Heidi Li's Potpourri

February 15, 2009 - reminder to update your bookmarks

2009-02-15T20:24:00.002-05:00

Please remember the new URL for Heidi Li's Potpourri: http://heidilipotpourri. New entries added daily or every other day.

Heidi Li's Potpourri

2009-02-08T12:33:00.000-05:00

As visitors to this first home of Heidi Li's Potpourri will have noticed, it has become unwieldy to update here even sporadically. For those interested in reading Heidi Li's Potpourri, please change your bookmarks to the new url:

http://heidilipotpourri.com

New materials at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0 and at 51 Percent

2009-01-08T01:53:00.002-05:00

The latest at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri:

Reject trusteeship, forget about "normal politics"
Kagan and Johnsen: two interesting picks for top positions in the Department of Justice
A liberal economist explains it all for us; and learn how the recession is going hit women harder than men
Terry's in the race!
Women of Interest: An occasional series, entry 3: Helen Suzman

If you have not checked out the new organization 51 Percent, please do.

January 2, 2009: a host of new posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

2009-01-02T19:21:00.002-05:00

Go here to check them out.

Topic range from the core of liberalism, to Martin Luther King's legacy, to updates on 51 Percent, and discussion of Franklin Roosevelt and the similarity between his time and our own.

December 28: New Posts at the New Home

2008-12-28T12:14:00.002-05:00

If you are back online during the interval between Christmas and New Years, and have an interest you can see the latest here.

Among other recent posts:

Mr. Obama, why not change your mind? It is your party, disinvite Rick Warren.
What are we going to do about 2012?
It is hard for an empty suit to take a stand - or perhaps even to understand what it means to take a stand

Check it out.

51 Percent

2008-12-25T11:42:00.001-05:00

Learn more here and here.

A bushel of posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

2008-12-20T23:56:00.001-05:00

Read them here:

51 Percent update: direct online donation available; website launch target date set; more
51 Percent: a word about organizational style; and more logo beta-testing
If you are a health care worker, please do take advantage of President Bush's "conscience protection" rule
Eleanor Smeal gets it
Go get 'em, Landrieu and Snowe!
What Rick Warren has to say for himself and what it says about President-Elect Obama's grip on women's interests and advancement
Latest from Terry McAuliffe

See Heidi Li's Potpourri for latest news about 51 Percent

2008-12-17T14:05:00.002-05:00

At the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri, you can read:

Introducing 51 Percent - an organizational antidote to hatred of women
and
Good thing 51 Percent never expected fighting misogyny to top MoveOn's potential goals for the coming year

The latest posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0 - please take a look

2008-12-15T08:26:00.001-05:00

Go here to read:

The 51 Percent misogyny memorabilia collection
Being President means coping with distractions
On becoming a garbage collector
If you think images do not matter, would you welcome these into your child's library?
Introducing 51 Percent - an organizational antidote to hatred of women

Too many new posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0 to list

2008-12-10T23:04:00.003-05:00

Themes include:
51 Percent - a new concept for Heidi Li's Potpourri - and an initiative to make more public the large numbers of people who actually object to Jon Favreau's continuing presence in the executive branch of the government;
the DNC's every more tacky yet alarming efforts to rule from the top down.

Check it out here.

Latest from Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

2008-12-06T09:33:00.001-05:00

Go here to read:

Will the next DNC chair do a better job than Howard Dean?
Hey President-elect Obama: Could you do just one thing, one thing, to show that you understand misogyny?
Another Sun Myung Moon moment from My Barack Obama aka the DNC
Who will be the next DNC Chair?

Latest posts on Hillary Rodham Clinton at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

2008-12-03T16:48:00.002-05:00

Read them here.

Advisory Boards: Not just for Presidents (Secretaries of State of have them too) - December 3
Americans abroad, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? - November 30
Hillary Rodham Clinton: a progressive and somebody who certainly saw the current fiscal crisis coming - November 28

Advisory Boards for Presidents and Cabinet Heads

2008-12-03T16:43:00.002-05:00

See these entries at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.o:

Advisory Boards: Not just for Presidents (Secretaries of State of have them too)

Presidential Advisory Boards - Part Three: A multiplicity of models for a Presidential Empowerment of Women Advisory Board
Presidential Advisory Boards - Part Two: Do past members indicate objective, bipartisan input being provided to the President?
On Presidential Advisory Boards - Part One: Just exactly what is the President's Economic Recovery Board?

"Could You Stop Braying at Me?"

2008-12-02T14:52:00.002-05:00

Read this item at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.o. Hit the graphic, buy a pin or some stickers and the proceeds go to The White House Project.

Trio of posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

2008-11-30T02:58:00.000-05:00

On Presidential Advisory Boards - Part One: Just exactly what is the President's Economic Recovery Board?

Don't read me to learn about women and progressivism: read Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Hillary Rodham Clinton: a progressive and somebody who certainly saw the current fiscal crisis coming

You can read these here.

Thanksgiving message to readers and more...

2008-11-27T11:08:00.001-05:00

...at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

11/24 - new posts at new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-11-24T11:40:00.003-05:00

To read them, head here, where you will find:

Time Out for Terry McAuliffe
and
"Don't agonize. Organize." - Send a Woman to the White House

Putting gender equity front and center

2008-11-18T09:51:00.001-05:00

Two new posts on this topic are up at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

Fresh posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-11-15T18:15:00.002-05:00

Below are a sampling of the latest - there are others - at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

On the current crucial importance of retiring Senator Clinton's debt; and how maxxed out donors can help

Let's pull off a real upset

You have GOT to be kidding me....

New posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-11-11T02:04:00.001-05:00

Top of the list:
What's missing from this picture?

To see this entry and a variety of others, head to the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

A pair of pre-election posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-11-03T22:49:00.003-05:00

Go here to see:

Resolved
Sad

There are some other recent posts too, including one referral to a "must read".

Sunday morning reads from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-11-02T01:00:00.002-04:00

If you are so inclined, have a look at this trio of interrelated posts, aimed at connecting the women's issues illuminated in this election with the larger issue of how to proceed to a more democratic democracy:

Historical precedent for a new wave of empowerment for those left hungry for it by this election season
The first group in the U.S. to wage a nonviolent civil disobedience campaign
A song for this political season

Available at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

November 1 - New posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-11-01T11:38:00.003-04:00

A variety of new posts are available at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

A couple, but there are others:

Conscientious objection and conscientious abstention
The Equal Rights Amendment and the First Hundred Days

October 27: Latest at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-10-27T01:40:00.001-04:00

To read:

The Democratic Party's honor
No, Professor Hutchinson, you are not only the "irreverent liberal lawyer in DC who does not want to work in a newly ensconced Democratic regime"
Beyond November 4: The Joy of Politics
An Obama supporter the Senator should be very proud to have in his camp
Free speech, JayZ, is definitely what is called for - will you please let Senator Obama know?

Head to the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

October 24: The latest posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-10-24T00:39:00.001-04:00

Which is more repugnant: the misogyny or the silence about the misogny?
What Harry Truman said about Presidents is no less true of each American
Love in the time of politics
Say no to magnetism, or Beginning to learn how to Salt March Should political candidates seek funds from underage voters?

Read these at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

October 22 - Latest posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri new home

2008-10-22T01:43:00.001-04:00

Please go here to read:

Hard headed realism
If you are resisting the power of your political Party, you are not the first - and you are not alone
Colin Powell: Somebody Barack Obama SHOULD throw under the proverbial bus
Senator Obama: a case study in hubris
Once again over three hundred people sign a letter to support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to serve as a national leader as of January 2009

Latest entries from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-10-18T02:06:00.002-04:00

Please consider updating your bookmarks, blogrolls, etc. But in the meantime you can go to the new home to read:

Lanny Davis, you seem a bit confused - to say the least
"The accusation that I am a woman is incontrovertible" - Frances Perkins, political powerhouse from the FDR years
Concerned about the integrity of the franchise this November 4? Work for Election Protection

The latest at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-10-16T07:13:00.002-04:00

To read these head to the new home of this blog.

Blogging the 2008 Election: an offline event

Now, will you please stop telling me that Sen. Obama's election is critical to women's reproductive rights?

It takes lifetimes, not election cycles

Latest posts at new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-10-13T00:43:00.003-04:00

In betrayal lies possibility
This is no time to be tricked again

Both available here.

Of friendship and fortitude; of withdrawing one's cooperation from that which has become corrupt

2008-10-11T22:03:00.001-04:00

Please see the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri to read:

Of friendship and fortitude; of withdrawing one's cooperation from that which has become corrupt

The latest over at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-10-09T15:08:00.002-04:00

These posts can be read at the new home of this blog.

Confidence and Cooperation: Franklin D. Roosevelt's first Fireside Chat - "The Banking Crisis

WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED: A documentary that might help people understand why it is time to Put Principle Before Party

Latest posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-10-07T00:39:00.002-04:00

Please go here to see
Thank you No Quarter: for my allies, check it out - we are not alone
I don't care
and more.

See the latest at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-10-04T22:43:00.001-04:00

There is this post Civil wars and women's political power: How come I've never heard Senator Obama say "women's rights are human rights"? and more.

The quality of intent: What is at stake in the 2008 election

2008-10-04T13:20:00.001-04:00

Certain people have a way of saying things that shake us at the core. Even when the words do not seem harsh or offensive, the impact is shattering. What we could be experiencing is the intent behind the words. When we intend to do good, we do. When we intend to do harm, it happens.

read more | digg story

The quality of intent: What is really at stake in the 2008 Presidential Election

2008-10-04T06:59:00.000-04:00

“What is the quality of your intent?

Certain
people have a way of saying things that shake us at the core. Even when
the words do not seem harsh or offensive, the impact is shattering.
What we could be experiencing is the intent behind the words. When we
intend to do good, we do. When we intend to do harm, it happens. What
each of us must come to realize is that our intent always comes
through. We cannot sugarcoat the feelings in our heart of hearts. The
emotion is the energy that motivates. We cannot ignore what we really
want to create. We should be honest and do it the way we feel it. What
we owe to ourselves and everyone around is to examine the reasons of
our true intent.”

