administration, there has been relative silence on our issues.

That needs to change.

And thanks to John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay, it’s about to.

Aravosis and Sudbay run the political website Americablog and this week, angry about the administration’s inaction around Maine, they declared they had enough.

So they are launching a financial boycott of Democratics called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give.”

The idea is this:

Gays and lesbians should stop giving money to the DNC and President Obama until ENDA passes and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and DOMA are overturned.

“It's really more of a ‘pause,’" than a boycott,” Aravosis and Sudbay say on Americablog.com.

Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends -- President Obama and the Democratic party -- who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.

This is exactly the right thing to do.

Americablog lists almost 40 grievances, large and small, against the president, the leader of the Democratic Party. Together, the grievances paint a portrait of a man who is not just refusing to show leadership on LGBT issues -- he seems unaware of why these issues are important.

And the DNC, despite including gay civil rights in their platform, seems to be hardly aware that, post-campaign, we exist.

The most powerful tools gays and lesbians have to fight this sort of blindness are money and media attention, and this boycott highlights both, because they get less money but more (negative) media attention.

It’s a brilliant strategy.

As Americablog says:

Democratic leaders see the LGBT community as a guaranteed source of cash, regardless of their broken promises. They think we, and those who support us, have nowhere else to go, that there's nothing we can do. It's time to draw our own line in the sand, and use the one thing that matters to the Democratic party: our money.

For this strategy to work, gays, lesbians and our allies all need to join in on the boycott. So get over to Americablog and sign the pledge form -- and stick to it.

But even that’s not far enough. The DNC needs to know that this is not laziness. It’s not just that the economy is lousy or that we want to spend more money on Christmas presents.

So give as much as you can to a gay activist group, national or local, of your choice, instead. Send in the receipt for the donation to the DNC with a note explaining that your money went elsewhere and why.

Will this hurt Democrats? Will it make it more likely that much more repressive Republicans get back in power? Americablog addresses these types of questions. Their answer is no -- I fear that actually, the answer is yes.

But that’s the point.

The DNC and President Obama need to start taking the LGBT community seriously. They will only do that if we start affecting their pocketbook.

Gays and lesbians raise a large amount of funds for the DNC. Until our major issues are addressed, it is time we close the gayTM.

Don’t give until the DNC and Obama have met their obligations to us. We have supported empty promises long enough.

Emma Ruby-Sachs: What the Gay Boycott of the DNC Can Do

2009-11-10T08:56:01Z

There is a gay boycott of the Democratic Party afoot, and it has the potential to turn into something that leads to real change in American politics. I'm not selling hope here, but I can't help but feel it when I see the momentum gathering behind AMERICAblog's "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign.

What is most exciting? The places this campaign could go.

It is nothing new to complain about the two-party system in the United States. While many countries give voters four or five or more options at the polls, Americans are forced to decide between a centrist party with conservative social views or a right-wing party with outlandishly offensive social views. Fiscally, there is often more overlap than difference between the two parties (both, for example, act as if lowering or freezing taxes is a productive strategy in the fight against poverty).

But, for gay voters, the two party system is particularly offensive. Republicans are outwardly horrible on gay issues and the bulk of the gay vote will, automatically, go to Democratic candidates. There are no alternative candidates ready to take a stand for equality and thus, there are no consequences for Democrats when they fail to promote the equal rights agenda.

So, AMERICAblog has decided to use fundraising as a method of coercing the Democratic Party to pay attention to its loyal supporters.

It's a scary thought: taking dollars away from the not-so-bad guys only helps the really bad guys on election day. But the boycott has its timing right and that might make all the difference in this fight: there is still an opportunity for the Democratic Party to take concrete strides towards eliminating the legal discrimination against LGBT Americans before the campaign dollars really matter. If they show progress, the boycott (or the "pause" in fundraising as AMERICAblog calls it) will end.

I think the freeze in fundraising is a great idea. I also think the problem with the gay rights agenda in Congress has more to do with the political system than the particularly spineless nature of most Democratic representatives.

Threatening the fiscal base of the Democratic Party is an important tactic. But threatening their voter base by floating a truly liberal candidate in districts with close races would be an even better strategy. Have someone run on an equal rights, populist platform with support for social services and equality under the law and see how quickly the Democrats start racing around for ways to fold in the left vote they have ignored for so long.

Ralph Nader tried this and managed to strike fear into the heart of major political parties for many years to come. Let's play on this fear. Pause the donations to the Democrats, yes, but perhaps redirect that money to a campaign for plurality, for choice and for political competition. It will, at least, get their attention.

Starz Denver Film Festival: What Movies Will You See? (VOTE)

2009-11-09T19:43:50Z

The 32nd annual Starz Denver Film Festival begins this Thursday, bringing Denver 11 days with more than 200 films from 40 different countries.

Screenings taking place at the Starz Film Festival at the Tivoli, King Academy and Performing Arts Center and at the Ellie Caulkins Opera House will show films ranging from documentaries to comedies.

We've found the trailers for some highly-anticipated festival movies, and want to know which ones you're looking forward to seeing.

Follow HuffPost Denver on Twitter and become a fan of HuffPost Denver on Facebook!

Obama, DNC Boycott Launched By AMERICABlog

2009-11-09T12:00:09Z

We are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC.

