Martin O'Malley? What is it about him that appeals to you?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles Krugman
(Redacted sender "ckrugman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 10:54 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit
Democratic Process
The Democratic Party definitely has much explaining to do as to how they
are handling their internal affairs. As a Democratic activist I experience
much frustration with decisions coming from party leadership. While they are
in a difficult decision when it comes to defeating Republicans much of it
has been brought on by their own doing and the abandonment of Howard Dean's
50 state plan was their first mistake several years ago. While I am backing
Martin O'Malley I am disappointed with his slow start in the campaign. In
California I also experience frustration as some of the issues that we are
dealing with on a state level the party has taken some positions that are a
bit radical and there is too much of a bandwagon effect where there is
little dialogue and discussion and views that are less progressive are
stifled. As a result I did not attend the state convention this year in May
as I felt I could put the money I would spend on going to it to better use
like supporting local and other candidates that I personally choose.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 7:05 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit
Democratic Process
Boardman writes: "The Democratic Party is showing some ugly faces these
days, as entrenched party leaders find both their president and much of
their constituency headed in directions that the 'party' disapproves."
Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis,
August 30, 2015. (photo: Jim Mone/AP)
Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit Democratic Process By William
Boardman, Reader Supported News
02 September 15
Rigging nominations may or not win elections, but its despicable
The Democratic Party is showing some ugly faces these days, as entrenched
party leaders find both their president and much of their constituency
headed in directions that the party disapproves. From Sen. Chuck Schumer
choosing to risk war to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz stifling supporters of
her partys president and the peace deal with Iran, to the insurgent
candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Martin OMalley, party leaders find
themselves leading toward goals widely rejected by others.
This is actually a hopeful sign that theres resistance. But the struggle
to define Democratic values as more than just another oxymoron is still in
its early stages. Its also something of a shadowy war in which the party
leaders seek to deny insurgents oxygen by limiting the number of debates,
thereby helping Hillary Clinton ascend to her predicted coronation as the
partys nominee. Another way of looking at that is that the party
leadership is engaged in a delicate game of attempted vote-rigging by
ignorance. What about that can be good for the party, never mind the
country?
Leading up to the recent Democratic National Committee (DNC) summer meeting
August 26-29, the National Journal (NJ) offered an unintentionally hilarious
insider assessment of the state of the Democratic Party. Looming over
the meeting, NJ pontificated, was: A Bernie breakthrough? A Hillary
resurgence? OMalley coming up on the outside? No, none of those. What
loomed over the meeting was Joe Bidens phantom candidacy. Seriously,
according to NJ, Biden was getting much of the buzz from the party
delegates even though he wasnt even attending the meeting. NJ quotes two of
the DNCs 450 members as wanting an interesting race and not wanting an
anointed candidate (the unnamed Hillary Clinton). NJ had no trouble
mentioning Clinton over and over in its story, treating her as the only
looming alternative to Biden (who had a conference call with DNC members on
August 26).
So what might these insider tea leaves mean? Apparently the party hierarchy
is pretty much solidly behind Clinton and willing to rig the rules (on
debates, for example) in her favor. And one might infer that, whatever
dissatisfaction the party leaders might have with Clinton, they have no
interest in Bernie Sanders or anyone else. NJ doesnt even mention Bernie
till the last paragraph, and then only to say he will be speaking. NPR, on
the other hand, wonders if this is 2008 all over again? when the
unbeatable Clinton lost to another insurgent. So theres some ferment in
our official media.
Contending for the lead doesnt make you visible in all media Omission is a
pretty odd way to treat a candidate who is competitive in the first two
primary states. In Iowa, Sanders has come from 50 points behind Clinton to
trail by just seven, and he leads her in New Hampshire. So it looks like the
party poobahs are willfully trying to ignore a candidate who they
desperately hope against hope will fade. And it seems designed to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy of the wishful calculation that Sanders cant
survive Super Tuesday. But its still a long way to February 1 when the Iowa
caucuses set the real circus on the road (with or without Joe Biden), when
the party begins to choose some 3,700 delegates to the Philadelphia
convention July 25-28, 2016.