--attributed to Thurgood Marshall
(emphasis mine)

Indeed, now more than ever we cannot ignore what we really want to create. The upcoming Presidential election is regarded by many people as a pivotal for our country. I agree. But I think it is pivotal less for the impact it will have on the issues that press to the forefront of our minds, partly driven there by politicians and the mainstream media: bailout bills, vice-presidential picks, whatever.

I think this election matters most because it poses a question to all Americans, but especially to Democrats, about the ways we find it acceptable to practice politics in our country. Many of my Democratic friends acknowledge that Senator Obama's campaign relied on less-than-savory, even dishonest, measures to secure his spot as the Democratic candidate; they will admit, when asked pointedly, that they are disturbed by Senator Obama's truth squads and training camps, by his manipulation of young children when he urges their parent to have them tell their grandparents to vote for him; by his refusal to denounce sexism or take concrete measures to affirmatively demonstrate that he understands the pervasiveness of that social ill; by his tepid stands on reproductive rights and equal rights for gays and lesbians; by his commitment to tying Church and state closer together. But these friends excuse Senator Obama's methods by saying that he has done and is just doing what it takes to win, and after all, isn't that what Republicans have done for years?

I refer those with that point of view to the quotation above from Thurgood Marshall, an often overlooked hero not just of the civil rights movement on behalf of black Americans but a hero for all progressive Americans, because while he naturally enough, given his circumstances, began his career with great concern for black Americans, he ended it by fighting for the rights of all Americans who did not enjoy the equality of opportunity that has been the hallmark of U.S. democracy since the country's founding, and which was renewed by the programs that Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated.

Apparently, many Americans have found Senator Barack Obama's words to have a shattering impact. But what is the quality of the intent of a candidate who resorts to dishonest, manipulative, authoritarian methods to gain office?

And what is the quality of the intent of those who hurl accusations of racism against those who do not want this sort of candidate representing them as Democrats?

As the quality of Senator Obama's intent has become clearer to me over time - a will to power including the power to completely silence any diversity of expression within the Democratic Party itself - I find his words ever more grating, and certainly not inspiring.

I do not believe this country is well served by authoritarian political parties or politicians - consider for example George W. Bush and the Rovian Republican style. But Republicans do not have a monopoly on authoritarian attitudes and tactics, and neither do conservatives in general. The French Revolution - meant to end authoritarian rule in France - ended in The Terror - tyranny by mob rule.

The glory of the United States of America lies in its ability to encompass really difference and real diversity while at the same time creating an environment for equal opportunity, the protection of individual dignity, and the generation of prosperity that can be shared by all. Authoritarians try to make difference and diversity go away, first by pretending it does not exist and then silencing dissenters so it seems as if it does not exist. We cannot ignore what authoritians really intend to create.

At the same time, we have to reflect on what we really intend. I intend my country to have at least one political party that does not cram unity down my throat, that realizes that women's rights are human rights, that will not aim to put in office candidates whose vision of the presidency is an imperial one.

The emotions that I see and feel in my heart when I examine it closely: hope that Democrats will be the ones to keep our country democratic and determination to see the Democratic Party restored to its traditional principles and methods and returned to being a democratic institution.

These emotions undergird the reasons of my true intent when I argue that the only way to fix the Democratic Party is to refuse to support its Presidential candidate this year.

I do not want my Party, the Democratic Party, to be defined by an intent to win elections by any means necessary; I want my Party to be able to win elections on the basis of truly democratic and historically Democratic intent.

Latest from new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-10-02T12:04:00.002-04:00

Please see the following at the new home:

Sickeningly sweet: the Senate version of what remains a bailout bill still misses the point
New URL for Democrats For Principle Before Party - an initiative from The Denver Group

Also, at www.demsforprinciple.org, this may be of interest:

Rapid fire match offer made: $500 in online contributions, $500 contribution to Senator Clinton's 2012 campaign fund

The Pelosi-Obama style - not so much the rage at themoment

2008-09-30T11:11:00.001-04:00

Here is the link to the latest at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

The Pelosi-Obama style - not so much the rage at the moment

Truth squads and Speaker Pelosi's latest shining moment

2008-09-29T08:52:00.002-04:00

The two latest posts from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

Of "Truth Squads" and fear of free speech: "Heed Their Rising Voices"

THIS is what Nancy Pelosi is proud of?

After you finish debating tonight's debate check out these recent items from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-09-27T00:17:00.003-04:00

Please see these two posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

Camp Obama?! Senator Obama seems to be turning into Rev. Sun Myung Moon

and

As we approach a new President's first 100 days...

If you enjoy these pieces, consider bookmarking the new home or subscribing to its feed or email delivery subscription.

Two recent posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-09-24T08:46:00.003-04:00

To read these, please go to the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

Do progressives REALLY want to support a campaign starting an "official faith tour"?

The Supreme Court: not the most important protector of civil rights, including reproductive rights

If Howard Dean were a CEO, he'd be ousted by now

2008-09-22T17:16:00.002-04:00

Cross posted from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

With all due disclaimers about the reliability of polls, the ones that interest me the most are the ones that are focused on traditional swing states and states that this year are tending toward being swing states (these are states that have generally been solidly "blue" but since the Democratic Party Convention are turning "purple").

Some samples from today:

Nevada (a state that Senator Clinton won handily, despite it being a caucus state with all the usual problems of caucuses)

Pennsylvania: (another state where Senator Clinton won the primary)

North Carolina and Minnesota (states where Senator Obama won primaries but is apparently not able to close the deal against Senator McCain)

Data like this explain why I am adamant that Dr. Dean should hand in his resignation immediately. I have nothing against Howard Dean personally. I do not know him and have no particular feelings of like or dislike for him. But he is incompetent as well as without integrity. These are not qualifications for retaining the office equivalent to CEO of a major publicly traded corporation.

If such a CEO insisted, in the face of all evidence, in pursuing a policy that would lead to short and long term major damage to the corporation and its shareholders' interests, he would not only deserve to be ousted, he would rightly be considered to have breached his fiduciary duty - duties of loyalty and care - to the corporation and its shareholders.

If such a CEO engaged in constant self-dealing at the expense of the good of the shareholders, he would be ousted and would be considered in breach of his fiduciary duties.

This by the way is what has become of CEO's like Michael Eisner (Disney) and Jeffrey Skilling (Enron). I neither like nor dislike these men, who like Howard Dean I do not know. But in all three cases I have contempt for these individuals in their professional capacities. Like Howard Dean, Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Skilling chose to pursue personal power over their responsibilities to pursue a broader purpose.

More worrying, Eisner and Skilling clung to their positions for so long that they brought major damage to the institutions they headed. For example, Eisner's refusal to step aside cost Disney millions of dollars and incalcuable good will - and at the end of the day, he was indeed forced out.

Since Dr. Dean's resemblance to these corporate officers is so pronounced, I fear that he will drag the Democratic Party through a similarly expensive and damaging fight. Not only should he resign effective immediately, Dr. Dean should make it clear that he will remove himself from seeking any influence over his choice of successor. He should state that even if Senator Obama manages a win in the general election, he, Dr. Dean, realizes that the Party must break with tradition and hold an authentic election for his successor, rather than simply permit Senator Obama to install the next DNC chair.

This is what an honorable and responsible person in Dr. Dean's position would do. I have not seen many signs of honor or responsibility from Dr. Dean, but this is a situation where Dr. Dean could begin to mend his ways.

Please consider a donation to Democrats For Principle Before Party if you would like to try to get Dr. Dean to see the light. Learn more here.

Latest from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-09-19T21:44:00.002-04:00

Please update your links and bookmarks to this url: http://tdg.typepad.com/heidi_lis_potpourri/

Meanwhile take a look at these items by going there.

Rapid fire match effort is blazing! Match for Retiring Clinton debt is in full swing

Action alert: time to make it crystal clear that under no circumstances does Senator Obama get to pick the next DNC chair

Senator Obama and the DNC are truly determined to make the Democratic party as undemocratic as possible

2008-09-19T06:50:00.001-04:00

CQ Politics is reporting a new twist in the shameless collusion between Senator Obama and the DNC to suggest that, at a time when the Democratic Party is deeply divided, it is somehow Senator Obama's prerogative to pick the next DNC chair. (Thanks to Dem4Hill for drawing my attention to the story.)

Apparently the new Democratic Party way is for one chair to overrride rank and file Democrats and use any number of unscrupulous tactics to install his preferred candidate as the nominee and then that nominee turns around and arrogates to himself the right to pick the next chair, even though it remains entirely uncertain that Senator Obama will win the general election or even if he does manage to do so that he will do more than squeak by. In any event, one thing we know about Senator Obama: he is not very good at forging coalitions among different segments of rank and file Democrats, let alone being able to "unify" the Party or the country. Since the DNC is meant to be the official representative of all Democrats (not that it has even pretended to live up to that job description under the stewardship of current chair Howard Dean), it is patently absurd to put the future of the Party's internal leadership in the hands of Senator Obama. The cycle of egomanical self-servingness has just been ratcheted up.

Since the DNC claims that the reason Senator Obama gets to dictate who the next DNC chair is, it is ever more important for the medium and long term health of the Democratic Party that Senator Obama not win this election. Here's the passage from the CQ Politics story that informs us that Senator Obama's internal party is based on the assumption he will win the general election, and that if he does win the DNC will once again hold a fake election rather than a real vote for the position of chair:

'“We expect Sen. Obama to be in the White House, and it’ll be his
decision as to who’ll be nominated” to succeed Dean, said Stacie
Paxton, national press secretary for the DNC.

If Obama is
elected, he will designate his choice for the chairmanship, and DNC
members would be expected to ratify his decision at a meeting
immediately after Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.'

The story goes on to say:

'If the Democrats do not win the White
House, a special party meeting would be called for an election to be
held between Jan. 1 and March 1, said DNC officials. Dean and his
predecessor, Terry McAuliffe, were both elected in meetings during the
month of February.'