It's really more of a "pause," than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends - President Obama and the Democratic party - who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.

Anonymous Democratic Strategist Claims White House Discouraged Fox News Appearances

2009-11-08T18:53:59Z

At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

Shawn Adolf Pleads Guilty To Weapons Charges: Colorado Man Threatened Obama Before Democratic National Convention

2009-11-07T15:35:21Z

DENVER — A man who threatened to kill Barack Obama last summer just before the Democratic National Convention in Denver has pleaded guilty to federal weapons charges.

Shawn Adolf faces 10 years in prison after pleading guilty Friday to having firearms as a felon. The 35-year-old man was arrested August 2008 after officers in a Denver suburb pulled over his cousin and found rifles, a bulletproof vest, wigs and fake IDs.

DNC Urges D.C. Residents To Ask For The Vote Of Their Non-Voting Congresswoman

2009-11-06T16:49:49Z

Far be it for me to criticize the campaign arm of the White House/DNC, Organizing For America, seeing as they have successfully gotten one more president elected to office than I have. But I have to think that if you want to maintain this reputation of being awesomely granular sorters of voter data and skilled messaging micro-targeters who can quickly and effectively align voter support for key priorities, then the emails you send out to constituents ought to demonstrate that you have a functioning understanding of how... say, the U.S. House Of Representatives works. That way, you avoid sending voters perplexingly useless missives, like the one that Mitch Stewart, Director of OFA, blasted out to residents of the District of Columbia:

[NAME REMOVED] --

This is it -- the House of Representatives will vote on health insurance reform tomorrow. All signs point to it being incredibly close, possibly even coming down to a single vote.

With the clock ticking, insurance company lobbyists are going all out to stop reform. Please call Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton at 202-225-8050 now.

Today, President Obama is visiting the House to call for reform, and I hope you'll add your voice to his. If you haven't called before, now is the time. And if you have recently called, thank you -- now please ask friends, family members, and co-workers in your district to join you.

http://my.barackobama.com/HouseVote

Everything we're fighting for comes down to moments like this -- and every second counts.

Thanks for stepping up,

Mitch

Well, I have to say, if the House health reform bill does come down to a single vote, reform proponents better hope like hell that single vote doesn't have to come from Eleanor Holmes Norton! This is not because Norton isn't an awesome lady -- she is, as evidenced by her many appearances on the Colbert Report. But while Norton is an ally of the White House and supports the larger effort to expand health care coverage, as the duly sworn representative of the District, she does not enjoy voting privileges. So, as far as her vote goes, she would vote if she could vote but she can't vote so she won't vote.

Anyway, thanks, Mitch Stewart, for reminding the residents of the District of Columbia that they enjoy second-class status and their hopes are largely tied to other people's representatives.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Will Schwartz: The Win That Should Have Been: Holding the DNC Responsible for Tuesday's Loss

2009-11-05T15:59:41Z

What could have swung this mayoral election into a Thompson win?

The people of New York didn't go take this vote-buy-out on their knees. Bloomberg's supposed 18 point blow-out materialized on November 3rd as a tight race with a narrow margin of 4½ points. Four and a half points that stand proudly in the shadow of 90 million dollars, as a statement to Mike: "This is not a mandate. In fact, it's barely an election. You battered the system, its public servants and its press into submission to you, and it has still managed to proclaim you a tyrant."

That's why a lot of us woke up feeling good on Wednesday. We all spent the summer faithful to the inevitability of a Bloomberg win, some of us maybe to guard against dramatic disappointment in November. Just like hunger is the best seasoning, our months of steadfast pessimism made this loss feel triumphant, and even our press is treating it like a victory for Thompson. A glance at the Times website this morning showed Thompson with his arms up in the air like a boxing champion.

Well, it's just not that simple. Unfortunately, we have four more years of price-outs, rent-raising, corporate favoritism, and blatant classism in City Hall. Bill Thompson is not a champion. In fact, he lost.

But he didn't lose it for himself. Bill lost without any quality staff available to him because of a Bloomberg monopoly on political talent in the state. He lost with a fraction of the media connections and control that Bloomberg has. He lost with laughable financing. The fact that he came within 5 points of the 90 million dollar baby really is a victory for Bill Thompson and his campaign. He did well with his tragic lot.

But it's a failure for the Democratic Party. Those are the guys who lost this one. The Daily News brings up the absence of strong Democratic support, and I think they're right to lay their focus here. Party support was the one advantage that Thompson should have had in this race, and he didn't even get that. It was one of Bloomberg's rationales for his own outrageous spending; that his opponent had party backing.

This is a terrible day for my party. We balked in the face of wealth, laid down like cowards, pretty much just because the loudest voices told us to. Statistics made Obama falter, hesitate to stump with Thompson. Statistics that were unquestioned, unprodded, clearly poorly ascertained. In other elections, democratic consultants and political staff stick to their party at risk of losing work with the Democrats in the future. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the DNC, was silent while the best talent our party has to offer went to work for the largest private donor to the Republican party in the United States. Went to work for a man running on the Republican ticket. Where do they draw the line?