To become the partys nominee for president, a candidate will need roughly
2,242 delegate votes. That number represents one more than 50% of all the
delegate votes (4,483), representing the roughly 3,700 elected delegates
together with 450 DNC member-delegates and more than 250
elected-official/dignitary-delegates.
Democratic leaders are apparently indulging their dislike of Bernie
Sanders so much that their pique threatens to align them with a minority of
American voters, committed to nominating a damaged candidate with a 55%
disapproval rating, and 43% favorable (Sanders is 36% favorable, 29%
disapproval, with 33% still unsure). As the certified frontrunner, Clinton
remains well ahead of Sanders in national polling, but recently there have
been media pieces like the September 1 Huff Post story headlined:
Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination.
It's Time for America to Notice.
It might also be time for the DNC decision-makers to notice, too, and to
level the playing field to allow a more democratic process to choose the
candidate. If theyre given a fair opportunity, Democratic primary voters
might even choose a truly Democratic candidate for the first time in
decades.
At the DNC meeting, campaign reps were lobbying delegates to commit to their
candidates, but reports suggest there are few committed delegates yet.
Clinton reportedly has more than anyone else, but reporting suggests her
total may be fewer than ten.
DNC meeting hears four candidates in beauty-contest setting Four of the five
declared Democratic candidates spoke to the DNC in alphabetical order (Jim
Webb did not attend), which turned out to be in increasing order of
intensity, substance, and specificity. They were all in agreement in a
general way about basic domestic issues and re-building the American
Dream. They all avoided direct criticism of each other and they all had
sharp lines about Republican failures. It was all on C-Span, where
differences, both subtle and glaring, emerged, including these:
Lincoln Chaffee spoke only eight minutes (everyone else would go over
twenty), mostly in genial generalizations. But he pointedly expressed pride
in voting against Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. Of Democrats generally,
he said, Were right on income inequality, as well as healthcare, and
immigration, and the environment without getting specific about any of
them.
Chaffee said he supported the Iran deal, not just on its merits keeping
Iran from building a nuclear weapon but also because the deal was the
result of important international cooperation among the US, China, Russia,
Great Britain, France, and Germany in negotiations that began in 2003
(joined by the US in 2006). He was alone in saying that that kind of
cooperation was needed to solve the worlds most serious problems.
And only Chaffee called for ending all American conflicts overseas, calling
them Republican wars. He did not offer specifics.
Hillary Clinton also spoke mostly in familiar generalities in support of
women, children, the middle class, and working class families. She also took
a series of shots at Republican Donald Trump. Clinton said shes worked her
whole life to even the odds for the poor and middle class. She mostly
spoke in a flat, polished manner, carefully waiting at the expected applause
lines. She made clear that she was still running as Bill Clintons wife.
(The New York Times falsely reported that she delivered a fiery speech and
a red-meat speech.) Clinton hit most of the partys major domestic policy
clichés without any strong show of passion, punctuating her points with lots
of deadpan head nodding.
At the end, Clinton promised to help re-build the Democratic Party, a
thinly-veiled criticism of the partys present leadership, including the
president. She promised to help candidates up and down the ticket
nationwide.
Martin OMalley didnt veil his criticism of the partys leadership, lashing
out at policy (but not naming names). He called the partys decision to have
only four debates before the primaries a rigged process that left the
Democratic Party largely silent and unresponsive to unacceptable Republican
racism and trickle-down economics. He particularly mocked the partys
scheduling of the one New Hampshire debate in the middle of the holiday
shopping season when almost no one would watch. This is no time for
silence, OMalley said, we need debate.
OMalley lamented the partys abandonment of a 50-state strategy, a
reference to former party chair Howard Deans effort to turn the Democrats
into a truly national party. He proclaimed that we are the Democratic
Party, not the undemocratic party.
But he also touted a fake populism, saying people could make change on their
own, claiming that it was not about big banks, big money taking over
elections its about us. That was a not-so-veiled jab at the Sanders
campaign, with OMalley claiming he, too, has progressive values. But
OMalley offered no justification for leaving banks too big to fail or
allowing big money to buy politicians. This seems to position him as the
populist alternative to Sanders, but the one who wont do anything serious
to disturb the status quo.