If this is the way the DNC wants to play this, then there is only thing to be done by Democrats who care about seeing their Party survive the civil war that Senator Obama and Howard Dean have already brought to it. Senator Obama must not win the general election. And his defeat must come at the hands of Democrats who now realize that in the new Democratic Party way no compromise is allowed. If no compromise is allowed, if Senator Obama is determined to make the entire Democratic Party revolve around him and the DNC is willing to be a mere satellite to Senate Obama, then responsible and wise Democrats must make sure that Senator Obama loses this election.

Regular readers of this space know that I am one of the co-founders of The Denver Group, whose general election initiative is Democrats for Principle Before Party. That initiative is using advertising in mainstream media to fight for the long term survival of the Democratic Party. Just as The Denver Group took the matter of placing Senator Clinton's name in nomination from the web and into the mainstream media, Democrats for Principle Before Party now intends to take the message that in order for the Democratic Party to win back its credibility rank and file Democrats must rid the Party of Senator Obama's apparent stranglehold. We know our ads made a critical difference in making sure Senator Clinton's name was at least put into nomination in Denver. We know that the ads we have in the pipeline ready to run in swing states and in key print publications in Washington DC will make a critical difference in the fight to save the Democratic Party for long time rank and file Democrats and for those who will come after us needing a Democratic Party that is inclusive, tolerant, and pluralistic in both its internal affairs and as a matter of the policies it pursues for the country.

You can donate to the ad campaign right here: Or to learn more, including how to donate by mail, see: Democrats for Principle Before Party.

**************

Oh, and for anybody who believes that Bill Richardson, the politician who personified disloyalty during the Primary Season (remember his endorsement of Senator Obama even after his own state went for Senator Clinton AND he had given his word to President Bill Clinton that he would not make such an endorsement?) is not interested in being DNC chair and staying right in Senator Obama's hip pocket...well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.

Latest posts from new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-09-18T11:00:00.002-04:00

See the new site to read the following posts. Please consider updating your feed subscriptions to the new site.

Howard Dean is now using the DNC as his own personal political machine: he must be removed as chair

An election Democrats really SHOULD take seriously

If Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile, and Harry Reid were genuinely committed to the Democratic Party and its future...

From Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0 - the latest entry

2008-09-14T02:43:00.001-04:00

Please see:

It may seem like the worst of times, but in some ways it is the best of times

Latest posts regarding Ed O'Reilly from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

2008-09-13T21:02:00.002-04:00

You can learn about the yeoman effort by Ed O'Reilly to bring a new voice to the Democratic Party here and here. Please remember to bookmark and if you like subscribe to the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

The Denver Group: Fundraising progress report from The Denver Group

2008-09-11T07:56:00.000-04:00

Fundraising progress report from The Denver Group

Senator Obama: Candidate Without Coattails

2008-09-11T01:13:00.001-04:00

See the latest at Heidi Li's Potpourri's new home.

Beware an Obsessive Focus...

2008-09-10T21:38:00.002-04:00

Click here for the latest post at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri. I can only sporadically update this site, so I respectfully urge those who want to keep reading to change their bookmarks and/or register for the new home's feed at the new site.

See the latest post on Potpourri 2.0 - and subscribe to the feed for future posts there

2008-09-09T18:31:00.002-04:00

A recent post from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

If you are a subscribe via email or feed to this blog, please consider switching to the same services available at the new home.

A match offer - help troop families and help The Denver Group

2008-09-07T16:29:00.004-04:00

The Denver Group has been the beneficiary of a couple who maxxed out to it. This couple is active in supporting the families of troops based in Utah. Since they can no longer donate to the Denver Group, I thought it time to offer to donate to their efforts. I will send them up to $500 in gift cards for distribution to families in need, as soon as the next $500 hits The Denver Group via paypal.
To donate to The Denver Group via Paypal please use the button at in the sidebar of this blog.

Match update- 7:09 pm September 7, 2008: $95.00 in - $405 to go!

From the Denver Group Comes DEMOCRATS FOR PRINCIPLE BEFORE PARTY

2008-09-07T10:00:00.008-04:00

The Denver Group has a new website devoted to its latest mission, promoting Democrats for Party Before Principle. Please check it out and note that the sidebar provides a number of secure ways to donate online to support the mission's advertising campaign as well as information as to how to donate by mail.

The Centrality of Character in Political Leadership

2008-09-07T09:15:00.002-04:00

[This is the latest post from Heidi Li's Potpourri at its new home. The subscribe by feed and by email features are now clearly set up at "Potpourri 2.0"]

The challenge of being President of the United States is the same challenge each adult faces every day of her or his life: when the unexpected occurs what dispositions or character traits guide our decision making in those moments where we must act swiftly under conditions of uncertainty. In ordinary life, people who rise to these occasions with excellence are those we consider wise. In political life, people who rise to such occasions with excellence are both wise and politically wise. To my mind, the most significant times George W. Bush demonstrated that he lacks both sorts of wisdom were his immediate responses to two unprecedented disasters that occurred during his presidency: the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and presumably the White House (the plane that the passengers bravely crashed was apparently aimed at the White House) and Hurricane Katrina, a natural disaster that devastated New Orleans and large swathes of Gulf Coast States.

When the 9/11 attacks occurred, President Bush escaped into the air, while Senator Clinton and Mayor Giuliani hit the streets of New York City. When Hurricane Katrina hit, President Bush again spent his time up in the air, literally and figuratively, flying over New Orleans without touching down and then dithering about what to do about rehabilitating the region.

Now more than ever Senator Obama reminds me of George W. Bush. With Sarah Palin's unexpected selection and successful debut as the Repubulican vice-presidential nominee, Senator Obama has reacted by doing very little, perhaps trying to seem above the fray, but ultimately coming across as a person ill-equipped to show leadership in the face of unexpected problems. I do not mean to compare Governor Palin's selection and success to terrorist attacks or natural disasters. The comparison lies in how a President and a would-be President respond to unexpected events that prove problematic for them - in President Bush's case because the events threatened the well-being of our country as well as his own political standing; in Senator Obama's case because the event threatens his political standing - and well, yes, if you believe that Governor Palin's policy positions are bad for the country and that were she to become vice-president she would be able to implement those positions, then her selection and success do threaten the well being of the country.

A wiser person than Senator Obama would not have let the pundits and the press treat Senator Palin with dismissive misogyny and sexism. A wiser politician would not have done so either. But time and again, Senator Obama fails to show wisdom when confronted with the hard cold fact of reality: that it has a stubborn way of refusing to be scripted and that you have to deal with that. You cannot, like George W. Bush, decide that you create your own reality - nobody has that much power. Writing a revisionist memoir will not serve as an effective response to immediate, pressing problems. Neither will staging a rally or trying to predetermine outcomes. That's the point about reality: it defies stagecraft and rigging: it must be dealt with, preferably with wisdom.

Ultimately, Senator Palin's selection and success as John McCain's running-mate matters relatively little to me - except possibly to the extent that it demonstrates Senator McCain's astute political dispositions, his ability qua politician to respond to difficult and uncertain circumstances with politically shrewd decisions. But what matters so much more is the paucity of Senator Obama's response to the display of powerful political character by both Senator McCain and Governor Palin over the last week. If he cannot respond with acuity to this sort of problematic reality, what does that suggest about his readiness, his natural dispositions, to respond wisely when confronted with the unexpected events that arise in the course of every presidency? Nothing very good.

Populist Progressivism again - this time with a preliminary caveat

2008-09-06T15:47:00.002-04:00

Go here for the latest post at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri. Note that at that home you can subscribe to a feed from the new home. See information in the sidebar over there.

Heidi Li's Potpourri moves to a new location

2008-09-05T01:04:00.004-04:00

The time for change is indeed upon us. In that spirit, Heidi Li's Potpourri is making a move. It will now be updated and viewable here.

For readers' convenience, the next several posts including the one below will appear in this location and the new one.

Looking beyond the heat of the moment

With the general election bearing down on us, it is easy to become overly reactive, to lose track of the bigger picture. The bigger picture that I care about is creating a country that is genuinely progressive, where diversity and pluralism are valued for their own sake, where norms of decency operate in our civil society, where respect for human dignity is the cornerstone of our political realm.

When I begin to contemplate this larger picture, the results of this coming presidential election matter almost not at all. Neither ticket is one I can endorse. For different reasons neither McCain-Palin nor Obama-Biden seem likely to bring this country into a truly progressive mode; it seems to me that either ticket might move the country both a bit closer and a bit further from that mode.

Now this view of the Presidential race has nothing to do with with question of which of the existing political parties has the most potential to become a truly progressive one. The answer to that is clearly the Democratic Party. The more interesting question, which is being put to me by many people from many vantage points, is whether I think the country needs a new option, a new political party. And the answer to that question has only a tangential bearing on the further question of whether, even if we conclude that the country does need a new political party, a new party that is genuinely viable can be successfully launched.

While I will continue to write about day to day happenings related to the general election and especially in the Congressional elections, I am going to use this space, Heidi Li's Potpourri, to slow down and reflect on how we might create a more perfect union, one where human dignity assumes center stage. Carpe diem.

Free facts about Act Blue and why their treatment of The Denver Group is unprincipled and objectionable

2008-09-04T19:37:00.002-04:00

I have received a number of communications in which people express various forms of confusion about Act Blue and its treatment of The Denver Group. This will be my final post regarding this matter but I will do my best to answer the questions I have been asked.

Act Blue is a PAC, not an organ of the Democratic Party. It describes itself as "The online clearing house for Democratic action". Act Blue itself is a middleman: it does not raise money for candidates or causes; it provides a service to candidates and causes seeking Democratic action. The Denver Group chose to be listed on Act Blue - and to encourage our supporters to "tip" Act Blue, which is that organization's means of collecting funds to support itself - because The Denver Group is now and always has been committed to Democratic Action. I personally have created pages on Act Blue to support WomenCount, Sheila Jackson Lee, the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ed O'Reilly, Gavin Newsome and Senator Clinton. I have also donated directly to Act Blue in appreciation for the service they provide Democratic candidates and causes.