When they should have been securing donors nationally for Thompson, like they did for Green in '01, the party sat on its hands. The state party didn't fundraise for him either. The Democratic Party lost this election, lost the opportunity of having a good Democrat in City Hall. Our party leaders -- Tim Kaine, NYS Democratic Chairman Jay Jacobs, Governor Patterson, and President Obama -- should be held accountable for withdrawing their backing; the one advantage that should have been a guarantee for Thompson.

Elizabeth Benjamin at the Daily Politics Blog posted this story, about Norman Seabrook, the president of the Correction Officers Benevolent Association whose union backed Bloomberg in '01 and '05, but backed Thompson in '09. Seabrook responded to a question about the closeness of the race: "That means that a lot of the individuals that were supposed to be supportive, that considered themselves Democrats, that considered themselves staunch supporters of righteousness, strong supporters of change, strong supporters of taking the homeless off the streets are full of shit."

I hope the DNC gets the message.

How Important Are These Off-Year Races?

2009-11-01T23:21:05Z

At the very least, the results in the governors' races, if not predictive, are quite likely to drive the political narrative, bolstering or diminishing Mr. Obama's political stature as he seeks to rally a divided party. The outcome could, to a limited degree, help measure whether Mr. Obama's success last year was a phenomenon limited to him or the early signs of a long-term Democratic resurgence.

David Axelrod On H1N1 Vaccines: 'We Overpromised'

2009-11-01T01:37:14Z

David Axelrod, President Obama's senior adviser, says the administration based its predictions about how many doses of the H1N1 vaccine would be available by mid-October on bad information.

Barry Levinson: Surviving the Media Circus, Without Becoming the Clown

2009-10-29T10:43:03Z

In 1959, JFK wrote an article in TV Guide talking about the influence of television on politics:

Television is a medium that lends itself to manipulation, exploitation, and gimmicks. Political campaigns can actually be taken over by the public relations experts, who tell a candidate not only how to use TV, what to say, what to stand for, and what kind of person to be.

I mention this quote in Poliwood, and covered the subject in Wag the Dog, which was not just an exploration of what happens when Washington exploits Hollywood's talent for selling fantasies, but ultimately its Machiavellian code of conduct in the area of messaging and public relations. Communication -- the ability to connect and manipulate -- is perhaps the most interesting part of politics we can observe, and the most frightening. JFK warned us, but no one listened.

When I arrived in Denver at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, I was amazed at the media spectacle of it all. We live in an age where television dominates our reality, and particularly our political reality. Everything has been turned into entertainment. Why does politics have to be entertaining? Because it has to be. Because it's on television all the time. If it's not entertaining, we turn it off. So the result is the media takes national issues and makes them our entertainment. Everything must garner some acceptable rating. Ratings represent money and that bottom line is the holy grail, which should surprise no one. Politics today is increasingly driven on conflict as the news uses entertainment techniques founded on conflict. Polarization is ideal to exploit for conflict.

This year, President Obama delivered a speech to the joint session of Congress on health care, one of the most important issues our country faces. No one really remembers what he said though. Why? Because of Congressman Joe Wilson's "You Lie" comment. We heard far more about "you lie" than the crisis of the health care system. The media dissected every aspect of the "you lie" story. The "for" and "against." The issue of "civility." Was Wilson going to apologize? How much money was Joe Wilson getting in campaign donations because of the you lie comment? An anonymous Congressman suddenly becomes famous because of an inappropriate statement and many real issues took a back seat.

I saw firsthand just how difficult it is to get matters of substance into the national dialogue as I followed a number of politically active actors, musicians, and writers through the 2008 election. As we explored the impact of entertainment and the media on modern day politics, you see that today's Washington political celebrities and politically active celebrities all have to survive a media circus. To quote a line from Poliwood, "How do you survive the media circus and not turn into the clown?"

Like any great invention, there are both positive and negative effects to television. It has been a terrific source of entertainment, some times educational, and always a part of our national identity. But the negative effects are more subtle, more covert, and we tend to ignore them. If we had only paid more attention to Kennedy's warning, would we be in a better place today?

Poliwood premieres on Showtime Monday evening, November 2 at 7:30 pm.

Jose Antonio Vargas: Obama Online -- Where Are the Young Supporters?

2009-10-23T06:25:00Z

They were ubiquitous, they were tech-savvy, they were vocal -- nearly a year after the election, where are the young Obama supporters?

Where are the voters under 30 who preferred Obama over McCain by a staggering 66-32 percent margin, the biggest of any age group? Where is the mainstream media -- the same MSM that declared 2008 as "The Year of the Youth Vote" -- in covering how young people are impacted by the health care debate, which has dominated the news for months? (Studies show that a quarter of Americans ages 25 to 34 don't have health insurance, while about a third of Americans ages 21 to 24 live without it -- more than any other age group. This is partly because young people think they're invincible -- "Me? Get sick? No way!" -- but it's also partly because they're either out of work or their employers don't offer insurance.) Where is the Team Obama that adeptly leveraged the enthusiasm of its digitally-plugged young troops, who scheduled rallies on Facebook, passed YouTube videos around their network and sent text messages reminding their friends to vote? Speaking last month at George Washington University, just a few blocks from the White House, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe told the college crowd: "Your generation won the election ... Obama simply wouldn't have been the nominee without you."

Tobin Van Ostern, a recent George Washington graduate, e-mailed me Plouffe's comment last week.