Bernie Sanders was attending his first DNC meeting. After thanking his
audience of Democrats for what you do for the good of the country, he
noted that his campaign calling for a political revolution was striking a
chord in grassroots America. He compared the current enthusiasm for his
message to the Democrats abysmal showing in 2014, when low turnout
contributed to Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress:
In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the
Senate or the U.S. House, will not be successful in dozens of governor races
across the country, unless we generate excitement and momentum and produce a
huge voter turnout. With all due respect and I do not mean to insult
anyone here that turnout, that enthusiasm, will not happen with politics
as usual. The same old same old will not work.
The people of our country understand that given the collapse of the American
middle class, and given the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality
we are experiencing, we do not need more establishment politics or
establishment economics what we need is a government willing to take on
the billionaire class
Sanders spoke with his usual energy and intensity,
enumerating many specific positions unmentioned by others. These included
defeating the TPP, rebuilding US infrastructure, ending cowardly voting
suppression by cowardly Republican governors, leading the world away from
fossil fuels, defeating the Keystone XL pipeline, providing free college
tuition to all Americans by taxing Wall Street speculation, providing
quality childcare, and expanding Social Security.
Sanders, like Chaffee, affirmed that he stands with the president on the
Iran deal.
How divisive is the Iran accord for the Democratic Party?
In the twelve years since negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons, Iran
has started no wars. Compare that record with the United States. Or Israel.
Or even Saudi Arabia. Then ask yourself why you believe Iran is part of an
axis of evil (if you do believe that). The reality is that Iran has been
successfully demonized beyond all rational reality. Iran is even helping the
US and others fight ISIS.
All the same, US senators like Schumer and others are willing to turn on
their partys president, ready to reject a pact negotiated not just by the
US but an international coalition with a wide spectrum of interests, none of
which is a nuclear-armed Iran. Hillary Clinton endorsed the deal almost as
soon as it was announced. Sanders endorsed the deal. But when an apparent
majority of members of the DNC proposed a resolution endorsing the Iran
deal, DNC chair Wasserman Schultz barred the DNC from voting on it.
The Iranian nuclear bomb program has never been much more real than
President Obamas Kenyan citizenship, yet there are those who fervently
believe in each imaginary horror who will not be swayed by any evidence of
an actual reality. With potentially game-changing opportunities of such
vitality at home and abroad, it bodes ill for democratic values for the
Democratic Party to be so heavily influenced by people so deeply in denial.
________________________________________
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis,
August 30, 2015. (photo: Jim Mone/AP)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Democratic Party's "Democratic Values" Omit Democratic Process By William
Boardman, Reader Supported News
02 September 15
Rigging nominations may or not win elections, but its despicable he
Democratic Party is showing some ugly faces these days, as entrenched party
leaders find both their president and much of their constituency headed in
directions that the party disapproves. From Sen. Chuck Schumer choosing to
risk war to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz stifling supporters of her partys
president and the peace deal with Iran, to the insurgent candidacies of
Bernie Sanders and Martin OMalley, party leaders find themselves leading
toward goals widely rejected by others.
This is actually a hopeful sign that theres resistance. But the struggle
to define Democratic values as more than just another oxymoron is still in
its early stages. Its also something of a shadowy war in which the party
leaders seek to deny insurgents oxygen by limiting the number of debates,
thereby helping Hillary Clinton ascend to her predicted coronation as the
partys nominee. Another way of looking at that is that the party
leadership is engaged in a delicate game of attempted vote-rigging by
ignorance. What about that can be good for the party, never mind the
country?
Leading up to the recent Democratic National Committee (DNC) summer meeting
August 26-29, the National Journal (NJ) offered an unintentionally hilarious
insider assessment of the state of the Democratic Party. Looming over
the meeting, NJ pontificated, was: A Bernie breakthrough? A Hillary
resurgence? OMalley coming up on the outside? No, none of those. What
loomed over the meeting was Joe Bidens phantom candidacy. Seriously,
according to NJ, Biden was getting much of the buzz from the party
delegates even though he wasnt even attending the meeting. NJ quotes two of
the DNCs 450 members as wanting an interesting race and not wanting an
anointed candidate (the unnamed Hillary Clinton). NJ had no trouble
mentioning Clinton over and over in its story, treating her as the only
looming alternative to Biden (who had a conference call with DNC members on
August 26).