Nowhere in Act Blue's mission statement do they make being listed there contingent on supporting the DNC as an institution or the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Indeed among the causes and groups that remain listed on the Act Blue website are some that are directly contrary to supporting Senator Obama's presidential bid. For example:Howard Dean for President Draft Fund and Al Gore for President Draft Fund. Obviously raising money for candidates other than the Democratic Party's chosen nominee is ok by Act Blue. But of course if Dr. Dean or Mr. Gore were "drafted" to represent the Democratic Party in November's election, this would make it impossible for the DNC's preferred candidate to run in that role.

The Denver Group has never advocated replacing a freely and fairly elected nominee with somebody else; but this year the DNC has not produced a freely and fairly elected nominee. From the perspective of The Denver Group the conduct of the DNC and its officials is bad for the Democratic Party because that conduct is clearly costing the Party members and donations. Unsurprisingly, the DNC itself is listed on Act Blue, even though as an organization the DNC has driven millions away from supporting downticket Democrats as well as Senator Obama. Given this performance, at this point the DNC is hardly a group that stands for Democratic action, unless you count losing the support of millions of staunch Democrats Democratic action. I would call it something else.

Meanwhile The Denver Group is doing nicely with online contributions via Paypal and receipts via mail. If you would like to donate via Paypal, feel free to do so (please check the eligibility requirements for donation which appear over on The Denver Group website, where there is also a link to donate via Paypal).

As for Act Blue, I have only one thought for them: It's all over now, Act Blue (hat tip to Bob Dylan and his great tune "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue").

From The Denver Group: ACT BLUE'S PRO OBAMA STANCE DE-LISTS THE DENVER GROUP.

2008-09-04T14:57:00.004-04:00

Read it to believe it.

This is what my Party, MY Party, the Democratic Party, the Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., of Hillary Rodham Clinton, of Stephanie Tubbs Jones, of William Jefferson Clinton has come to. No internal criticism allowed. Censorship.

Thuggery.

And worse, stupid thuggery. Apparently the people at Act Blue, like the people at the DNC, simply cannot get a simple point: that one can support the Democratic Party and support many Democratic officeholders what at the same time criticizing any particular Democrat at any particular moment. So when Democrats criticize me, a registered Democrat, I do not think that means they are not Democrats. They are Democrats who disagree with me on certain issues. That is their right, as human beings, as Americans, and as Democrats.

So when I criticize the DNC for running a dishonest nominating process and question whether it is good for the Party to have a President who accepts a tainted nomination that does not mean I am opposed to the Democratic Party. Quite the opposite. It means that I believe the Democratic Party must regain crediblity so that it will flourish as the Democratic Party in some recognizable form. I will fight for the redemption of the Democratic Party's good name precisely because I am a Democrat, a serious Democrat who means business.

A reader asked, so here it is: a link to the DNCC's official roll call tally

2008-09-04T13:33:00.000-04:00

I am aware that on September 2 the DNCC managed to post its official tally of the roll call. I had not posted it here because I too hastily assumed that the information was sufficiently accessible already. But I am all for sharing facts, so for those seeking the official tally, you can see it here on the DNCC's official website.

What you will not find on the DNCC website is any information about precisely what occurred on the morning of the roll call when delegates were pressured and intimidated in many cases into voting against their own consciences and against the preferences expressed by those who sent them to the convention. You will not find any information about which delegates stood their ground despite such tactics. You will not find any comparative information about how many delegates per state voted other than they were pledged to do.

The DNCC is not required to release this information. But sometimes one should go above and beyond what one is required to do so as to demonstrate good faith. That applies to organizations, just as much as it does to individuals.

Desperation seems to bring out the worst in people

2008-09-04T11:52:00.002-04:00

A few days ago I posted a response to one of the few polite communications I have received from a a strong supporter of the Obama-Biden ticket. I took the time to write the post because of the courtesy and intelligence displayed in that original communication. Apparently, the fact that I was ultimately unpersuaded to the writer's point of view, today he was motivated to send this not-so-courteous message. (I have kept the writer's identity private, because as you will see, he prefers that. Also, for the record, my surname is Feldman, not Li - Li is my middle name, listed as such on my birth certificate.) I am posting the latest round of correspondence with the writer because it exemplifies measures that taking place all over the country as desperate people realize that the DNC and Senator Obama were wrong about many people's willingness to look the other way now after being silenced and disrespected throughout the primary season.

Believe me, I understand how frustrating it is that it looks ever more unlikely that the Democratic nominee can win the presidency this November. I have spent months and months working to ensure a different result: up until the convention, I used every means available to me to persuade the DNC and the general public that a more likely person to win the White House was available to be nominated and elected by a genuine and fair roll call; I implored the DNC leadership to quit the shenanigans they were engaging in and stand strong for Democratic and democratic values.

I continue to advocate for downticket Democrats and to encourage people frustrated and angered by Senator Obama, Dr. Dean, Speaker Pelosi, et al. to respond by supporting Senator Clinton as the Party's next Democratic majority leader in the Senate. Many people are angered by my refusal to desert the Democratic Party. But I've taken a position and I am sticking to it:

One can disapprove of a Party's choice of Presidential nominee and still be a supporter of that Party, because Party power does not reside solely in the executive branch.

If you care to join me in that point of view, even a small donation to The Denver Group would help get that message out.

As for the less-than-courteous message and some ensuing back and forth, read on.
------------------------

From:
Date: Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Dear Ms. Li-
I wrote to you several days (weeks?) ago and you chose not to respond. Which
is fine.

However, I note now that your outrage over the roll call vote at the DNC is
phony. The results have been published for days, but you haven't even
bothered to post them at your site, despite days of claiming the results
were being surpressed. And I find it interesting that these results are
being surpressed on YOUR blog because they do not fit your narrative that
there was a mass of Hillary delegates who wouldn't bend. The vote results
show that isn't true.

I can thereby only conclude you have no interest in anything but your narrow
agenda and your fantasies about Hillary Clinton, which Hillary herself
clearly does not support.

So please be on record: I am not a political person. Other than vote, I've
never been involved. But you have motivated me. Hillary is my senator.
Schumer is my senator. John Hall is my representative. You can be sure that
I am now going to steep myself in the sytem and I'll have one goal: To
expose you as the phony you are.

You don't care about your country. You don't care about about the Democratic
Party, either. After this election, I will make it my business going forward
to fight anything your phony group proposes.

You're not a Democrat. You're a phony and it's clear that you're in it for
personal publicity. I dont't like phonies in the system and now I'll devote
time to making people know that you're one of them.

XXXXXXXXX
now an active Democrat

----------

From: Heidi Li Feldman

Date: Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:25 AM

To:

Mr. XXXX,
I wrote an entire post on blog dedicated to answering you.
I did not use your name but if you would like me to so, I am happy to identify as the author of what I called a "courteous" and "intelligent" message.

Please let me know if you would care to be identified.

Yours truly
Heidi Li Feldman

----------
From:
Date: Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM
To: Heidi Li Feldman

No, I'm not interested in credit. I wrote to you PRIVATELY. What I am interested in is a) you looking out for the greater interest of your country and b) telling the truth. The results of the DNC vote aren't hidden. They are posted, and have been for days. But, as I say, I got the message now. You're in this for YOU and your fantasies. Got it. Sorry I misunderstood earlier

Word to the wise: if you are a Democratic officeholder you should definitely sign this

2008-09-04T09:47:00.003-04:00

Based on some anecdotal evidence from reliable sources, it seems clear that a significant number of Democratic officeholders - e.g. governors and members of Congress - are not quite aware of just how unhappy how many people are over the botched DNC convention (among other things).

Yesterday, a friend asked me: "But what can Democratic politicans do? They can't very well attack Senator Obama now."

My reply: Regardless of whether Democratic officeholders could or should criticize Senator Obama publicly, I know they will not. They will not because it is too risky for their own political futures. But...and this is important...Democratic office holders need to realize that their conspicuous failure to affirm Senator Clinton's importance to rank and file Democrats is also very risky for their political futures. Clinton Democrats number in the millions and any Democratic officeholder who wants to remain one needs to remember that.

So, what can Democratic politicians do? They can join the initiative to support Senator Clinton for Senate Majority Leader in 2009. To do this is to show respect for Senator Clinton and all the Democrats (including those who will happily vote for the Obama-Biden ticket) that one can support Senator Clinton and her ideas without being negative about Senator Obama. Senator Obama expects to be the next President of the United States. Fine. He has money and a campaign staff to help him meet his own expectations.

Many of us rank and file Democrats expect our Party to make sure it is as powerful in the 111th Congress as possible. We believe that making Senator Clinton Senate Majority Leader is one major step in that direction.

So, Democratic officeholders - and anybody else who wants to - check out the letter at for Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Majority Leader 2009. Directions about how to sign our letter to Democratic Senators urging them to make that happen appear on the website. There is also information about how individuals can contact Senators directly urging them to affirm this effort. We are letting Democratic Senators know that if and when they do affirm our effort, we will list them on an Act Blue fundraising page dedicated to Senators who believe, along with us, that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton can help our Party and our country in the office of Senate Majority Leader.

Check out the letter and learn how to become a signer here.

Substance over spectacle: Ed O'Reilly specifically asks supporters ensure focus remains on content

2008-09-04T07:57:00.003-04:00

This just in from Ed O'Reilly:

Debate Closed to the Public--No Purpose to Appear

First, I want to thank each and every one of my supporters for all of their hard work, dedication and enthusiasm.

Tomorrow, I am having less than one half hour to debate Senator Kerry at the WBZ TV4 Studios. This debate will be closed to the public and will be shown on Boston's Channel 4 at 8:30 a.m. on Sunday, September 7th.

During the last several weeks, people from all over the state have contacted the campaign asking if they should come to the debate.

I am strongly urging my supporters NOT come to the closed debate. If Senator Kerry would agree to a public forum, there would be a purpose to coming to a debate. However, there is absolutely no point to standing around outside of a TV studio on a sidewalk holding a sign.

