Gleaning Facebook: Candidate Meet & Greet

 

Gleaning Facebook: Democratic Convention

 Paraphrasing Bernie:

This election is not about Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump, or Bernie Sanders, or gossip, or campaign tactics, (or e-mails, or whatever the media wants to talk about). It's about which candidate understands the problems and has real programs to solve them. Leadership that brings us together rather than dividing us up. Hillary Clinton will make a great president and I am proud to stand with her tonight.

Comments

Terrell

Whoops, posted before I finished... but I'm just gonna let it stand.

I love the way he talked about specific proposal after specific proposal, on and on noting that Hillary will work for that --- and that Trump won't.

CeCe Baker

Bernie gets it right.

Melissa Pyle Hamilton

Me, too!

---------

Steve Schmit: "Michelle Obama's speech was so good we may hear it at the next Republican convention."

Comments

Howard Smith FoxNews has not even reported anything about it online. I guess they won't until it is delivered at that next GOP convention.
Laura L Adams Hahahaha!
Ruth Baird Shaw Howard Smith...you are mistaken. I listened to First Lady Michele Obama's speech on Fox News!
Howard Smith Reread my most....I said "online".., it has finally been mentioned on their website.... which has gone out of its way to distort yesterday's coverage of the DNC

---------

Nicholas Kristof: "Michelle Obama gave a powerful, moving speech tonight at the Democratic Convention. "I wake up every morning in a house built by slaves," she said, referring to an arc of moral progress over the centuries. Michelle Obama came across as the anti-Trump: optimistic, positive, inclusive, upbeat, a powerful role model for all society. Whatever disagreements one may have with Barack and Michelle Obama about policies, it is hard to deny that they have been personally above reproach, fine parents, terrific role models. As Michelle put it: "When they go low, we go high"--and that marks another opposite from Trump." ------------- We have a beautiful, classy, articulate, inspiring First Lady.
Comments

John Carlin
Very inspiring.

George Barton
She was good

Melanie Collette Babb
Her speech was wonderful. Proud to call her my First Lady.

Ruth Demeter
I will have to listen to it again when I am not subbing. It was so awesome to be in the room with her.

Hilda Atkins Moore
She was indeed phenomenal...

CeCe Baker
Absolutely.

Stuart Bennett
Amen. A speech for the Ages!

-------------

Senator Tim Kaine just made his debut as Hillary Clinton's running mate. I was struck by his warmth: His genial skewering of Donald Trump, invoking humor and optimism, was a marked contrast to Trump's own bombast. That ability to destroy opponents pleasantly is a rare political art.

I Endorse Mike Burton for State Senate

Mike Burton is my close friend and the Education Candidate for the Georgia Senate, District 52. Mike says that when he and his brother and cousins would get into arguments as youngsters, his grandmother "Mama Brown" would say, "Boys, lets have a little 'sweet reason" here." And she would help them find a way to compromise and get along. Mike wants to bring some sweet reason to the Georgia Senate. It could sure use it!

Gleaning Facebook: Why We Are Democrats

From Jim Geist:

Terrell...I wrote a letter about "Why I am a Democrat." I stole most of it from you, but gave you credit. It will take 1-2 days before the northern NJ paper Suburban Trends posts it. Just google Suburban Trends April 25 Jim Geist Why I want to be Democrat. It will really piss of the R's up here...and where I live it is mostly R's. Thanks. Did you or your Dad write that post? Who is the 122 yr. old man?

My reply:

I am the 63 year old Democrat, Jim. My crack about midlife and 122 is now two years out of date!! I lost my Dad in 1986. As an ultimate gadget guy, my Dad would have loved the internet.

I'm afraid my little branch is one of only a few on the Democratic side of our family tree. And the other branches seem to have been growing farther to the right over the last couple of decades!

I am glad my essay on "Why I am a Democrat" was useful to you.

Protect and Defend

On Tuesday next, Barack Obama will place one hand on the Bible Abraham Lincoln used in 1861 and raise the other as he becomes the 43rd person (44th President -- Cleveland counts twice) to officially recite the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I have been disturbed to hear the current occupant of the White House repeatedly misstate the President's first duty. And I have heard others accept that misstatement. I have even heard Barack Obama dangerously simplify the President's duty to "protect and defend".

I certainly want the President of the United States to do all that is ethically and morally in his power to protect and defend the lives of me and those I love and all Americans. But that is NOT his first duty. His first duty is to the Constitution of the United States. I hope that if it ever came to such a choice that I would give up my life for the Constitution. Despite the horrors of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the burning of Washington, DC in 1814, or the evil murders and destruction in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New York in 2001, those events did not damage the Constitution of the United States.

Others can belittle us. Others can mock our traditions. Others can terrorize us. Others can kill us.

But only Americans can destroy our freedoms.

Very few established institutions, governments and constitutions ... are ever destroyed by their enemies until they have been corrupted and weakened by their friends.

-Walter Lippman, journalist (1889-1974)

I have no great need to rub George Bush's nose in his failures at this point. He is headed day after tomorrow for Crawford, Texas and political oblivion. Barack Obama has made it plain that he wants to heal the nation's wounds by looking forward, not back. I support him in that.

But it is also of the utmost importance that he take that oath seriously. One of the most pressing duties before him is to make clear that even the President must respect the the law. That Americans do not torture. That the last administration was in error when it put protecting against terror above protecting the Constitution.

I trust Obama to use his power in legitimate ways. But some day there will be another President. What precedent will that future President follow when our people are again victimized, as we eventually will be, by foreign evil? Will he or she be tempted to sacrifice our freedoms for physical security?

Protect and defend? Yes! By all legitimate means. But protect and defend the Constitution first.

Some Great Graphs

I was looking for a graphic on Google images. I didn't find the one I was looking for but I did run across these. I suspect they are accurate, but cannot verify them. Click on an image or link to see the original website and check them out for yourselves.

Want economic growth? Vote Democratic.

Here's an interesting graph from The Liscio Report I stumbled upon. If this graph is accurate, it looks like, at least in terms of GDP, the country has done better under Democratic presidents. Not only do the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer under Republicans, but we also produce less under the Republicans overall.





Oh what Big Spending Democrats we are!!
As is plain from the chart below, the Republicans are the real big spenders.



Drill, Drill, Drill?