Wall Street Donating Little To Obama

2009-10-20T03:37:35Z

The Wall Street giants that received a financial lifeline from Washington may have no compunction about paying big bonuses to their dealmakers and traders. But their willingness to deliver "thank you" gifts to President Obama and the Democrats is another question altogether.

Simon Sinek: When the Two Parties of a Two Party System Don't Know Why They Exist

2009-10-14T18:20:03Z

Republicans are completely
befuddled by Obama’s “star power” and don’t seem to have a clear or effective
strategy to compete. Though they are able to coordinate their messages better than
Democrats, absent a leader who can clearly articulate a Republican vision for
America, the only thing they can do is attack, attack, attack.

Democrats have a leader who defies all the political odds. Obama became
president with little experience, he’s making headway reforming healthcare, and
won a Noble Peace Prize which, even he admits, he probably didn’t deserve. But
as a party, they bicker, they can’t coordinate messages and they seem more
obsessed with “setting the record straight” than advancing their vision for
America. Absent the ability to focus, the best they can muster is defend,
defend, defend (and sometimes, maybe, if it’s not too harsh – attack).

Leadership is not derived from having the loudest voice or the biggest base.
Leadership isn’t about having all the answers or having all your i’s
dotted and t’s crossed. Leadership doesn’t necessarily even come from simply
having your name on the door. True leadership comes from inspiring people to
focus on where they are going, not fighting against whatever is happening now.
This is what it means to offer a “vision for America.” This is what it
means to inspire.

Democrats are flummoxed by
Republicans ability to stall or redirect progress. No matter the message
Democrats develop, Republicans almost always come up with a better sound bite
for the headlines. The Democrats response throughout the healthcare debate?
Give the people more statistics.

Republicans are perplexed how Obama’s star shines so brightly. No matter how
much they attack, Obama seems to keep moving forwards. Just this week, we
learned the Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) supported the health care bill in
the finance committee. The Republican response? Attack Olympia Snowe.

But neither party does a good job of contextualizing why they have the opinions
they do in the first place. Both care about America, both believe in upholding
the values laid down by our forefathers. Both are deeply patriotic. And
both know why America exists – it’s all about life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. The difference lies in how they think we should deliver on that
American Dream. Though both parties know why America exists, neither party can
tell you why they exist.

Republicans are the party of “I”. They believe the responsibility of government
is to support those who pursue the American Dream – which is why their policies
have historically favored the rich and businesses. Buried in the pages of their
newly designed website, the RNC hints at why the Republican Party exists, “The
Republican Party is inspired by the power of ingenuity of the individual to
succeed through hard work, family support and self-discipline.” Instead of
opening their website with their cause, with their Why, there is a video about
how bad America is doing and how bad Obama is. It’ll make you angry, it may
rally a crowd…but it’s not inspiring. It’s not leadership

Democrats are the party of “we.” They believe the responsibility of
government is to try to help everyone pursue the American Dream – which is why
their policies have historically favored labor and the poor. Buried in
the pages of the DNC website they also hint at why the Democratic Party exists,
“The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding
opportunity for every American.” Instead of leading with their cause, with
their Why, one of the first things is a section called “Call ‘em out” devoted
to correcting the lies being spread by Republicans.

Instead of trying to plan the next attack strategy, it may benefit the
Republican Party to try to understand why Obama's star shines so brightly.
After all, it is this “star quality” that Republicans attribute to Obama’s
winning the Nobel Peace prize last week – an observation that would be entirely
correct. I understand why Republican leadership invests so much money and
energy trying to dim his star, but the benefit to trying to understand it and
even learn how to turn up the wattage of one of your own is not only better for
the Republican Party, it’s better for the country. A strategy of attack, attack,
attack – from either party – inhibits progress and divides us as a nation.

Though he's not always perfect at expressing it, Obama has a vision for
America, one born out of optimism, that comes out whenever he gives big
speeches. Sadly, that’s the only time
it does. He believes that any people,
no matter how divergent their differences, can always find common ground to
advance a common cause. He believes America can work together to mend its
economy. “Yes we can.” He believes that America can come together to reform
healthcare. “Yes we can.” He believes the nations of the world can come
together to find common understanding. “Yes we can.” And it is his optimism in
this belief that inspires and gives him his star quality. Democrats need to
focus around Obama’s vision and focus their message and energy into drafting legislation that will breath life into the vision.

Republicans don’t need to look to Obama to learn how to make a star. Go back and
study Ronald Reagan – a visionary leader who confounded Democrats at the time
with his own star quality. Reagan spoke about “morning in America” – he oozed
an optimism for what America could
be. Reagan had an undying belief that each American has the ability to make
their own lives better if they put our minds to it. In stark contrast, the
modern Republican Party defines itself by what it’s not rather than what it is.
Republicans need an optimistic leader who can present an alternative
vision for America’s future instead of just rallying against Obama’s vision of
it.

The way the two party system
is supposed to work is that both parties present their vision for America and
then the people will choose which they believe best suits them based on the
challenges they face at the times. Sometimes we want to celebrate the
ingenuity of the individual – like in the booming ‘80s and sometimes we feel
the need to band together and work to support those who can’t support
themselves – like in times of war, economic crisis and when the social security
and health care systems are ailing.