This campaign is not about show, it is about change and holding signs outside of a TV Studio on a sidewalk does little to effectuate that change.

I thank you for your support.

Ed O'Reilly

"This campaign is not about show, it is about change and holding signs outside of a TV Studio on a sidewalk does little to effectuate that change." Another quotable line from Ed O'Reilly.

The Denver Group: THE DENVER GROUP'S FIRST POST-CONVENTION AD

2008-09-04T07:33:00.000-04:00

The Denver Group: THE DENVER GROUP'S FIRST POST-CONVENTION AD

Sometimes you have to quote a friend: "Democracy should not be a spectator sport" - Ed O'Reilly, 9/3/2008

2008-09-03T14:37:00.005-04:00

Just in from the O'Reilly campaign, with an email subject line also worth quoting: "Mockery of Democracy":

This Friday morning at 8:30 a.m., Ed O'Reilly will debate Senator John Kerry for a pre-recorded taping to be shown this Sunday on WBZ TV-4 at 10 a.m. Ed has called for multiple debates and forums where the public, would not only be invited, but would be allowed to participate. "I do not believe democracy should be a spectator sport," Ed stated today. "John Kerry has set all of the terms relative to the upcoming debate and the public is not only being excluded from participating, but people are being prohibited from even attending. The terms set by Senator Kerry are an insult to the voters of Massachusetts and I call upon Senator Kerry to enter debates that are open to the public and where ordinary people can ask questions. Democracy and the election process is meant to be inclusive and not exclusive," Ed O'Reilly added.

Interested in donating to Ed O'Reilly or a group that shares his vision of democracy - The Denver Group? You can do so at this Act Blue page where both Ed and The Denver Group are featured, as are Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

From the Party that brought us the original Voting Rights Act to a DNC that refuses to recognize the significance of votes

2008-09-03T10:03:00.004-04:00

In 1965, enabled by the brave actions of civil rights activists who created the political climate who made it possible for him to do the right thing, President Johnson signed into law the original Voting Rights Act.

In 2008 the leadership of the DNC, with the assistance of state party officials across the country, brought us a rigged role call vote; refused ever to fully recognize the voters of Michigan and Florida, treating primary voters in those states differently than the voters in other states whose primaries were not held according to DNC requirements - but those states were not ones that seemed likely to harm the chances of the preferred candidate of Dr. Dean, Speaker Pelosis, et al; and continues to show its apparent incomprehension of the sentiments and values that made so many Democrats so proud that in the modern era the first major federal statute dedicated to justice in voting was enacted and signed into law by a Democratic president.

Although this disgrace and its consequences can never be fully erased, mitigation is possible even now. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile and every other top DNC official could publicly apologize to rank and file Democrats who, regardless of their attitude toward any particularly candidate, have been embarassed, disappointed, and appalled by the actions and inactions of the current DNC leadership. To mean anything, these apologies would have to befollowed up by immediate resignation from their positions; and verifiable commitments from the apologizers - e.g. Dr. Dean, Speaker Pelosi, and Ms. Brazile - that they will have no part in, play no role in, be entirely uninvolved with the internal election of the next DNC Chair and other the elections and appointments of a new crop of DNC officials. They must make the same verifiable commitment to play no role in similar processes in state Democratic Party branches.

One way you can be part of a public demand for a complete change in DNC leadership is to support The Denver Group. Please consider a contribution to The Denver Group. For a summary of The Denver Group's post convention objectives go here.

From the wicked to the absurd: the saga of the California "pass"

2008-09-03T01:15:00.006-04:00

Let me begin with a credit to somebody who left a comment on the previous post on this site, And the Wickedness Goes On.... That commenter drew my attention to what I had previously thought might have been a principled refusal by the California delegation to the Democratic National Convention's rigged internal election of its nominee (otherwise known as the roll call vote). The LA Times decided to look into the matter. In its first story , on August 28th, on the situation the Times wrote, "The state takes a pass simply because a tally of its 441 delegate votes wasn't completed when the state's name was called."

Then yesterday, September 2, the Times followed up with this story, announcing that only by September 2 did the state complete its tally. Furthermore, the L.A. Times reports the following about its inquiry to the DNC the about the total roll call vote tally:

As for the total vote, well, Democratic officials were still working on it as of late this afternoon.

A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Convention Committee, Natalie Wyeth, said paperwork had been shipped back from the convention site in Denver, but that the Labor Day holiday delayed the tally.

Wyeth said she expected the official count to be released soon, perhaps by day’s end.

Say what? Let me get this straight. In their rush to fake a roll call vote, first the DNC does not give one of the largest and most populous states in the country a full opportunity to have its tally completed and reported at the convention; then the DNC gives a major news paper the lamest excuse I ever heard for its failure to have a final tally completed as of yesterday. Labor Day weekend made it hard to count any sooner. Say what? I worked over Labor Day Weekend but would happily have headed over to the DNC to help count if that was the problem. And you can be sure that if the DNC can't count votes any quicker than this, no way are they going to be ready any time soon to gather and ready to release information about which delegates chose to vote against the way they were pledged.

Rank and file Democrats need that information - facts about which delegates decided that their consituents' interests would be most faithfully carried out (the standard defined in the Party's rules) by voting for somebody other than the candidate the consituents voted for - so that ordinary Democrats can decide whether they want to entrust their franchise to these particular representatives should any try to become delegates again.

Now, it appears that a large number of Clinton delegates from California, where Senator Clinton won big in the primary, did not care to switch their allegiance from Senator Cinton to Senator Obama on the first ballot.

Now, maybe it was sheer ineptitude that led to California's inability to count its delegates in time to actually participate in the sham roll call. Or maybe Nancy Pelosi - DNC official, Obama supporter, and prominent California politician - thought that by not giving California time to finish its tally she would preempt the possibility that one of the early states to vote would assign a large chunk of its delegates to Senator Clinton.

Whatever the case, the California experience epitomizes the wrongfulness of the DNC's approach to this entire primary/caucus season. The DNC has consistently enabled or facilitated interference with free, fair, and open elections whether it be at caucuses in the states that held them or at its own convention.

And the wickedness goes on...

2008-09-02T19:16:00.007-04:00

Keep five yards from a carriage, ten yards from a horse, and a hundred yards from an elephant; but the distance one should keep from a wicked man cannot be measured.

-Indian Proverb

How [X] has conducted himself while winning campaigns is a subject of no small controversy in political circles. It is frequently said of him, in hushed tones when political folks are doing the talking, that he leaves a trail of damage in his wake—a reference to the substantial number of people who have been hurt, politically and personally, through their encounters with him. [X]'s reputation for winning is eclipsed only by his reputation for ruthlessness, and examples abound of his apparent willingness to cross moral and ethical lines.

Almost precisely these words appeared in The Atlantic magazine. I say "almost" because where I have inserted "X" The Atlantic article refers to Karl Rove.

The day has come, however, where we can almost substitute for Mr. Rove, a person from whom I stay immeasurably distanced, any of the following: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and various others. These political operators and the people who they control seem willing to cross any and all moral and ethical lines in their relentless insistence on depriving Democrats of internal due process. I say we can "almost" substitute their names for Mr. Rove's because they do not seem nearly so adept at actually gaining their stated objective - the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, an outcome that seems less likely with every gaffe and every new poll result.

The newest evidence of the wickedness of the current crop of DNC leaders is the fact that nobody in the DNC is willing to supply the following information: how the delegates actually voted in their private morning caucuses on the day of the roll call rigamarole orchestrated by Democratic Party state and national leaders. At those meetings the state party leaders, made fearful of any sort of "floor fight" (read "honest, open, legitimate, unrigged roll call vote") cajoled, pressured and demanded that delegates pledged to Senator Clinton switch their votes to Senator Obama. Wickedness.

I have been informed by various sources that delegates cannot get, from either the DNC or their State party chairs the following information: the actually tallies and ballot sheets from the morning caucuses. This means that nobody can check whether in fact Clinton delegates did switch or which of them did and which of them did not.

There is every reason to ask for this information if one cares about the Democratic Party's integrity which is rapidly reaching the vanishing point. When delegates ask for this information they are being told things like "We don't have copies of the ballots" or "We are too busy with campaigns". They are being told, in essence, to take a hike; process be damned, all that the Democratic Party cares about is result, with no heed to how it is achieved.

That type of thinking brought America an attorney general and a President who decided torture is not torture if it gets you what you think you want.

The DNC's own rules disqualify secret ballots at the convention. If the Party does not release full and verifiable tallies and ballot sheets post haste, they are not only in violation of this rule, Party officials become ever more indistinguishable from the man who stole Florida and deprived Al Gore of the Presidency in 2000.

Voting rights are at the foundation of any legitimate democratic institution. Ballots disappearing, delegates being given the runaround as they try to verify the result that was announced at the convention - these are wicked tactics, much like the threats to de-accredit delegates who at all tried to treat the Democratic Party Convention as the "deliberative body" is is supposed to be, according so "delegate guru" Phil MacNamara over on the DNCC website.

The purveyors of such political wickedness are tearing apart the Democratic Party and corroding its foundations. I for one shall remain immeasurably distanced from them and from the candidate who has capitalized on the leadership's wicked ways.

If you care to join those working hard to distance the current DNC leadership from their power, please consider a contribution to The Denver Group. For a summary of The Denver Group's post convention objectives go here.

From The Denver Group: Post Convention Goals

2008-09-02T19:09:00.002-04:00

The Denver Group: Post Convention Goals

Like many groups reeling from the rigamarole of a nomination process used by the DNC this year, The Denver Group has been taking stock. Today, plans crystallized. Take a look and if you like what you see, consider a donation to help The Denver Group attain these goals.