Earmarks? So what!!
I share the enthusiasm to end ridiculous earmarks like the Bridge to Nowhere that McCain's VP pick tried so hard to build. But come on Mr. McCain, if you want to cut the federal budget, you gotta come up with more than that.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know: Why Did The Voters Not Figure Out Who Was The Better Candidate?

My candidate for Ohio House District 40, Vic Harris, lost. He made a good showing in his run against the party establishment and received 44% of the vote. I was taken in by the overwhelming positive feedback I was receiving from my campaigning efforts and succumbed to my own wishful thinking. I really thought Vic was going to win. So when the results started coming in, I was somewhat floored and very much disappointed. Grrr.

The previous day, a visitor to my blog at DaytonOS wrote, "I know you’re new to this whole political thing, but I’m not sure how much more ignorant about politics you can be?" Ouch. This angry writer reflected the fact that I've been stepping on some toes at the local Montgomery County Democratic Party. But, the truth is, I am pretty ignorant. By the time in early January, that Victor filed and I got involved, there were only two months in which to campaign. It is a good question as to how someone who really had expert knowledge in campaigning would have proceeded.

Campaigning is all about marketing, because the sad truth is, the majority of the voting public seem to have no motivation to educate themselves. Victor’s yard signs, in bold letters identified him as “Democrat.” When I was making my door to door effort, one person informed me that, yes, he was planning on voting for Victor, because he always votes for a Democrat. I didn’t want to change his mind by telling him that both Victor and his primary opponent, of course, were both Democrats. And anyone so fuzzy in their thinking -- who knows? -- when this Democrat got his official voting slate from the Democratic Party showing who the Democratic Party officially endorsed, he might have completely forgotten about Victor.

Almost one-third of the ballots showed a blank vote for state representative. I would not have guessed that so many voters who came through cold rain to the polling places would not even bother to vote for their state representative. My candidate, shown above with his toddler, Jack, got 8000 votes. His opponent got 10,000 votes. But there were 8000 blank votes. Who were these blank voters who didn’t care enough to vote for a state representative, and how could Victor have gotten their votes? I don’t have a clue.

And, as it turned out, there were over 2000 early voters. This year, voters could show up at the Board of Elections and vote early. This is a different category of voters than absentee voters. This early voting started about two weeks before election day and neither Victor nor I understood its importance -- and we didn't take the opportunity to actually check out what was happening at the Board of Elections. Evidently, the Party had people in place at this early voting place who distributed the slate of endorsed Democratic candidates -- showing Victor’s opponent as the officially endorsed Democratic candidate. Evidently, many of the uninformed voters simply took this recommendation. The results of early voting were skewed heavily in favor of Vic's opponent. Had Victor had someone there to distribute his literature, he, no doubt would have changed this result of early voting. I am kicking myself for being so ignorant.

Of course the things that I am most ignorant about are all those factors of which I am still ignorant. I just think there must have been a way to win this campaign. Victor so clearly was such a much better candidate -- but not enough of the voters figured that out. Victor spent $15,000. He sent out two mailings; he produced two 30 second TV commercials and each had quite a bit of air time; his wife wrote and mailed about 1000 personal notes that included the family picture. The Dayton Daily News gave him two huge endorsement editorials, plus several small ones. Like I said, I thought we were winning. What was lacking was individual campaigners like myself. The Party effectively quashed those active Democrats who might have helped and we didn’t find a way to find others in the short time of the campaign.

I am glad that I made the effort to rage against the machine and to do my part to help Victor. I think good eventually will come from it and there is reason to believe that this campaign effort will have a positive influence on the Montgomery County Democratic Party. I also think that Victor's future political career has been helped by this effort. I hope so. And, I learned a lot and pushed back my own ignorance, I think, a little.

I posted this article on DaytonOS: How Gerrymandering Defeated an Outstanding Candidate And Sent a Weak Candidate to Columbus

January 20

One year from today George Bush and his policies will be history. One of my favorite bloggers has given her take on the major Republican and Democratic candidates to replace Bush. Her opinion seems to be that we have a "paltry choice".

My take is very different.

Ignoring, for the moment, their stands on the issues that face the country, I am very impressed with the field of candidates, by and large. All seven are smart and articulate and have been seriously involved in national public policy. I do not understand why anyone would feel that the candidates are any less able, articulate, sincere, or patriotic than previous fields of candidates in our history.

On the Republican side I was very unimpressed with those who seemed contenders before Iowa. McCain was considered out of it. The lackluster Guiliani led the polls. Another son of a politician with lots of money and not much else was contending. And there was an effort to fill the social conservative void with a disinterested Fred Thompson. Then Huckabee came out of nowhere (this coincided with hiring my niece) and McCain was reborn. Now we seem left with two quality candidates (Huckabee and McCain) and two politicians on the Republican side.

As I have said for months, I believe our major Democratic candidates - Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, are brilliant. Any one of them could take office today and do very well. Even our "fringe candidates" - Kucinich and Gravel - have contributed strongly to the debate. The eight have now been winnowed down to three contenders - Edwards, Clinton, and Obama.

I have long thought that a prime factor to be considered is the candidate's comfort in his own skin. The quintessential examples of Presidents who have had that confidence, sincerity, eloquence, and calm that I call "comfort in his own skin" are Ronald Reagan for the Republicans and Bill Clinton for the Democrats. On the Republican side Huckabee comes closest to that ideal. McCain lacks the easy eloquence of Huckabee but comes off as sincere. Romney and Guiliani fail the test, partly, perhaps, because they must campaign as more conservative socially, than they probably really are. In this year’s field John Edwards and Barack Obama stand out on the Democratic side (as did Biden earlier), though I think Hillary Clinton has begun to find a more genuine voice, as well.

All of the major candidates have ample experience to perform well as President. Huckabee and Romney were governors, Guiliani ran a big city governement for many years, And McCain has had a long career in Congress. On the Democratic side Obama has the shortest experience, as a state legislator and US Senator, but makes up for it in savvy, vision and eloquence. Edwards has been dealing with national issues through a term in the US Senate and two campaigns for President. Hillary Clinton has been in the thick of national issues during seven years as US Senator and as a partner to Bill Clinton during his service to Arkansas and to the nation.

None of the candidates is a lightweight. They all strike me as serious folk. All seem sincere patriots who will take the oath of office as a sacred trust. I have some reservation about Romney and Guiliani who seem a bit slippery to me -- Guiliani downright dangerous.