I’ve studied great leaders and great organizations, those with the ability to
inspire. And they all have something in common. Regardless of their party or
their politics, unrelated to their business or their industry – they all think,
act and communicate the exact same way, and it’s the complete opposite to
everyone else. In all cases, the “stars” clearly communicate an
optimistic vision of the future, they tell us why they do what they do. It is so clear that the rest of us know
why they do what they do also, even if we disagree with the specifics of how
they aim to do it. When there is clarity of Why, those who believe the same
will take it upon themselves to join the cause. A following, by its definition,
are those who share a common set of values and beliefs.
This is the reason great leaders command a loyal following.

Democrats have a leader with
a vision, but lack focus. Republicans are focused but lack a leader with a
vision. Perhaps, in a day-and-age when both parties can only point at
each other and define themselves as “not that,” we need a president who can
find their common ground. Yes he can.

Simon Sinek’s new book, Start With Why: How great
leaders inspire everyone to take action, is available for pre-order now
and arrives on shelves Oct 29th.

For more from Simon, visit simonsinek.com

Obama Campaign Arm Robocalls For Creigh Deeds

2009-10-13T17:40:23Z

In a sign of increased engagement from the White House in Virginia's gubernatorial race, Barack Obama's campaign arm has launched a series of robocalls urging supporters to help elect Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds.

The call, which was made to this reporter's cell phone, was narrated by Mitch Stewart, Executive Director of Organizing for America and paid for by the Democratic National Committee.

Stewart urges recipients to help "elect Creigh Deeds the next governor of the commonwealth," before reminding them that "get out the vote" operations "start this weekend."

"Will you help elect Creigh Deeds governor?" the robocall ends.

The assist to the Deeds campaign comes at a time when Obama is being pressed to provide more political support to Democratic candidates during the off-year elections. The president has, by and large, laid low in the two gubernatorial contests -- giving speeches for Deeds and Gov. John Corzine (D-NJ), but little else.

The DNC confirmed the authenticity of the call (though, since I received one, confirmation likely wasn't needed). The committee had already commissioned a robocall on Deed's behalf -- last week -- to help recruit volunteers in northern Virginia.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Cenk Uygur: Howard Dean vs. Rahm Emanuel

2009-09-30T04:50:50Z

It has always been thus. Now comes round two.

In the first round, Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean butted heads on what strategy was best in regaining House seats in 2006 (also to some degree in 2008). Emanuel was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Howard Dean was chair of the Democratic National Committee. Dean's path was the famous 50 state strategy. Emanuel thought that was foolish and that the Democratic Party would be much better served spending more money in traditional political ads in more "realistic" districts.

As it turned out, Emanuel was wrong and Dean was right. The Democrats won everywhere, including districts previously thought unimaginable. Dean's efforts to reach out to all the states paid off huge dividends as the Democrats became competitive in districts no one had thought possible.

Now, we're in the second round. This time it's the health care debate. Rahm Emanuel has been pushing for a weaker version of reform from the beginning. In his defense, he believes he is focusing on what is doable (nearly the same thing he said during the previous House elections). Emanuel has argued for a trigger from the beginning of the debate and seems to think that a public option is not realistic in this political environment.

Howard Dean has instead argued for a stronger version of health care reform. He believes the country is persuadable (the same position he had in the House elections) and is largely on the side of bolder reform already. He believes the Democratic politicians need to have the courage of their convictions and they can make a real difference.

Once again, Howard Dean is right and Rahm Emanuel is wrong. The voters didn't vote for a little bit of change. They gave the Democrats the White House and overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. They voted for real change. The kind of change that Dean always pushes for (and often accomplishes) and the kind of change that Emanuel doesn't ever find "realistic."

Emanuel needs to change his definition of realistic. We didn't elect Obama to fiddle around the edges. We elected him to change the current reality of Washington. We didn't elect him to figure out the best way to appease the lobbyists; we elected him to figure out the best way to beat them. What Rahm Emanuel doesn't seem to get is that real change is realistic. You have all this political power. It's time to use it. If not now, when?

There were rumors when President Obama was picking his cabinet and administration that Emanuel kept Dean out of the West Wing because of their running feud. If there was truth to that, then it seems Obama picked the wrong guy - not just for pushing forward bold reform but also for actually getting it done.

Watch Young Turks on You Tube

Harry Reid Becomes GOP Target In Nevada

2009-09-26T21:07:15Z

Mr. Reid, 69 years old, is facing mounting criticism in his home state and is trailing in the polls against two Republican challengers for his Senate seat: former University of Nevada at Las Vegas basketball star Danny Tarkanian and Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden. According to an independent Mason-Dixon poll Aug. 23, Mr. Reid lagged behind Mr. Tarkanian by 49% to 38% and 45% to 40% against Ms. Lowden.

DNC Sued By Man Ousted From Town Hall

2009-09-23T11:51:40Z

In the aftermath of an incident that occurred at a health care town hall held by Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), attendee Thomas Quigley Jr. is suing the Democratic National Committee.

Quigley's lawsuit alleges that security guards assaulted, and forcibly removed him from the meeting after he was "compelled to correct the panel for the third time" for dispensing "misinformation" and "misstatements" on healthcare reform.