So what might these insider tea leaves mean? Apparently the party hierarchy
is pretty much solidly behind Clinton and willing to rig the rules (on
debates, for example) in her favor. And one might infer that, whatever
dissatisfaction the party leaders might have with Clinton, they have no
interest in Bernie Sanders or anyone else. NJ doesnt even mention Bernie
till the last paragraph, and then only to say he will be speaking. NPR, on
the other hand, wonders if this is 2008 all over again? when the
unbeatable Clinton lost to another insurgent. So theres some ferment in
our official media.
Contending for the lead doesnt make you visible in all media Omission is a
pretty odd way to treat a candidate who is competitive in the first two
primary states. In Iowa, Sanders has come from 50 points behind Clinton to
trail by just seven, and he leads her in New Hampshire. So it looks like the
party poobahs are willfully trying to ignore a candidate who they
desperately hope against hope will fade. And it seems designed to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy of the wishful calculation that Sanders cant
survive Super Tuesday. But its still a long way to February 1 when the Iowa
caucuses set the real circus on the road (with or without Joe Biden), when
the party begins to choose some 3,700 delegates to the Philadelphia
convention July 25-28, 2016.
To become the partys nominee for president, a candidate will need roughly
2,242 delegate votes. That number represents one more than 50% of all the
delegate votes (4,483), representing the roughly 3,700 elected delegates
together with 450 DNC member-delegates and more than 250
elected-official/dignitary-delegates.
Democratic leaders are apparently indulging their dislike of Bernie
Sanders so much that their pique threatens to align them with a minority of
American voters, committed to nominating a damaged candidate with a 55%
disapproval rating, and 43% favorable (Sanders is 36% favorable, 29%
disapproval, with 33% still unsure). As the certified frontrunner, Clinton
remains well ahead of Sanders in national polling, but recently there have
been media pieces like the September 1 Huff Post story headlined:
Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Winning the Democratic Nomination.
It's Time for America to Notice.
It might also be time for the DNC decision-makers to notice, too, and to
level the playing field to allow a more democratic process to choose the
candidate. If theyre given a fair opportunity, Democratic primary voters
might even choose a truly Democratic candidate for the first time in
decades.
At the DNC meeting, campaign reps were lobbying delegates to commit to their
candidates, but reports suggest there are few committed delegates yet.
Clinton reportedly has more than anyone else, but reporting suggests her
total may be fewer than ten.
DNC meeting hears four candidates in beauty-contest setting Four of the five
declared Democratic candidates spoke to the DNC in alphabetical order (Jim
Webb did not attend), which turned out to be in increasing order of
intensity, substance, and specificity. They were all in agreement in a
general way about basic domestic issues and re-building the American
Dream. They all avoided direct criticism of each other and they all had
sharp lines about Republican failures. It was all on C-Span, where
differences, both subtle and glaring, emerged, including these:
Lincoln Chaffee spoke only eight minutes (everyone else would go over
twenty), mostly in genial generalizations. But he pointedly expressed pride
in voting against Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. Of Democrats generally,
he said, Were right on income inequality, as well as healthcare, and
immigration, and the environment without getting specific about any of
them.
Chaffee said he supported the Iran deal, not just on its merits keeping
Iran from building a nuclear weapon but also because the deal was the
result of important international cooperation among the US, China, Russia,
Great Britain, France, and Germany in negotiations that began in 2003
(joined by the US in 2006). He was alone in saying that that kind of
cooperation was needed to solve the worlds most serious problems.
And only Chaffee called for ending all American conflicts overseas, calling
them Republican wars. He did not offer specifics.