Unfortunately we are in a time when sincerity and patriotism are not enough. We need an inspiring leader who is willing to correct the mistakes of the past eight years while putting together a concensus that can make us one country again. I realize , of course, that no one can please the hateful Limbaughs or Coulters, but I believe the right candidate can unite a majority of us. Someone who will stand on principle but who will also be willing to reach across the aisle and compromise.

I have been an Edwards supporter since 2003, but I am excited at the prospect of either of the other two as our nominee, as well. I find Huckabee and McCain very likable but wrong on the issues. Romney and Guiliani are not likable to me, for whatever that’s worth.

Here's a rundown --

Edwards
Articulate, right on the issues, inspiring speaker, sincere, has been vetted through a national campaign. brilliant mind, strong vision for the future. He has the most completely delineated platform of any candidate. He is a committed husband and father. Unfortunately for us and for him the press decided to ignore him some time ago. Should he manage to pull out a victory in South Carolina, the press would barely mention him but instead blather about Clinton's loss and Obama would be declared the winner even if he were third, because of Clinton's loss. After all, when she won New Hampshire they had to talk about the fact that a majority voted "against" her even though a larger majority voted "against" each of the other candidates -- I suspect a majority of Democrats are like me and will be solidly behind the eventual nominee. I'm sticking with John Edwards through South Carolina, then I'll re-evaluate the situation before we in Georgia vote on February 5.

Clinton
Articulate, right on the issues, good speaker and getting better, unique experience as the partner of a wonderful president, a history of working “across the aisle”, brilliant mind, inspiring as the first woman with a serious shot at the White House. Cannot be further damaged by the Republican swift-boaters. I was intriged by her autobiography. She is about my age and shares much of my history as a baby-boomer and a reformed Republican. We were both greatly influenced by our experiences in Methodist Youth Fellowship. The cold calculation she is accused of in some quarters is simply an invention of the Republican smear machine. As an aspiring professional in the 70s, she had to have a formal exterior. Her dedication to her beliefs is evident and illustrated by her dedication to her marriage.

Obama
Beyond articulate - eloquent, right on the issues, a history of working “across the aisle”, brilliant mind, inspiring as the first black with a serious shot at the White House. He would represent a “passing of the torch” His supposed inexperience does not bother me. Our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, was less experienced. Like Obama he gained his experience in political debate. And like Lincoln, Obama is a poetic and inspiring orator.

Huckabee
Articulate, sincere, had the good sense to hire my brilliant niece as a close aide. BUT... has a crazy, dangerous, disastrous, plan to shift the greatest tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class via the so-called “fair tax”. Wrong on virtually all the issues: anti-choice, pro-constitutional amendments on marriage and abortion, would appoint more Alito/Scalia type justices, no sign he would extract us from Iraq. I won't hold the worst-five-o’clock-shadow-since-Nixon against him, but if I were Charmaine I'd give him an electric razor to use whenever the cameras are pointed the other way!

McCain
Less eloquent but sincere, dislikes Bush about as much as Democrats do, history of reaching across the aisle and treating opponents with respect. Gary Hart and Bill Cohen were his groomsmen.
BUT... is VERY conservative on almost all issues, something of a hothead, a war hawk, likely to appoint right wing judges. A record of infidelity in marriage.*

Romney
Articulate, slick, well-coifed, strong family values, BUT...
a Mormon (Yes, I know, I’m prejudiced. But a serious Mormon has to reject recorded history). A record of big changes of mind - admirably openminded or shamefully wishy-washy or crassly poll-driven, you pick.

Guiliani
It is hard for me to see any thing good about Guiliani, but I’ll try: he is pro-choice.
BUT... he would be the closest thing to a continuation of the present administration. The Bill of Rights would continue under attack, the country’s reputation would continue to be smeared, we could expect to see more cowboy adventures. A record of blatent infidelity in marriage.*

I think it is good for our democracy in 2008 that we have a strong field of candidates for both parties' nominations and that the nominations are not a foregone conclusion after Iowa and New Hampshire but instead we have a real competitive race. The candidates are having to defend their policies and positions to a big hunk of the country. There have been a LOT of "debates" and though they haven't matched the Lincoln-Douglas debates in depth or style, in the aggregate, they have given those paying attention a pretty good look at these guys.

May the best candidate win in each party.

And, please, may the Democrat win in November.


------

* I mention this personal failing only because some Republicans actually hold the infidelity of Hillary Clinton’s husband against HER, the one who stood by her husband and worked to save her marriage. Two of the major Republican candidates had notorious affairs and ditched assorted wives.

Montgomery County Democrats Vote to Suppress Democracy -- Just Like The Republicans

Big meeting last night at the Montgomery County Democratic Party’s headquarters in downtown Dayton. The party endorsed primary candidates for the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate. At a previous meeting, my motion to discontinue the practice of making early endorsements was soundly defeated, so this action by the party last night, though depressing, was not surprising.

I’m sort of a newcomer to all this -- I was elected to the Central Committee in 2006 -- I’ve had a lot to learn about how the party actually works. I’m learning that the Selection Committee is the key committee of the county party organization. All of the key people in the party are members of the Selection Committee and it is this committee that actually chooses candidates to be endorsed. I’ve never seen any decision by the Selection Committee be overturned.

At every monthly meeting, the Executive Committee meets at 7:00 PM and reviews the evening’s agenda and, by vote, makes specific recommendations to the Central Committee which meets at 7:30 PM. The Central Committee, the official legislative body of the group, always agrees with the Executive Committee. It is an organizational structure that would have pleased Joe Stalin, because control of important decisions is condensed to only a few people. And of those few people, one person, the chairperson, usually has disproportionate power.

At the Executive Committee Meeting, I repeated a motion that had been defeated at our previous meeting in October. I moved that the endorsements for primary candidates be delayed one month until the January meeting so that the endorsements would be made after the filing deadline for primary candidates, which is January 4.

My argument to the Executive Committee to delay endorsement was the same as before -- when, at the previous meeting, it was defeated. I knew it was too late to change the inevitable, but I felt it important to present a dissenting view. I said that the Democratic Party should take no actions that would give the appearance that it in any way wanted to suppress democracy. I reminded the group that the Republican Party had made endorsements in July and had been roundly ridiculed for their antidemocratic action by the Dayton Daily News in an editorial illustrated by noted cartoonist, Mike Peters. (I made a post on The Limb in July, “Montgomery County Republicans Take Action That Effectively Suppresses Grassroots Democracy,” that told of this action.)