According to reports, Quigley told security guards he was "a black belt in kung-fu and would respond if attacked" when approached for his repeated breaches of decorum. Quigley is asking for restitution for damages over $50,000 on claims that the DNC had failed to train the event's security guards properly.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Judy Collins: Forty Years After Chicago, We Have Not Found the Things We Lost

2009-09-23T11:51:32Z

I read Sam Leff's thought-provoking article about the trial of the Chicago Seven, my testimony, and Tom Brokaw's words concerning my participation in the "Yippie Festival of Life." (see Leff's piece here)

I wanted to thank Sam for speaking out in such a clear and meaningful way about how we (not just me) were robbed (and everyone lost) in the circus that surrounded the Chicago 1968 Democratic Convention. The police brutality and smashing of the heads of protesters look more, in retrospect, like the methods applied to other protests in recent years around the world. Superimpose another language on Chicago, and you get -- what? A Third World country struggling to express itself? What it looks like is a police state wielding its power. See the crowds and the swinging batons, and hear the screams of the beaten and those who are being hauled off to jail.

Walter Cronkite himself, the most trusted man in America, said at the start of the convention, "The Democratic Convention is about to begin in a police state, there doesn't appear to be any other way to describe it."

He could see what was in front of all our eyes. He could see it clearly.

There was never a question in my mind that the war in Vietnam was wrong, that the Yippies were right. I had been protesting the war in Vietnam in many ways and many marches and many events from the time I was in high school, and my father was railing against our involvement in Indochina.

"Why in hell can't we see it -- the French got out, what are we doing there? We are going to end up hip deep in the muddy waters!"

And the damned fools said to go on. All of them did, from Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon. All David Halberstam's brightest and best, hip deep. My contemporaries were being drafted; my peers were singing their hearts out, some going to Canada because, like Dave Dellinger's father, they were serious, committed conscientious objectors.

I believe that Chicago, the Richard J. Daley administration, the police, as well as the organizers of the convention itself, whacked the Yippies over the head and dragged them off to jail -- were in part responsible for the continuation of the war in Vietnam. You know your history.

Combat troops were sent in as of 1965 but military advisers were in Indochina from 1950 and the first report of the death of a U.S. soldier was in 1957, from a land mine incident. During the French occupation in the 1940s, there was 'light' military adviser activity on the part of the U.S. The war was escalated in 1965 and resulted in 58,000 American dead. And the majority of the casualties in Vietnam occurred after 1968, after the Yippies' celebration of peace and light that bloomed into a public relations attack on the peace movement itself instead of the war.

If peace activists had not been beaten and jailed and muzzled -- as I was muzzled in Judge Julius Hoffman's trial of the Chicago Seven when I tried to sing "Where Have All the Flowers Gone"-- (always, always, Mary Travers' song -- God rest her soul) in my testimony there may have been a more positive effect in the country at large to end the war. Instead of concentrating and refocusing on the efforts to achieve peace in Indochina, there was a focus on the 'antics' of the peace activists in Chicago, who were, by the decision of the city of Chicago (and others?) beaten and jailed and prevented from peacefully protesting -- our right in this country, at least once upon a time -- in protest to the war.

According to Sam Leff, in his book, "Brokaw baits Judy to confuse her serious political activism with her serious alcohol problem, effectively editing out her major involvement with the Festival of Life."

You can see my testimony at the trial of the Chicago Seven here.

As Churchill said to an unattractive woman who accused him of being drunk at a dinner party, "Madam, I may be drunk tonight but tomorrow I will be sober and you will still be unattractive."

Tomorrow came, I was sober but we were still at war in Vietnam and 50,000 more were dead. Now we are still in wars that are killing our young people. As necessary as they are said to be (and I disagree, I disagree) that murder in the name of lies needs goes on -- the fiasco which is Iraq is a bloodbath of eight years of the destruction of life and the drain on our finances by yet another original act of the Bush administration which bleeds us and continues to rob us of our self-respect and the respect of the world -- and if Alexander the Great had a hard time in Afghanistan -- and he did, he did -- we will try as he did to extricate ourselves from the country Alexander the Great himself said harbored "terrorists." That is what he called them nearly 2,500 years ago -- and he had to leave as bloodily as we will.

Abbie Hoffman, Dave Dellinger, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, John Froines, Lee Weiner and Jerry Rubin were very serious peace activists and were baited into a festival of confusion instead of a festival of life in Chicago in 1968, launched to take the focus off the war. You don't have to have a brain trust to know that we were in the wrong war at the wrong time on the wrong continent. All of us -- the young, the eager activists who marched and sang and tried to bring about peace, were and are serious. Cronkite was serious when he came out against the war early on.

I am an activist of many years and challenge anyone to question the fact. But thank you Sam, for spelling out the insult for me, to forcing me once again to become aware that the day the Yippies died in Chicago was a day the peace movement has to look upon as its reason for being.

A lot of us are saying, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" ... about a lot of things. So, where is the peace movement today and how can we all get on board? The train is on the tracks; the cars are slipping by, one by one. It is time for a new Yippie movement to surface in this country and take back the flowers and silence the guns.

Chris Hughes: Where Is That Online-Powered "Movement" Now?