The Denver Group: Labor Day update from The Denver Group

2008-09-01T23:01:00.000-04:00

The Denver Group: Labor Day update from The Denver Group

How every Democrat can help us let Senators know we want Senator Clinton to be the next Senate majority leader

2008-09-01T21:02:00.004-04:00

An ad-hoc group of Democrats (including me) has created a website with a statement of purpose and an online version of the letter they will immediately be sending to all Senators and Senatorial candidates asking them to support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Majority Leader in 2009. If you go to the site, here, you can learn how to add your name as a signatory. In case you have trouble finding the information over at the website here it is, reprinted:

If you would like to sign the letter please send an email to marshamc55@gmail.com with "signer" in the subject line. Your message should included your full name, which we will add to the letter and your state and city and a contact phone number for identification purposes only. Your location and phone number will be kept private and will never appear on this site or any other public site.

Signing costs nothing, indicates that you understand that there's plenty of room for strong Democratic leadership throughout the federal government, and is a way of demonstrating your continuing support for Senator Clinton, her policies, and her political future.

Why Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton must be the next Senate Majority Leader

2008-09-01T09:14:00.004-04:00

To understand the importance of Senator Clinton holding this position, a review of precisely what the position involves is required.

Senate Majority leaders and Senate minority leaders lead their parties in the Senate, the term that covers both is "floor leader". The Majority Leader is from the Party who holds a majority in the Senate. The current Senate Majority Leader is Harry Reid (who, as it happens, was deeply involved in the results-driven Democratic Party presidential nomination process). Senator Reid holds the post of Majority Leader rather than Minority Leader rather precariously - because at the moment the Democratic majority in the Senate is razor thin. The current majority consists of 51 Senators (with two Independents currently designated as Democrats for purposes of calculating the majority; these is because these Senators are part of the Democratic Senate Caucus). The Republican minority consists of 49 members.

In 2009, the Democrats have a meaningful chance to make their majority large enough to override any Presidential veto of legislation passed by the house. (Such a veto requires 60 votes, and one problem the current Senate has had in controlling the excesses of the Bush-Cheney administration is that the Democratic Party has had insufficient votes to guarantee an override.)

Two basic factors make 2009 a promising one for securing a larger Democratic majority. First, the Republicans have 23 seats at stake whereas the Democrats have only 12. But these numbers alone overstate the opportunity for Democrats to take a more commanding lead in the Senate, because many of the Republicans running for reelection come from "safe" districts.

States with seriously competitive races include Alaska (where the Palin pick helps the Republican candidate despite the disastrous Republican incumbent Ted Stevens, who is under every kind of investigation for every type of corruption imaginable); Colorado; Louisiana; Maine; Minnesota (where Al Franken is challenging a Republican incumbent); Mississippi; New Hampshire; New Mexico; North Carolina; Oregon; and Virginia. [source]

Regardless of how each races turn out though, it is reasonable to predict that the Democrats will go into 2009 with a Majority in the Senate and a larger one than the current one.

An effective Senator Majority Leader not only leads her Party's Senators, she knows when and how to reach across the aisle to work with select Republicans who will co-author good bipartisan bills and Republican Senators who will vote for sensible legislation regardless of Party affiliation. She works closely with the Republican Minority Leader to make these things happen. As described by the U.S. Senate's own website:

Although party floor leadership posts carry great responsibility, they provide few specific powers. Instead, floor leaders have largely had to depend on their individual skill, intelligence, and personality. Majority leaders seek to balance the needs of senators of both parties to express their views fully on a bill with the pressures to move the bill as quickly as possible toward enactment. These conflicting demands have required majority leaders to develop skills in compromise, accommodation, and diplomacy. Lyndon Johnson, who held the post in the 1950s, once said that the greatest power of the majority leader was "the power of persuasion."
The majority leader usually works closely with the minority leader so that, as Senator Bob Dole explained, "we never surprise each other on the floor." The party leaders meet frequently with the president and with the leaders of the House of Representatives. The majority leader also greets foreign dignitaries visiting the Capitol.

Senator Clinton is eminently qualified for this role. (Indeed her experience in the Senate and the respect in which she is held there were among the reasons she would have been such an excellent Democratic President this year, since working effectively with the legislative branch, especially the Senate, is a large part of what makes a President successful.) She has the policy ideas and the political savvy that can make the Senate an extremely powerful force for progressive change. Senator Clinton has the respect of foreign leaders the world over.

Furthermore, Senator Clinton now enjoys a popular mandate for her views and policies: she won more votes than any other presidential contender in a primary season ever has; polls show that were she running against John McCain she would be beating him handily; and she is a politician of national prominence who has support from rank and file voters of all affiliations.

Thus, the importance of making sure that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected by her Democratic peers to lead them in the Senate. Information on how rank and file Democrats can work toward this objective to follow. Stay tuned.

Reforming the Democratic Party through documenting what went on Denver

2008-09-01T01:27:00.002-04:00

For those interested in The Denver Group, this site should be of considerable interest.

Marsha Pappas' Open Letter to Senator Clinton - and a present proudly worn

2008-08-31T21:17:00.008-04:00

I am sure many readers of this blog have already seen this marvelous letter, written by Marsha Pappas, head of NOW NYS. It arrived in my email today, coinciding with the first day I had the chance to wear the wonderful shirt given to me by two generous donors to Senator Clinton who had the shirt to which they were entitled sent to me.

Ms. Pappas' letter, which I wholeheartedly endorse. (Click on text to enlarge.)

Loyal Democrat of the Day: Ed O'Reilly

2008-08-31T12:10:00.002-04:00

Ed O'Reilly, running against John Kerry for the Democratic spot on the November ballot, is my pick for loyal Democrat of the Day. Ed gets it: loyalty to party does not mean blindly following commands from on high. Loyalty to the Democratic Party means true progressivism and an insistence on democratic and Democratic values, ideals, and principles. To that end, Ed has persisted in attempting to engage John Kerry in public debates. John Kerry, not so interested. But Ed has finally shamed Senator Kerry into some sort of debate, and for that I congratulate Ed.

Please consider donating to Ed O'Reilly's campaign. The Massachusetts primary is September 16. Ed needs funds.
You can one-stop donate to him and to other progressive candidates and causes here.

Message from The Denver Group: A straightforward request for contributions to Principle Before Party

2008-08-31T10:27:00.000-04:00

The Denver Group: A straightforward request for contributions to Principle Before Party

The Democratic Party is my Party and I'm not giving it away without a fight

2008-08-30T22:36:00.003-04:00

Today I received a very polite email inquiry urging to me to reconsider my personal position with regard to my intention to conscientiously abstain from voting for the Democrat at the top of the ticket this year. After receiving so many nasty anonymous jibes and digs, it was a great relief to read such an intelligent and careful piece of writing from a fellow Democrat. There were two main steps to his argument: that the country cannot withstand another four years of Republican policies in the Bush-Cheney mold; and that therefore I should be willing to defer my objections to the DNC's corruption in anointing a nominee and to the Democratic Party leadership's continuing unwillingness to immediately take affirmative steps toward making sure that this corruption within the Democratic Party will not be allowed to continue. The writer also pointed out that when it comes to corruption, there is plenty in the RNC and among Republican politicians. The writer appealed to issues like abortion rights and environmental issues as two among others that are too important to leave in the hands of Senator McCain.

For months, Senator Obama, Dr. Dean, Speaker Pelosi - along with Donna Brazile, Jesse Jackson Jr., and Bill Richardson - made it clear that they felt that my vote was not necessary for an Obama victory this November. They claimed that with the participation of independents, registered Republicans, and a newly minted crop of registered Democrats, they were sure they had plenty of votes - more than enough, in fact - to defeat Senator McCain. Somewhat paradoxically, they also claimed that in any event that they were entirely confident I would ultimately vote for Senator Obama -- indeed that I would do so no matter how they treated the candidate I preferred, Senator Clinton; no matter how much I made known my dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party's violations of its own rules and principles; and no matter how much I objected to the Party's toleration of and engagement in sexist and misogynistic rhetoric.

Those who preferred and promoted Senator Obama's campaign may turn out to be correct that he can forge a coalition of independents, Republicans, and freshly registered Democrats large enough to defeat Senator McCain. But I must inform the obviously sincere person who wrote to me that, while I will not cast a ballot for John McCain this November, neither will I cast one for Senator Obama. I agree with the writer that the RNC may well have corruption problems of their own. But the Republican Party is not my concern; long ago I decided that the Party that brought us Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and the idea of the "imperial presidency" would never be my party. When the Republicans stole Florida, depriving the country of a Gore presidency, I was outraged but it made no difference in my stance to that Party, which was already one of opposition.

But had I been a Republican and old enough to vote in the Carter/Ford election, I know I would not have voted for Gerald Ford, even if I could not bring myself to vote for Jimmy Carter. And the reason I could not have done so is because President Ford's pardon of President Nixon put an official Republican Party seal of approval on the internal corruption Richard Nixon brought to the Republican Party.

By the same token, even though I am an ardent Democrat, I cannot participate in the legitimization of the practices and procedures the Democratic Party used to arrive at its nominee this year. Repeatedly, Dr. Dean, Speaker Pelosi and other less famous members of official Democratic Party institutions put their seal of approval on these practices and procedures.

Fortunately for me, I can conscientiously abstain from casting a ballot for any presidential candidate this year and instead turn my political energy to another effort that I believe will ensure that our country moves in progressive directions on a host of issues, including guaranteeing reproductive rights, guaranteeing the civil rights of gays and lesbians, ending the war in Iraq, and protecting the environment. That effort is to make sure that the Democratic Party wins as large a majority as possible in both the House and Senate, with candidates who embrace progressivism and object to internal Democratic Party corruption. In our federal governmental structure the legislature can pass legislation and even constitutional amendments to further progressive causes; the legislature can override presidential vetoes of these measures. For example, a robustly progressive legislature could pass the Equal Rights Amendment; and an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing women's rights to control their own bodies; another to protect the civil rights of all people regardless of their sexual orientation; another to rid this country of the death penalty. The legislature can enact statutes and create agencies to fund stem cell research, to promote space exploration, to attend to specific environmental issues such as global warming. The legislature can force a sane and reasonable withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by attaching requirements in this regard to appropriations for funding U.S. action in that country. The legislature can refuse to approve proposed Supreme Court justices unless it is satisfied with their integrity as jurists.