I said that the hallmark of the Democratic Party should be the fact that we are the party of the people, that we are the party of democracy, and that waiting another month to make endorsements would probably not impact who the endorsed candidate would be anyway.

My argument would have made a lot of sense if, in fact, endorsement was the issue. But endorsement is not the issue. The reason the Executive Committee would not delay its endorsements until our next meeting is the fact that the central issue is not who to endorse. The central issue is how to suppress the primary process. If endorsement was delayed until after the filing deadline then all interested candidates would have necessarily already filed and their names would necessarily already be printed on the primary ballot. As it is, even though some would-be candidates have already circulated petitions, because of the party’s action last night, most un-endorsed candidates simply will not return their petitions and will simply not make an effort to run as an un-endorsed primary candidate.

In discussion during the Executive Meeting, the Democratic chairman made clear that the whole point of the endorsement process is not the endorsement itself. The main point is to discourage competition so that, hopefully, only one Democrat will appear for each office on the Democratic primary ballot that will be held in March. The idea is to save resources for the general election.

I said that I felt strongly that taking such action to suppress primary activity was against the values that most Democrats believe in, and that if we were to act as a representative body we needed to take those actions that would represent the values of most Democrats. I said I was trying to speak up for -- as Dean had said -- “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”

After all, most of the Executive Committee members attending the meeting are also members of the Selection Committee and were involved in making the endorsement choices. Of course, my motion went nowhere; there were several tepid “Ayes” voting with me and a roaring “No” voting to reject.

"You have to decide..."

Several times since the Republican misadventure in Iraq turned sour, I have been told by a few defenders of the decision to invade that "even Bill Clinton believed Saddam had WMD". These folks seem to think that means he also supported the invasion.

I have known that was not true. I am glad, now, to be able to give chapter and verse. A transcript of President Clinton's remarks of March 14, 2003 -- less than a week before the invasion -- has been posted at the Hillary Clinton website. Here are some excerpts:

"... you have to decide if it matters whether we bend over backwards to try to disarm him in a way that strengthens rather than divides the world community. If you don’t think it matters, then you’re with a lot of the people in the current administration...

[Saddam]'s finally destroying his missiles, so let’s give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. ... I’m for regime change too, but there’s more than one way to do it. We don’t invade everybody whose regime we want to change..."

I, like President Clinton, believed President Bush was acting foolishly in the months leading up to March of 2003. I was quite vociferous about that, despite the ridicule of a whole gaggle of my Republican friends. I saw an administration hyping the case for preemptive war. They may have believed some of what they said about WMD, but they blatently hyped it. They knew Saddam was not an immediate threat to the US and they knew Saddam was unconnected to the terrorist attacks of 2001 (and never SAID he was, as they are quick to point out) but blatently lied about the first and actively promoted the second impression, and those misconceptions became majority assumptions in the US. The Machiavellian neo-cons viewed war as an exercise of the unique power of the world's only remaining superpower. It was an opportunity, the neo-cons seemed to think, that the US should not pass up. From slimy politics, to slippery slope, to free fall.

What a different and better world this would be today if the election of 2000 had not been compromised.

What a difference it will make for our country if in 2008 we can elect a statesman (or woman) to repair the tragic mistakes of the Republicans. I will be thrilled to support Edwards, Biden, Clinton, Obama, or Dodd.

Assurances

Well, once again the presidency - even when the current one is the lamest of ducks - has demostrated its inherant power in our system. At least with a Democratic majority, tiny though it is, the rubber stamp responses are delayed slightly.

Perhaps it is better to have Mukasey at the Justice Department than to have Bush's recess appointment, whoever that might be. Schumer, Fienstein, McCain, Snowe and others seem to think they have assurances that the torture has stopped or will stop when Mukasey is in place. I am not assured, but I am hopeful. And as Sen. Fienstein says, at least he's not Alberto.

Still, my Republican friends, your Mr. Bush continues to drag our nation's reputation through the muck. There is no legitimate reason for our President and his appointees to refuse to call torture torture. By seeming to countenance torture as legitimate "interrogation technique" he defames our country, supplies our enemies with gasoline to pour on the flames of anti-Americanism, and endangers our soldiers. It seems obvious to me that the reason must be that this President is quilty of okaying torture and wants cover through redefinition of the term. This is nothing new, of course, tyrants have used such ruses throughout history.

Oh, well, in 443 days, perhaps, the recovery can begin.


Later Note: S.W. Anderson at Oh!Pinion has some good posts on this topic.

Psst, Judge! Waterboarding is torture.

Illustration taken from Wikipedia. A drawing of torture in Cambodia.

Get a clue, Judge. Waterboarding is torture.

The Geneva Conventions say waterboarding is torture.

Our immoral vice president may not care, but waterboarding is torture.

If you cannot admit that pouring water over a captive's gagged mouth and covered face until he is convinced his death is imminent is torture, you are either too stupid or too evil to be Attorney General of the United States. Waterboarding is torture.

Olympia Snowe knows. John McCain knows. John Warner Knows. Lindsey Graham knows. I know. You, Judge Michael Mukasey, know. Waterboarding is torture.

Say it or do not become Attorney General. Waterboarding is torture.

This was America. We will make it America again. We will not allow the hoodlums in this administration any more leeway to tear down America. Waterboarding is torture, you incredible jerk. Waterboarding is torture.

America does not approve torture. Waterboarding is torture.

It is not about who they are. It is about who we are. Waterboarding is torture.

The Mission of the Democratic Party Should Be to Empower Democracy

This is a re-write of a paper that I presented to the Executive Committee of the Montgomery County Democratic Party at their October meeting, October 25.

Ralph Nader once said the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are like Pepsi and Coke -- two marketing brands, both selling basically the same product.

The mission of Pepsi Cola is to sell Pepsi Cola, to increase shareholder value. The mission of the Republican Party is pretty much the same. Both the Pepsi Co and the Republican Party have a product to sell; both, in fact, have been pretty successful at selling their product. Pepsi has spent many millions of dollars over the years on marketing. The Republican Party has done the same. And, amazingly, Republican marketing wizards, like Carl Rove, have succeeded in advancing a weak product to dizzying heights -- regardless that the product, in fact, is absolutely harmful to and against the financial interests of 85% of its customers. Republican marketing has been amazing.