2009-09-21T10:00:00Z

If you paid any attention to the Obama campaign in the 2008 election, you heard a lot about building a movement. To the ears of the politically cynical, calling the campaign a "movement" was just a messaging maneuver to make it sound like Barack Obama had a broad base of support.

But for the politically hopeful -- and I'd say that term would encompass just about all of the campaign's staff and volunteers -- building a movement meant something more. We weren't just organizing for a particular candidate or a particular moment in time, but instead, we shared a set of values and a vision for what America could be.

Nothing could have embodied this approach to campaigning more than the technology that we built at the heart of the campaign. We chose to build and refine tools that helped everyday people tell their own stories, talk about their passions, and then take up the banner of the cause in their local community.

We had our own tools on My.BarackObama to help us. But fortunately for the campaign, the Internet in general was transforming into a network where the majority of content was created by individuals rather than institutions. Structurally, it was becoming easier and easier for individuals to talk about their passions and then to use technology to self-organize. Even though they were resolutely non-partisan, sites like Facebook and YouTube made it easier for passionate people to share and self-organize, which greatly benefited our campaign founded on these values.

But contrary to what a lot of people may think, it wasn't the technology that made the Obama movement possible. What went hand in hand with the technology was a resolute and unyielding focus on good-old-fashioned political organizing. As a movement, we measured our success by the number of doors knocked on, phone calls made, and dollars raised. The array of technology platforms that we used simply helped us extend our organizing capacity and refine our work.

So where is this movement now?

It's alive and well. The people who organized and fought so hard last year to elect Barack Obama as president still care just as much, if not more, about the issues that were central to the campaign. The values that we shared in common -- a commitment to rethinking politics, to transparency and openness, to personal responsibility, to a socially and economically just society -- are just as vibrant as they were a year ago.

What's missing is the organizing leadership.

To be clear, I don't believe it's up to Organizing for America -- the organization that emerged from the Obama campaign that continues to run barackobama.com -- to permanently employ thousands of organizers as the campaign did. An organization of that size inside the DNC would not be sustainable or desirable.

But I do believe progressive organizations of all stripes have a responsibility to understand what happened in the Obama campaign in 2008 and adopt a similar strategy. Regardless of the issue that a given progressive group is organizing for, there is much to be learned.
Some guidelines to start:

People are your biggest asset. They are not to be treated as a loose network of piggy banks spread across the country. Each person has her own passions, her own story, her own reason for caring. Listen to these stories, help these individual tell them, and make it easier for others to listen to them as well.

Give your supporters not just a cause, but a moment to rally around. Events are what galvanize people to action. Even for the causes that require long-term commitments, set a date and a goal to organize toward.

Embrace networking technology. The Internet is not just a platform to help you blast your carefully crafted and rigorously tested message as widely as possible. Whether it's on your own site, on Facebook, or on any other network, think about how you can use technology to encourage your supporters to speak and to spread their passion. Setting up a page and calling it a day is not enough.

Building support for a cause requires human contact. A slick online events platform will do you no good unless you have people on staff who know key people in key places who can get more people to host more events and turn out more attendees. State-of-the-art technology can only go so far. A good-old-fashioned conversation can take you the rest of the way.

Invest in technology and organizing. Neither of these things comes cheap, but when they have the proper budget, they can yield enormous returns.

There are tens of millions of Americans who care about progressive issues that affect all of us. If progressive groups fail to take advantage of this energy and demonstrated capacity, they will waste a uniquely potent moment in American history.

2morrowknight: Why 2010 Will Not be a Replay of 1994

2009-09-18T17:17:14Z

You sort of knew it was coming, right? The media talking heads are dusting off the 1994 playbook. You remember the story quite well: a young president and his party are soundly defeated in the midterm elections. It really sounds good, but it ain't gonna happen this time.

It's hard for many people to believe this when many pundits are salivating over the remote possibility that the wheels will come off President Obama's ambitious agenda. Yes, some of the talking heads are hoping for an Obama implosion and for the Republicans to take back control of congress to create the drama and intrigue of divided government. But I just don't believe it's in the cards.

And no, this is not wishful thinking on my part. This is not supposition and conjecture, or simply a baseless assertion from an Obama supporter trying to rally the troops. Trust me: 2010 will not be a repeat of 1994. Here are 4 reasons why:

Demographics - President Obama won African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, and Native-Americans in last year's election. He also trounced John McCain by roughly 40% with young voters. This is stunning. But what is even more jaw-dropping is how well President Obama did with young white voters, particularly young white women. Think about it: Hillary Clinton had her daughter Chelsea and John McCain had his daughter Meagan, but they didn't make a big dent. So it's easy to see why some conservative white parents didn't want their children to see President Obama's back to school speech. He remains uber popular with most white youth, and, according to a major poll this Summer, with younger Americans in general. This is a positive development that will pay big dividends for the Democrats in 2010 and beyond.

The Economy -- President Obama inherited a huge mess. The economy was tanking badly upon his arrival. But it would have been worse without the $787 billion stimulus bill. Period. The proof is in the pudding: it helped reduce GDP shrinkage in the third quarter and boosted consumer spending (great signs for the overall economy). The USA TODAY examined data that shows how stimulus cash has lifted Blue & Red States alike, and has offset a major drop in tax collections. And if that's not enough, the ultra conservative Wall Street Journal recently admitted that the stimulus (which they campaigned against) is helping the U.S. climb out of the current recession. And don't look now, but when Obama signs the impending climate bill into law, hundreds of thousands of Green jobs will be created. Around this time next year, Obama and the Democrats will be staring at a much stronger economy.