But the Congress can only exert its power for good if it is peopled by true progressives - in most cases that means Democrats - and progressives who are staunchly committed to civil rights and voters' rights in every political process in this country. So I will turn my efforts to identifying those Democrats and doing whatever I can to see them elected in November. With a legislature like that, I do not have to gamble on who wins the Presidency or even what sort of policies that President would prefer to see implemented.

I respect the right of each and every citizen to decide for himself or herself how best to participate in the upcoming November elections. I hope that regardless of Party affiliation citizens will realize that to secure a more perfect union we need to instantiate the measures I discussed above and that regardless of Party affiliation one can seek out and support progressives running for Congress.

For too long we as a people have let Presidential politics blind us to the possibility of achieving progressive goals via the legislative process. This has yielded an unprecedented expansion of power for the executive branch. I realize that many people therefore find themselves focusing on who will occupy this branch. But there is a vicious circle there: so long as we focus exclusively or primarily on who becomes President, the more we legitimize the imperial presidency.

So by opting out of casting a vote in the Presidential race this year, I give myself the freedom - and time - to devote myself to breaking that vicious cycle. Furthermore, I can work for progressive Democrat political power without condoning what I cannot condone, the undemocratic and anti-Democratic violations of the Democratic Party's own promulgated rules that yielded this year's Democratic nominee; the willingness to look the other way when there was caucus fraud; the unprincipled treatment of Florida and Michigan voters; and so on and so forth. To my fellow rank and file Democrats who either do not find the Party's conduct this primary season as objectionable as I do or who are going to vote for Senator Obama because they so fear the McCain alternative, I say that is your right. But I would urge you to spare some time and effort to pay attention to the down ticket progressive Democrats running for House and Senate, many of whom are running in districts or states where Senator Obama's coattails - however long or short they turn out to be - will not help them get elected. If you cannot spare the time or effort though, do not worry. I along with millions of other rank and file Democrats will be focusing our energy in that direction - and that should not threaten or alarm any Democrat.

Causes and candidates to which any good Democrat can feel good about supporting (a list in progress)

Principle Before Party from The Denver Group (donate here)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (donate to retire the debt or to the 2012 reelection fund here)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee's reelection to the House (donate here via link to Heidi Li's Potpourri Act Blue Page)
Ed O'Reilly's yeoman effort to bring serious progressivism back to Massachussetts (donate here via link to Heidi Li's Potpourri Act Blue Page)

The Denver Group: THE DENVER GROUP'S NEW MESSAGE: "PRINCIPLE BEFORE PARTY" AND WHAT IT MEANS.

2008-08-30T22:26:00.000-04:00

The Denver Group: THE DENVER GROUP'S NEW MESSAGE: "PRINCIPLE BEFORE PARTY" AND WHAT IT MEANS.

In case anybody is in any doubt that the current DNC and DNCC have lost all track of what it means to be principled, try this fun little text. See if you can quickly get the answers to the following questions from the DNC or DNCC websites.

How would the roll call have gone if delegates were left free to vote as they were pledged to have done?
How does this compare to how they voted after the delegates were summoned to private tally sessions?
What are the complete results of all those tallies, which Senator Clinton formally moved to have counted?

Please take a look at the message The Denver Group wants to put into the MSM and if you can spare a few dollars, consider a donation. We are not giving up on our party; we are determined to clean it up.

RETIRE THE DEBT - A must see video from Geeklove

2008-08-30T10:17:00.001-04:00

Watch here.

Ridicule, fine. Misogynistic ridicule, not so good.

2008-08-29T19:51:00.003-04:00

As I have repeatedly said, I do not think vice-presidential picks make the difference in presidential elections. One thing does make this year different. This year the sexism and misogyny that seems embedded in the current crop of Democratic Party officials has alienated millions of men and women who expected better of the Democratic Party. John McCain has certainly capitalized on that by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. I personally would never vote for a McCain for president, and Senator McCain's choosing a woman as a running mate makes no difference to me. But I assure you that for millions of disappointed and outraged men and women who would ordinarily not vote Republican, Senator McCain's choice will carry weight.

Bearing this in mind, let us consider the Florida Democratic State Party's email blast sent out today, over the name of Florida's Democratic Party State Chair and Obama superdelegate Karen Thurman.

From: Karen Thurman, Florida Democratic Party [mailto:grassroots@fladems.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: Heartbeat from the Presidency

Dear Friends,

John McCain rolled the dice with his VP pick today - in an attempt to woo women voters.

But we cannot gamble with women's lives.

Don't let your friends, family and co-workers be fooled: Alaskan Sarah Palin is a dangerous right-winger who lacks the judgment to lead.

In 2000, Palin endorsed Pat Buchanan for President. Yes, that Pat Buchanan.

In 2006, Palin ran for Alaska Governor on a message of change - and then turned out to be just another corrupt Alaska politician who's now under investigation in her own state.

She's no Hillary Clinton. She's Dan Quayle in a dress.

Women voters who care about equal rights, choice, family and other issues, will not see a partner in Palin.

Help us fight for these issues by electing Democrats up and down the ticket. Click here to donate today:

She is lockstep with Bush and McCain on issues important to women. Every one of them. That's scary.

The corrupt trio of Ted Stevens, Don Young, and Lisa Murkowski all raised campaign money for Palin.

John McCain claimed that Barack Obama lacked experience. Then he picked a VP who has just 20 months at the helm of a state with a population smaller than the city of Jacksonville, and zero foreign policy experience. Palin would be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Barack Obama is ready to lead. Last night he showed us what the next American President will look like. He and Joe Biden will deliver change we need.

The stakes are too high to risk another four years of the same. If you have $25, $50 or $100 to spare, please contribute today to the Florida Democratic Party's campaign to elect Democrats up and down the ballot. We're on the verge of major change in Florida, but we need your help.

Sincerely,

Congresswoman Karen L. Thurman
Chair, Florida Democratic Party

This email was sent to:

To unsubscribe, go to:

Paid for and authorized by the Florida Democratic Party, www.fladems.com.

What, you may ask, is wrong with this? Sarah Palin is indeed a conservative Republican; she is indeed under investigation for corruption. But note the sentence put in bold, where Thurman refers to Gov. Palin as "Dan Quayle in a dress." If Thurman wanted to criticize or even ridicule Sarah Palin's intelligence, fine by me. Ridicule is a tried and true political tactic. But a wiser ridiculer would not included the gratutious reference to women's attire. Because once that reference is added, it becomes ambiguous as to whether Sarah Palin is being ridiculed for lacking smarts or because she is female. And no, it makes no difference that this remark is meant to contrast Palin with Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton's intelligence is obvious to all the world. The appropriate contrast would have been between Senator Obama's chosen running mate, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin, and if the basis of the contrast is that one v.p. pick is smarter than the other, then the gender of either has nothing to do with anything.

So, there it is again, the tendency of current state and national Democratic officials to display misogyny, at a time when such displays are very likely to cost the Party its best shot at the Presidency since President Clinton was reelected to office.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the burden to prove that he understands and will speak out against sexism and misogyny within the Democratic Party is upon Senator Obama. I recognize that he is in a bind because, not having spoken out previously, he might seem like he is merely being expedient in speaking out now. The challenge for him is how to walk that tightrope - it is one he and his advisers, with the help of Dr. Dean and Speaker Pelosi - set up. It is there and either Senator Obama will walk it with aplomb and grace; or he will try to pretend it isn't a real challenge for him; or he will fall off the highwire.

Action steps for Democrats' Democrats moving forward

2008-08-29T14:27:00.002-04:00

The convention has been something of a strange time for us rank and file Democrats. But it is now behind us and for those of us seeking ways to make the Democratic Party everything it should be, for itself and for America, here are steps I suggest (and have already begun undertaking myself). Just my suggestions:

1. As we identify downticket Democrats who can carry forward the mantle of Stephanie Tubbs Jones, let's make sure they receive enough support to win in November.

2. Even better, let's make sure to support those Democrats who we know will work effectively with Senator Clinton to achieve the goals that over 18 million Americans endorsed when they cast their votes for her during the primary season.

3. When Senator Clinton's campaign releases information about which of her campaign funds (2012 reelection committee or the Hillary Clinton for President 2007-08 primary committee) most need our donations, let's donate.
4. Let's recruit and champion Democrats we believe are committed to restoring the party to a more functional, fair, and truly democratic institution to occupy local, state, and national positions within The Democratic Party.

5. Join Hillpac. No need to contribute financially to participate in its current petition drive, and if you agree with its mission statement and objectives and want to donate, learn more here.

Text of Hillpac petition:
Dear Secretary Leavitt,

The regulations now published by HHS raise serious concerns about women's access to family planning services. I strongly urge you to revise this policy that threatens to affect Medicaid and Title X programs that are important to millions of families, and would undermine the health of women across the country. I also call on the Department to issue final regulations that include an assurance that a woman's access to contraception will not be compromised.

I stand with Hillary Clinton and women and men across America in speaking out against these proposed regulations. We've had enough of putting ideology over science and failed policies harming healthy families. [To sign, go here.]

In posts to follow, I will be elaborating on steps 1 -4. Step 5 is something anybody can do today.

On being a Democrat's Democrat

2008-08-29T12:24:00.004-04:00

Many people misunderstand the concepts of commitment and loyalty. Many more misunderstand the idea that reasonable people of good faith can disagree about what constitutes commitment and loyalty.

These misunderstandings are making it very difficult right now for Democrats to treat each other with the civility and the respect that both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton worked hard to display toward one another at the Democratic National Convention. Anybody who is speaking about how to respond to the result of the Convention is surely receiving praise and criticism from fellow Democrats about the very same remarks. Some Democrats seem unable to accept that other Democrats will not respond to the race for the presidency in the same way. That is not the Democratic way, in my opinion. If the Democratic Party is to be a party that respects diversity and difference, Democrats themselves must tolerate diversity and difference in opinion about how best to work to strengthen the Party.

For my own part, I cannot imagine voting for Senator McCain because I entirely reject his policy positions and his world view. Nothing sad about that; this is why I have never been able to vote for any Republican presidential candidate. It is why I remain a happily remain a registered Democrat and will remain one.