What Nader is saying, to me, in his Pepsi/Coke put-down of political parties, is that, as he sees it, the mission of the Democratic Party and the mission of the Republican Party are the same. Both are trying to sell a product, both are centered on marketing.

It is important, I feel, that we define what the mission of the Democratic Party, in fact, really is. I don’t think our mission is to be an advocacy group focused on certain issues. If so, then, again we would simply be all about marketing.

I believe our mission is to promote and empower democracy. If we could actually fulfill such a mission -- by educating the public, by empowering opportunities for political participation, by creating community -- then, of course, Democrats would win elections in droves. Having Democrats win elections in droves, in such a case, would be a byproduct of accomplishing our mission, not the point of the mission.

Having Democrats win in droves is not the point. The point is to solve problems, the point is to make government effective so that there is an increase in justice, fairness and prosperity for everyone. Our firm belief is that vigorous democracy offers the best means to solve societal problems, and that through vigorous democracy we find the best leadership. Our democracy, however, is far from vigorous. And the weak state of our democracy is what is bringing disaster us. As a Political Party, we have a unique responsibility to work to make our democracy effective.

So, if Republicans manage to infuriate sufficient voters so that Democrats take firm control. Then what? Electing Democrats is hardly the answer if we are simply electing Republicans in Democratic clothing. Electing Democrats is hardly the answer if we are not electing effective and wise individuals.

What is ever more evident is that our nation is in peril. We are not producing a leadership that has the wisdom and passion needed to articulate solutions. Our failure to form effective government, at heart, stems from the fact that our democracy simply is not working as it should. In a democracy, the hope is that the cream rises, that the best and most enlightened among us rise to the positions of leadership. But, in our democracy, this simply is not happening.

The mission of the Democratic Party should be to empower democracy, because, it is only through an empowered democracy that we, as a nation, can hope to find our way, that we can hope to generate the needed societal cohesion, that we can hope to help the best ideas and the best leadership to emerge. It is only through an empowered democracy, I believe, that we have the chance to secure for ourselves and our grandchildren a good future.

In my opinion article, “The Big Questions Facing Our Democracy Are Too Important To Allow Political Parties to Decide,” I tell about the July 27 Dayton Daily News article that sorely criticized the Montgomery County Republican Party for its blatant suppression of democracy via an early primary candidate endorsement process. The Dayton Daily included a slap at the Montgomery County Democratic Party, saying that the Democratic Party, in its suppressing of democracy, acts the same as the Republican Party.

We need to do everything in our power to dispel the notion that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the same. We should take no actions that would discourage individuals from fully participating in their democracy. Making recommendations/endorsements of primary candidates prior to the deadline for filing is rightly condemned by The Dayton Daily News.

Our opportunity is to distinguish ourselves from the Republicans and I ask for a second to this motion:

Prior to the deadline for the filing of candidate's petitions, January 4, 2008, the Montgomery County Democratic Party shall make no official recommendations / endorsements concerning primary candidates for the offices of State Representative or State Senator.

In both the Executive Committee and the Central Committee there were seconds to this motion and good discussion. The motion was defeated by a vote of two to one against.

The Big Questions Facing Our Democracy Are Too Important To Allow Political Parties to Decide

I also posted this article on a local Dayton blog called Dayton OS

The biggest questions our representative democracy must answer are: Who should we choose to legislate for us? Who should be our leaders? Political parties should empower our democracy to effectively answer these big questions, but empowering democracy is simply not the focus of political parties.

The force driving political parties is a passion to win, not a passion to advance democracy, not even a passion to solve problems. The July 27 edition of the Dayton Daily News, gives a telling example of how political parties often operate. The newspaper reported that the Montgomery County Republican Party met to anoint Republican primary candidates for the Ohio House, particularly primary candidates in the three Montgomery County House Districts that, because of gerrymandering, regularly vote Republican. The paper reported that, for the 38th Ohio House District, Terry Blair was chosen as the Republican primary candidate by a vote of 25 to 21.

The Dayton Daily News stated confidently that the choice of these 25 voters would be final and that Blair, in fact, ultimately would be the new State Representative for the 38th District. The newspaper cited the following reasons why Blair would be elected: 1) Republican voters will follow the Party’s dictates 2) The Republican Party will successfully suppress any primary competition , and 3) In the 38th District, because of gerrymandering, Republicans always win. So, according to the newspaper, if you are one of the 110,000 voters in the 38th District, your next Ohio House Representative has already been selected, not by a majority of the voters in the District, but, by 25 District Republicans.

The newspaper in the article decried the actions of the Montgomery County Republican Party as undemocratic, but the newspaper took the opportunity to criticize the Montgomery County Democratic Party also, saying that The Montgomery County Democratic Party, when given the opportunity, does the same thing.

The newspaper said that in Montgomery County both political parties, historically, have adhered to a strategy of suppressing primary battles as a means of conserving resources, and as a way of uniting the party, and, that both parties feel that this anti-democratic strategy increases their chances of winning more elections. However, this year The Montgomery County Democratic Party has not yet endorsed any Ohio House Democratic Primary candidates, and, hopefully, Montgomery County Democrats, under the leadership of the new chairperson, Mark Owens, will carefully examine its endorsement practices before making any endorsements at all.

It is all about winning. Political parties are focused on winning, and I hear ordinary people rooting for political parties as if they were rooting for a sports team — expressing the same kind of happy mindlessness. It’s like, Wow! My team (the Democrats) have been down for some time, but now it looks like now team will come roaring back. It looks like we will win – particularly, if our team can do the work that it takes to win — if we do enough door to door canvassing, raise enough money for TV ads to “sell our message,” and, importantly, if we can Get Out the Vote (GOTV).

But regardless of the Rah-Rah-Rah and hard work of either “team,” many potential voters are unimpressed with the whole political process, and simply have stopped voting. It is easy to understand why. Many nonvoters feel that the system is so broken that their vote is worthless. Many resent the hype and the lies. Many individuals who do vote do so grudgingly, convinced they are cheated by a system that, in their view, regularly fails to provide good candidates / good ideas.

What must be acknowledged is that our democracy is in trouble. The Catholic Church operates on the doctrine of divine revelation and ecclesiastical authority. For these reasons, according to church law, only a small handful are empowered to select the Pope. Members of the Church do not pretend that the Church operates democratically. But citizens in the 38th District, in fact, will be pretending, fooling themselves, if they believe that their District operates democratically — if they acquiesce to a system that allows a partisan group of 25 dictate to them who their representative will be.