Hillary Clinton also spoke mostly in familiar generalities in support of
women, children, the middle class, and working class families. She also took
a series of shots at Republican Donald Trump. Clinton said shes worked her
whole life to even the odds for the poor and middle class. She mostly
spoke in a flat, polished manner, carefully waiting at the expected applause
lines. She made clear that she was still running as Bill Clintons wife.
(The New York Times falsely reported that she delivered a fiery speech and
a red-meat speech.) Clinton hit most of the partys major domestic policy
clichés without any strong show of passion, punctuating her points with lots
of deadpan head nodding.
At the end, Clinton promised to help re-build the Democratic Party, a
thinly-veiled criticism of the partys present leadership, including the
president. She promised to help candidates up and down the ticket
nationwide.
Martin OMalley didnt veil his criticism of the partys leadership, lashing
out at policy (but not naming names). He called the partys decision to have
only four debates before the primaries a rigged process that left the
Democratic Party largely silent and unresponsive to unacceptable Republican
racism and trickle-down economics. He particularly mocked the partys
scheduling of the one New Hampshire debate in the middle of the holiday
shopping season when almost no one would watch. This is no time for
silence, OMalley said, we need debate.
OMalley lamented the partys abandonment of a 50-state strategy, a
reference to former party chair Howard Deans effort to turn the Democrats
into a truly national party. He proclaimed that we are the Democratic
Party, not the undemocratic party.
But he also touted a fake populism, saying people could make change on their
own, claiming that it was not about big banks, big money taking over
elections its about us. That was a not-so-veiled jab at the Sanders
campaign, with OMalley claiming he, too, has progressive values. But
OMalley offered no justification for leaving banks too big to fail or
allowing big money to buy politicians. This seems to position him as the
populist alternative to Sanders, but the one who wont do anything serious
to disturb the status quo.
Bernie Sanders was attending his first DNC meeting. After thanking his
audience of Democrats for what you do for the good of the country, he
noted that his campaign calling for a political revolution was striking a
chord in grassroots America. He compared the current enthusiasm for his
message to the Democrats abysmal showing in 2014, when low turnout
contributed to Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress:
In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the
Senate or the U.S. House, will not be successful in dozens of governor races
across the country, unless we generate excitement and momentum and produce a
huge voter turnout. With all due respect and I do not mean to insult
anyone here that turnout, that enthusiasm, will not happen with politics
as usual. The same old same old will not work.
The people of our country understand that given the collapse of the American
middle class, and given the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality
we are experiencing, we do not need more establishment politics or
establishment economics what we need is a government willing to take on
the billionaire class
Sanders spoke with his usual energy and intensity,
enumerating many specific positions unmentioned by others. These included
defeating the TPP, rebuilding US infrastructure, ending cowardly voting
suppression by cowardly Republican governors, leading the world away from
fossil fuels, defeating the Keystone XL pipeline, providing free college
tuition to all Americans by taxing Wall Street speculation, providing
quality childcare, and expanding Social Security.
Sanders, like Chaffee, affirmed that he stands with the president on the
Iran deal.
How divisive is the Iran accord for the Democratic Party?
In the twelve years since negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons, Iran
has started no wars. Compare that record with the United States. Or Israel.
Or even Saudi Arabia. Then ask yourself why you believe Iran is part of an
axis of evil (if you do believe that). The reality is that Iran has been
successfully demonized beyond all rational reality. Iran is even helping the
US and others fight ISIS.
All the same, US senators like Schumer and others are willing to turn on
their partys president, ready to reject a pact negotiated not just by the
US but an international coalition with a wide spectrum of interests, none of
which is a nuclear-armed Iran. Hillary Clinton endorsed the deal almost as
soon as it was announced. Sanders endorsed the deal. But when an apparent
majority of members of the DNC proposed a resolution endorsing the Iran
deal, DNC chair Wasserman Schultz barred the DNC from voting on it.
The Iranian nuclear bomb program has never been much more real than
President Obamas Kenyan citizenship, yet there are those who fervently
believe in each imaginary horror who will not be swayed by any evidence of
an actual reality. With potentially game-changing opportunities of such
vitality at home and abroad, it bodes ill for democratic values for the
Democratic Party to be so heavily influenced by people so deeply in denial.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