The Tea Party -- Ideological disagreements are one thing, but the ugliness and hysteria at Tea Party gatherings are something else all together. These birthers, deathers, and anti-immigration zealots desperately need to reclaim their Shpadoinkle. I don't have to give a list of examples about their vitriol because we've all witnessed the outrageous posters and criminally irresponsible rhetoric from Tea Party organizers and participants. Is it any wonder why President Obama has seen a 400% surge in death threats, and that Speaker Pelosi is warning of potentially serious political violence? Tell me how any of this helps Republicans? It doesn't.

And...President Barack Obama himself - He ran the most efficient presidential campaign anyone had ever seen. Remember his TV channel? Remember his advertisements in video games? Remember his under radar outreach to young white evangelicals in '07 that was laughed off? Yes, he rocked it. What man could deliver the most electric concession speech I've ever heard that was later turned into a runaway viral hit? The same man who delivered a riveting speech to 80,000 in Denver at the Democratic Convention. You think all of that ingenuity, energy, and out-of-the-box thinking has disappeared? President Obama is just getting warmed up. Remember his groundbreaking appearances on The Tonight Show, ESPN's' "March Madness/Bracketology" segment, and Univision's popular music show Premio Lo Nuestro back in the Spring? He rocked it. This Sunday, he is going to appear on five talk shows. And he will visit David Letterman - the King of Late Night - on Monday to reach slices of the American public that are not presently tuned into the cable news noise of lies and distortion. Oh, and about what he's done in office ... as of today, he's signed 13 bills into law, including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, and The National Service Bill. Yes, Obama is still the best asset the Democratic Party has.

Taken together, this 2010 scenario is very feasible. But the factors I outlined must be married to the voter education/registration, traveling, e-mailing, phone-banking, and retail politicking that made it all happen in the first place. With so much at stake, we must remember that "Yes We Can" is not just a feel good slogan, or even a destination. In fact, it's an ongoing journey for something better than what we presently have: affordable health care, common sense education reform, stronger environmental protections, etc. So don't let your enthusiasm and resolve about the 2010 elections be sidelined by the ridiculous utterances of the usual suspects of punditry.

This post was originally published at 2morrowknight.blogspot.com.

Jane Hamsher: New DNC Obama Ad: Get "Fired Up" and "Ready To Go" About No Public Option

2009-09-18T14:05:59Z

President Obama has been desperate to ditch the public option for weeks. Max Baucus did the job he thought he was supposed to do -- memorialize the deals that the White House cut with health care industry stakeholders. He left it to the White House to sell it, and now they have to.

But every time they tried to jettison the public option through surrogates like Kathleen Sebelius or "senior White House officials" speaking anonymously to media outlets, the base went haywire and Obama's poll numbers started tanking.

Well, now that Baucus has delivered his stenography, gotta get the base on board with the "goody bag" of benefits -- which basically means whatever was left over after Rahm Emanuel got done auctioning off the rest to the medical industrial complex.

So the new DNC ad fires up the "base" by trying to rally them around hatred of teabaggers:

Because hatred of teabaggers will, I guess, mean that nobody notices that Obama makes no mention of a public option in the ad:

It's meant to primarily signal our most ardent supporters and the base of the Democratic Party that we are with you -- and that we need you -- to get this done and accomplish the other big things this president has set out to do," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse said.

Well, now there's the rub. Because it turns out that 44% of Democrats strongly support health care reform with a public option, but that figure drops to 12% without one. So passing the Baucus bill means stabbing the base and destroying 2010 turnout for the midterms, which is pretty much what NAFTA did in 1994 -- when there was a 54 seat swing to the Republicans.

Thank Rahm Emanuel for that one, too.

It looks like Obama's speech in College Park, Maryland the other day on health care also served as a spectacular photo-op, allowing the DNC to flood the air waves with "fired up, ready to go!" ads supporting generic health care reform.

I think they left out one key moment of the Maryland event:

That's the one where the crowd openly boos the Baucus bill.

DNC Promises "Rain Of Hellfire" On Pols Lying About Health Care Reform (VIDEO)

2009-09-18T12:59:00Z

The Democratic National Committee is going on the offensive against lies about health care reform with a new campaign to call out anyone who spreads misinformation.

A new ad features President Obama at a recent town hall meeting promising to call out those who would undermine reform with untruths. The spot is paired with a new website, "Call 'Em Out", where the party intends to go after politicians spreading smears. The first target: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), who recently claimed that health care reform would lead to "death panels".

"The message to opponents of change who would lie or misrepresent the truth should be clear. We are going to respond forcefully and consistently with the facts, and you will no longer be able to peddle your lies with impunity," spokesperson Hari Sevugan told Politico. "Through tools like 'Call 'Em Out,' you will be met with a rain of hellfire from supporters armed with the facts and you will be held to account."

WATCH:

Salon reports that the ad will run on cable nationally and in the D.C. area and will also be featured on 40 liberal blogs.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!