The hope of an effective democracy is that wise and good leadership will bubble up, that the cream will rise. The point of a democracy is that citizens, if given the chance, have wisdom to make good choices. But, the truth is, our closed media and our closed political processes make it difficult for ordinary citizens to meaningfully participate in their own democracy. At a time when our society badly needs wise leadership and badly needs an infusion of good ideas for improvement, our system is failing us.

Increasingly, I believe, voters are coming to the conclusion that the big questions facing our democracy are too important to allow political parties to decide, and, because of this conclusion, increasingly, voters will choose to align themselves with the political party that through its actions best advances democratic ideals.

Midweek Classic - 2/06: Why I am a Democrat

This is my first Midweek Classic Post. Mid-week is a tough time to come up with a post -- and keep my job. And I'd like to have a chance to repost a few of my early posts that got even less readership than current posts. So how about a rerun.

This was first posted on St. Valentine's Day in 2006.
It still applies.

Still Democratic After All These Years

My party is held in a big tent with no burly security guards at the flap. I am a Democrat because my party looks like America. It is not crowded with one race, ethnic group, religion, etc. You don't need an expensive ticket to get in. Everyone's invited. There are some there I won't ask to dance. There are some who are a little too wild for my tastes. There are some who dance with Democrats but, you can tell, are really just slumming: they'll sip champagne with the fat cats next week. There are some who begin as the life of the party but end up hogging the hors d'oeuvres or even robbing the cloakroom... er, the table in the corner piled with coats and purses. But I find the revelers here, in general, more congenial to my beliefs and inclinations than those corvorting at the country clubs. And ours are much better dancers.

Admittedly, I have some negative reasons for my party choice. I am a Democrat because I believe there are, among the other guys, more politicians who are rotten guys. McCarthy, Atwater, Schlafly, Limbaugh, Nixon, Agnew, Bush, Cheney, Starr, Rove, Ashcroft, Coulter, Robertson, Chambliss, Delay, Falwell. Those who look to the worst in human nature. Those who are greedy and arrogant. Those who see themselves as intellectually superior and therefore more deserving. Those who think that those worse off than themselves are deservedly so. Those who are dismissive of, unconcerned for, arrogant toward people of lesser wealth, lesser ability, lesser intelligence. Those who have little or no respect for honest laborers. Those who trust the free enterprise system to cure all ills. Those who demand self-sufficiency from the poor but welcome government perks themselves. There are, of course, many at the other party who do not fit those negative stereotypes.

My choice is primarily a positive one, though. I am a Democrat because I believe my party has, over the the years, most closely supported my political ideals: civil rights and equality of rights, collective stewardship of the environment, strong public schools, separation of church and state, a role for the government in promoting the general welfare of all its citizens, a strong, sensible, diplomatic foreign policy.

I am a Democrat because, as I review my life, I find that my votes have proven right much more often than not. My party adopted the civil rights movement that is accepted as the correct position by almost everyone now, even some who fought it tooth and nail 40 years ago. It was primarily members of my party who led opposition to the Vietnam war and virtually all Americans eventually came to see that war as the mistake that it was. Democrats saw Richard Nixon for the fraud he was when he was the darling of the Republicans. My party opposed Ronald Reagan’s economic policies and those policies nearly bankrupted our nation. Many in my party told America that George W. Bush was the blustering little bully he has turned out to be. They told America his policies would divide us, derail our economy, lose us our allies, and make the world a more dangerous place. They were right.

I am a Democrat because I revere so many of our party leaders of the past and present: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, Jackson (blemished though he was), Cleveland, Wilson (warts and all), FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, Truman, Stevenson, Marshall,
Humphrey, JFK, LBJ, (despite Vietnam)

Russell (warts and all),

Ellis Arnall,

Charles Weltner, Fulbright, Scoop Jackson, Robert Byrd, John Lewis, RFK,
McGovern, Nunn, Carter,
Andrew Young, Christopher, Mondale,
Wyche Fowler, Kerry,
Al Gore, Bill Clinton (warts and all),
Hillary Clinton, Allbright,
John Edwards,
Obama, Warner,
Bayh, Bo Ginn
(despite the mistakes of his last years),
Rockefeller, Cleland,

Buddy Childers,
Mildred Greear...

Not that our Democratic heroes don’t have faults. We have our share of charlatans and lechers. But in general I prefer our flaws to those of the opposition. I recognized Bill Clinton as the blemished genius he is. I was not surprised that he disappointed us in his personal life (he is a member of the sexually undisciplined baby boom), but his public decisions and appointments were right on target. It seems that, in our history, those who make the most show of public piety often turn out to be rats, while those who acknowledge their sinful natures often have the most saintly public records. I’ll take Cleveland over Blaine. And I’ll take the lustful Clinton over the surface piety of Bush any day.

It seems to me that our forefathers understood that it is perfectly legitimate for us to covenant together as a society to do things for the common welfare. My party understands that. These days it is in our interest as a nation for all our citizens have good opportunities for education and good medical care. We need to have opera, art, folk music, storytelling, serious and civilized radio and TV discussion: none of which will survive a “free-market” that prefers sentimental, or sexy, or “reality”, or flamboyant programming. It is important to have a reasonably intact passenger rail capability, even if the market won’t support it in the short term. It is in our national interest that big business be regulated; that laborers receive a fair wage; that the difference between the rich and the poor not be so extreme that it foments hatred and revolution. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet deserve to make good profits from their hard work, and smart investments and should not be so severely taxed that they do not want to keep building the economy; but no one “deserves” the money those guys make as long as poverty exists in the world. A progressive tax is NOT unfair to those of us in the top twenty percent of the household income scale. We are incredibly fortunate to have been born with the brains, energy, health, sanity, emotional stability, connections, and luck to have climbed over more than 80% of the population.

I chose my party carefully and I have never been sorry for the choice. The choice has never been clearer. It is the right one for me. I am clearly, proudly, plainly, undeniably, comfortably, to my yellow-dog marrow, a Democrat.

Postscript:
I would argue that most, if not all, the views I have expressed are majority opinions in the United States. On the Liberal Quotient scale, I couldn't be more than one standard deviation above the norm. Maybe a 115 L.Q. or so. (I realize that there are those among my readers who would prefer to express this as 85 C.Q.) Therefore I will continue to lay claim to the label of moderate. I have liberal friends whom I admire, and there is no disgrace in that label, but I don’t think I qualify for it. But I’ll save that discussion for another post. By the way, here is the thesaurus's take on "liberal". So if liberal is the label you, dear reader, want me to don, I'll wear it with pride.

America is awakening.

Here's something to warm the heart of this good ol' boy. Even here in Georgia -- the state that elected a fellow named Saxby Chambliss to the US Senate after he executed one of the sleasiest campaigns of modern history; that in 2004 gave its electoral college votes to the worst president of my lifetime; even here, the Republican in the White House has lost majority support. Check out this graph from SurveyUSA:

If an election were held today -- oh, if only! -- the current occupant of the White House could expect to receive the electoral votes of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

Now, we Democrats have to move wisely, to help the country recover from the division of the Bush years. We must be principled in the right, but also realize that when we are elected we serve the whole people. And, if we manage to take back the Presidency and build majorities large enough to be effective in Congress, we still will not be able to wave a magic wand to cure the evils of Republican ascendancy. We will need to be deliberate and unequivical, but measured in redeploying our military, rebuilding alliances, squelching terrorists, reordering our enviromental standards, bolstering the national infrastructure, strengthening our educational system, extending health coverage, etc. To the greatest degree ethically possible, we need to work in a bipartisan way. The American people are sick and tired of the mean-spirited partisanship.

And there will eventually, almost certainly, be another terrorist attack, maybe worse than before, whether a Democratic President is elected in 2008 or not. We must be ready to welcome all Americans to join in the the recovery and NOT use it to divide the country the way Bush did. Our President must be ready to inspire the country to stand up to the terrorists AND preserve our institutions and principles. Never has it been more important to have a President who can inspire. And we will need a President who can stand firm under pressure to give up our principles in the face of terror. I hope and believe Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, or Obama could be the Churchill we will need to solicit "blood, sweat, toil, and tears" of an anquished nation.

As galling as it may be to have to deal with a Chambliss or a Thune, who dealt us such painful losses, or a Lieberman, who is so wrong on the war, Democrats must put the country ahead of power and party.

Madame President?

If there is still, under some rock in Wyoming perhaps, a Neanderthal who would object to a candidate for President simply on the grounds of her sex, surely Hillary Clinton has answered their objections. Though I have leaned toward John Edwards, I must admit that Hillary Clinton captured the debate tonight. She was direct, confident, comfortable, reasonable, clear, grounded -- everything that the current Resident is not.

Joe Biden seemed very "Presidential", as well. I'll bet he gets a little bump.

I would enthusiastically campaign for any of these candidates, except the bookends Kucinich and Gravel. What a wealth of quality candidates we have -- Dodd, Richardson, Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Obama. When you compare these to lightweight Republican frontrunners Rudy and Fred I feel good obout our chances.

Montgomery County Republicans Take Action That Effectively Suppresses Grassroots Democracy

This Mike Peters cartoon popped up yesterday, accompanying a Dayton Daily News editorial entitled: "Next legislators being chosen awfully early." This cartoon is a response to the Montgomery County Republican Party's decision to make early endorsements for Republican candidates for the Ohio House of Representatives. The editorial accompanying the cartoon takes a swipe at both the Republican and the Democratic Parties.

In Montgomery County there are five Ohio House districts, heavily gerrymandered by Republicans so that three of the five districts vote Republican and two of the five districts vote Democratic. Because of Ohio's term limit law, each of the Montgomery County Ohio House Republican incumbents are prohibited from seeking re-election to the Ohio House. So each of the three Republican House districts are "open districts" in 2008. But rather than encourage wide spread discussion and competition, even among the Republican base, as an exercise in democracy, the Montgomery County Republican Party is doing everything possible to suppress grassroots' competition and discussion. The editorial says:

The leadership of the Republican Party -- at both the local and state levels -- is doing everything possible to avoid primaries, on the grounds that intra-party contests sap resources from the general election. ... This will give the party leadership the opportunity to encourage the candidates who aren't endorsed to seek other, lower offices and it will discourage contributors from giving money to people who aren't going to be campaigning with the party's blessing. ...
Setting aside the timing of the party meetings, the Republicans aren't proceeding in a noticeably different way than the Democrats would. The Democrats , too, have districts that they dominate. (The are actually more dominant in them, because the Republican map-drawers have tried to concentrate Democratic voters in as few districts as possible.) And the party typically picks its own candidates and gets them nominated and elected easily.

This cartoon and editorial give light to some of the ideas in my blog, "The mission of the Democratic Party Should Be: to Make Our Representative Democracy Effective." I wrote: "Both parties believe that their mission is to win elections, and both parties, in pursuit of this mission, advance strategies that cumulatively are harmful to our democracy."

A Democratic Mission

(This started as a comment to Mike's post below. But I got to rambling, and decided to let this stand on its own assorted appendages.)

Thanks to Mike, for his thought-provoking posts on invigorating the grassroots. The Montgomery County Democratic Party is lucky to have someone so dedicated to that project.

“The mission of the Democratic Party is to make our representative democracy effective.”

seems not quite enough for me. My Libertarian and Republican friends would certainly agree with that goal, officially at least. "Effective" for a Libertarian would mean something very different from what it means to me, however.

But Mike is definitely on the right track for a “Mission Statement” for the Democratic Party.

Maybe it would be enough pragmatism to satisfy me to edit your statement as follows:

“The mission of the Democratic Party is to elect candidates who will work to make our representative democracy more effective.”

I don't see how a major political party can pretend that their primary goal is other than to put in office those who agree with basic party principles. As I see it the Democratic Party is that group of citizens more ready to covenant together (representative democracy) for the common good. We believe that government, the people’s servant, can be harnessed for that general welfare.

And, let's face it, too much exactitude of mission and you may have an interest group, a caucus, or a minor party rather than a major political party in America.

When it comes down to it there will always be a tension between the idealists and the pragmatists. Every vote I have ever made, with the exception of my votes for Terrell Shaw, have been for someone with whom I disagreed to some extent. I have some close friends who chose in 2000 to support Ralph Nader! A principled vote? Definitely. From their point of view Ralph Nader was a better candidate than Al Gore or George Bush. Was theirs the right vote for someone who cares about the environment, civil rights, or a diplomatic foreign policy? Absolutely not.

Who wins matters. There comes a time to choose the lesser of the two imperfections -- the two with reasonable shots at election.

Yes, I want the Democratic Party to encourage participation from anyone willing to be involved. Yes, I want us to make representative democracy as effective as we can. But I also want to defeat Republicans and elect Democrats, because, over the course of my life I have seen that, for all its warts, the Democratic Party has served America better. And I really want that to happen in 2008. One more companion for Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy may set the Court in right-wing concrete for the rest of my life and greatly endanger the America we leave to my daughters.

I have a good friend who was for many years the best public servant I have ever known. In his early political career he was a very principled maverick. He was often at odds with the party leadership. Later he decided to become a part of the leadership. He had to compromise. He had, he says, absolute freedom to propose, discuss, even rant and disagree, up till the collective leadership made a decision, then if he was to continue in leadership he had to go along with most of the leadership decisions. He felt he was more effective in influencing legislation as a part of leadership than as the unbending maverick even though he had to take a lot of grief from friends like me sometimes.

I believe we need the mavericks. The Jesse Jacksons, Dennis Kuciniches, even Ralph Naders, Pat Robertsons, Ross Perots, Henry Wallaces, Libertarians, Mugwumps, Bull Mooses, Populists, etc. are important to the dialog. And their ideas that gain traction may become parts of major party platforms. But we also need the pragmatists.

After reading your words I searched for the 2004 party platform. As far as I know, that quadriennial statement of principle is the closest thing we have to an official statement of mission for the party.

Here are the closing words of the 2004 platform:

We pledge to stand up for our beliefs and rally Americans to our cause. But we recognize that disagreements will remain, and we believe disagreement should not mean disrespect. Members of our party have deeply held and differing views on some matters of conscience and faith. We view diversity of views as a source of strength, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who seek to build a stronger America. We are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect.
That's the America we believe in.

Somewhere in there, I suppose, is a goal of effective representative democracy.

How about the Preamble as a basis for our mission statement?

The mission of the Democratic Party of America is to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Still, the other guys, and each of us, for that matter, will read somewhat different meaning in these words. And any words must be followed by real implementation to be more than platitudes.

I have rambled too much and should edit this mightily, but I gotta quit for now.

The Mission of The Democratic Party Should Be: To Make Our Representative Democracy Effective

This is a response to comments I received from my blog: “The State of the Grassroots is Deplorable and our Political Parties Share the Blame”

Actions come from beliefs, and flawed beliefs are often the source of flawed actions. Our democracy is in deep trouble because of the actions of both political parties, and, I believe that this trouble comes from a flawed central belief held by both parties.

Both parties believe that their mission is to win elections. This belief, in my judgment, is flawed, and, from this belief has come many flawed actions by both parties. Winning is all about marketing and, so, candidates have become commodities to be marketed. Both parties advance marketing strategies that cumulatively are harmful to our democracy. These strategies include: pushing and fomenting issues that have “traction,” regardless of their merit, sliming opponents, advancing half-truths and outright lies, and distorting the election process to gain partisan advantage. I don’t see much concern in either party, for example, that 90% of US House seats are “safe.” Both parties are eager to gerrymand.

Most organizations have a mission statement that briefly describes the organization’s purpose. Mary Kay’s mission is: “To give unlimited opportunity to women.” Merck’s mission is: “To preserve and improve human life.” Disney’s mission is: “To make people happy.” Google’s is: "Organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." These companies have found that their key to making money has been to focus on fulfilling a customer centered purpose, and that the more they fulfill that purpose the more money that they make. If these companies had become stuck on a false belief, “Our mission is to make money,” they would probably not have achieved their financial successes.

As I said, it seems to me that our democracy is in trouble because our political parties operate on the belief that their mission is to win elections. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party, on a national level, however, have an actual mission statement. This omission is surprising because it seems that every organization. anymore, has one. Maybe the omission of the mission statement means that the mission is self evident, the mission is to win, just as it is self evident what that the mission of a pro ball team is. Only a few state party organizations have a mission statement. The few I found are like Oklahoma’s: “The mission of the Oklahoma Democratic Party is to elect Democrats.”

The Democratic Party does venture a statement that its web-site calls, “The Democratic Vision”

The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

This “vision,” it seems to me, is mere sloganeering without substance. It’s nice that the Democratic Party is “committed” to keeping our nation safe, but, what in the world could that possibly mean? What is the Democratic Party going to do about the nation's safety? What could it do? Has it ever disciplined one of its elected members because it deemed that the member’s efforts in meeting this important commitment was insufficient? Of course not. Does the party ever evaluate itself as to how well it is meeting this commitment or does it have a process or method to measure how it is doing in meeting this commitment? Of course not. Everyone understands that these sort of "vision" statements are for public relations and have little impact on the way the Democratic Party actually operates.

The Democratic “vision” seems to say that the Democratic Party’s mission is to advance a specific agenda. It is wrong thinking, I believe, to say that the mission of the Democratic Party is to advance an agenda -- of national health care, or whatever. The mission, I believe, is to make representative democracy effective; and as representative democracy becomes more effective, then national health care will result, and many unexpected blessings as well. The point is, if the clear will of a majority of voters became empowered through this democracy, then many good ideas would necessarily become reality.

The parties spend millions to market and influence voters, guided by the purpose to win. A party that pursued a higher mission than simply winning, I believe, would allocate money for other purposes. The Democratic Party, I believe, should articulate a mission centered on advancing democracy. Its mission statement should be something like: “The mission of the Democratic Party is to make our representative democracy effective.” Pursuing a mission to make representative democracy effective, it seems to me, would involve investing in structures to meaningfully engage, educate, and empower the grassroots.

When the goal is to win, yes, it is hard sometimes to make the sale, “to break through apathy, inertia, and petty motivations to fire up the grassroots.” But if the goal is to empower, to give a voice, the attitude of the grassroots would change. The Democratic Party needs a customer centered purpose that is a useful and meaningful guide to the Party's behavior, and is not simply sloganeering. I believe that it makes sense that this guiding purpose should be all about advancing democracy. As a party, we need to abandon the false belief that we should be guided by the mission that says winning is everything. And, if we are guided by a mission to advance participatory democracy, in the long run, I believe, in fact, we will win. How could it be otherwise?