What is sad is that the actions of the DNC and the DNCC have made it impossible for me personally to cast a vote for the Democratic Party's nominee. I cannot condone the multiple illegitimate practices used to arrive at the result of the Democratic Party's nominating convention.

But I defer to nobody when I insist that I am not only a Democrat, but a Democrat's Democrat. First, I will not insult those who choose to vote for Senator Obama. I assume, to paraphrase Senator Obama's acceptance speech, that these voters love their country, just I do. I also assume they will vote as they will because of their good faith belief that an Obama presidency is essential or necessary to the medium and longer-term well-being of the country and/or the continuing vitality of the Democratic Party.

As a Democrat's Democrat I can acknowledge and respect these beliefs quite easily although I simply do not share them. And as a Democrat's Democrat I hold out the faith that my fellow Democrats will be able to acknowledge and respect my beliefs even if they do not share them.

I believe that the best thing for the country and the Democratic Party this November is to ensure an overwhelming victory for Democrats in the House and Senate. This way, regardless of whether Senator Obama or Senator McCain wins the presidency the legislative branch of our government will be able to assert itself on behalf of genuine progressivism, to keep a check on any executive branch efforts to be anti-progressive, whether it be by injecting too much religiosity into our Constitutionally secular government or by carrying on a meaningless and tragic war in Iraq. A powerful and progressive House and Senate can protect and implement Democratic ideals and policies, regardless of who sits in the White House.

This is good news for all Democrats. Because whether one plans to vote for Senator Obama or not, he is not a shoo-in (nor would Senator Clinton have been one) for the Presidency. And if Senator Obama loses in November, I trust that he, as a fellow Democrat's Democrat, will go back to the Senate and work as hard as he can for the many of the policies he specified in his speech at Invesco Field last night.

Please contact the DSCC and tell them that we will only support them (and their candidates) once it has been made clear to us that the Senate Democrats will elect Hillary Clinton as their leader in January:

http://www.dscc.org/content?content_item_KEY=1442
(hat tip to Will Bower)

The Denver Group: Heidi Li on My Two Cents radio (second hour)

2008-08-29T10:07:00.000-04:00

The Denver Group: Heidi Li on My Two Cents radio (second hour)

Well, Senator Obama's speech certainly is stunning

2008-08-28T22:37:00.003-04:00

As I type this, I am listening to Senator Obama give his acceptance speech.

It is stunning. It is audacious. It lifts word-for-word and paragraph-by-paragraph from Senator Clinton's stump speech. When Senator Clinton is not being quoted directly (without attribution), almost every idea Senator Clinton advanced during her campaign.

It would be one thing if Senator Obama had been quoting Senator Clinton with attribution and using her ideas throughout the primary season. Then, this speech would not be stunningly breathtakingly audacious. It would be a speech given by the person who would have been the better person to run against John McCain, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; possibly it would have been given by Senator Clinton's running mate, who might have been Senator Obama. And it would have been a speech that would have been not only inspiring but more importantly credible.

Hillary Clinton For Senate Majority Leader - one fabulous idea

2008-08-28T21:53:00.001-04:00

Check it out, either by clicking the title or clicking here.

The Denver Group: WHAT'S NEXT

2008-08-28T21:16:00.000-04:00

The Denver Group: WHAT'S NEXT

Check it out, please.

A must-read

2008-08-28T11:33:00.002-04:00

As printed in Rasmussen Reports:

Hillary Can't Fix What Her Party Broke

A Commentary By Froma Harrop

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Hillary Clinton just gave the last major speech of her 2008 campaign. Or perhaps was it the first of her 2012 campaign. She said vote-for-Barack enough times and at enough volume to protect her from accusations of trying to sabotage Obama's chances in November, not that she won't be accused.

But the address at the Democrats' convention was a campaign speech -- for her. It was about health care, women's struggles and other signature Hillary issues. To her diehard supporters who have yet to come home to Obama, she said: "I want you to ask yourselves. Were you in the campaign just for me?"

That's the giveaway line, because for Hillary's angry backers, the issue is no longer what was done to her. It was about what was done to them.

Democrats had turned on fellow Democrats, and although the arrows flew in all directions, the nastiest of the invective fell on the ladies who loved Hillary. That these loyal Democrats had been targeted made them nuts.

I spent the morning at the Denver headquarters of PUMA PAC, perhaps the best known of the anti-Obama Democratic groups. PUMA stands for People United Means Action, according to the acronym's polite version. It was founded by Darragh Murphy, a 39-year-old blogger from Boston, who had been flamed once too often while praising Clinton on the left-wing Daily Kos Website.

How strange that anyone writing for a political site would be smeared for backing a candidate of the same party. If the Democratic leadership had any sense of self-preservation, it would have shunned creepy bloggers and those who provided their forum. Instead, it hailed them as voices of the new generation.

"What will your members do when Hillary tells them to vote for Obama?" I asked Murphy.

"They will not vote for Obama," she replied. "I can tell you that."

Whether they will vote for John McCain is another matter. Murphy herself has not decided what she'll do in November.

PUMA spokeswoman Shannon Rains is closer to going over to McCain. "I've been voting for 20 years," the 39-year-old from Salisbury, Md., told me. "I've never ever looked at a Republican candidate. I am now."

The Democrats clearly have a hooligan problem. It was as though their left-wingers suffered a kind of Karl Rove envy. They wanted to go on the attack, demonize a Clinton and hurl abuse at the Clinton's friends. Only a year ago, Vanity Fair ran a cover story on how Clinton hatred had infected much of the right wing. The left seems to have grabbed the baton. And it apparently did not dawn on the Obama shock troops that they were offending the very people their man might someday need.

The Rovian right never made that mistake with non-candidates.

It reserved its thuggery for people who would never vote for a Republican.

No, sexism didn't doom Clinton's campaign. Sexism may have even helped Clinton in the later primaries as the outrages turned her into something of a martyr. But that didn't excuse it.

Hillary is not about to abandon her power base. She ended her speech by exercising her impressive talent for bonding with the women who adore her. And anyone who listened closely could tell that there was no room in that relationship for Barack Obama.

"You allowed me to become part of your lives, and you became part of mine," she said. And: "To my supporters, to my champions, to my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits, from the bottom of my heart, thank you. Thank you, because you never gave in, and you never gave up."

Her story continues.

Keep going

2008-08-28T05:33:00.001-04:00

"If you are tired, keep going; if you are scared, keep going; if you are hungry, keep going; if you want to taste freedom, keep going."

attributed to Harriet Tubman

Warning: what you are about to see is not a real vote

2008-08-27T17:22:00.003-04:00

Denver, Democratic National Convention, August 24 - 3:30 Mountain Time

In the previous post on this site, I discussed the private delegate sessions held during the day before today's Convention officially convened. Apparently, the delegates were required to sign ballot sheets in those sessions, and it seems that it is these ballot sheets that will be tallied in the next couple of hours during the official "roll call vote". In my previous post, I noted all the ways delegates themselves could, in principle, object to what happens on the floor, including basing an objection into being forced to participate in these private meetings under duress.

But I doubt that will happen - not for lack of delegates who would want to do so - but because such tremendous acts of political courage in the face of oppression are exceedingly hard to muster.

If delegates do muster the will to fight today on the Convention Floor for a democratic Democratic party, they will, I have no doubt be quashed by Speaker Pelosi who long ago gave up on democratic procedures and principles or even showing enough integrity to have her Party abide by its own Rules.

Regardless of what people see on their televisions over the next hour or so, do not be fooled. No ritual that is preceded by private balloting can be understand to be a genuine or authentic vote. When Americans go to vote in the general election, for example, they will not be rounded up beforehand and asked to sign documents stating how they will vote before hand. If we were, the documents would not count as votes anyway. That is because, messy and imperfect as federal elections can be, the one thing the government does is at least try to do is to make the elections that occur on Election Day be genuine decision making making mechanisms, a chance for those eligible to vote to cast ballots according to a previously established procedure to use that procedure to decide the question at hand.

Quite the opposite has occurred at the Democratic Party convention this year. Every effort has been made to ensure that today's televised proceedings NOT be the actual mechanism to decide the Democratic Party's nominee, to turn what could and should have been a vote into a "vote".
What we are watching today more closely resembles closely Iranian parliamentary elections than U.S. federal elections.

A "vote" is not a vote. It is a sham, a fake, a show.

A respectful recommendation: a contribution to The Denver Group, an organization that will keep on fighting for democracy in the Democratic Party regardless of whatever spectacles are on display this particular week in Denver.

Noon Denver time update: Democratic Party Convention roll call vote

2008-08-27T14:37:00.007-04:00

Based on a review of a wide number of sources (some off the record, most on) here is my best understanding of what is taking place before the Convention is called to order today and the roll call held. Go here for the official schedule of the day. According to that schedule, the roll call will be held in the first hour of the first session of today, between 3 and 4 p.m. mountain time.

The schedule does not disclose what is happening this morning and early afternoon with the delegates. As best as I can judge, what is going on is that the delegates are being rounded up state by state for a caucus-like (?!?) process, headed by Obama campaign staff it seems. At these sessions delegates are being required to express their preference for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, with the understanding that these preferences will then be disclosed on the floor of the convention.

There is no Party rule that I can find that specifies this procedure, so it appears to be another improvisation. The question then arises, does this improvisation violate Party rules or are the rules silent on the matter?

The procedures from the 2008 Call to the Convention that would seem to be most relevant are reprinted below, with the most directly significant ones emphasized in bold color. My own annotations as to how the specified official procedures relate to the reported sessions being held now are in italic color.

Summary: There are specified procedures for dealing with almost any contingency that could arise during an actual roll call vote. The delegates can force a roll call vote if they so choose. The caucus-like sessions I believe are taking place now would appear to violate the specific rule against "secret ballots".

From the Call to The Convention:

7. Roll Call for Presidential Candidate:

a. After nominations for presidential candidates have closed, the Convention shall proceed to a roll call vote by states on the selection of the presidential candidate. The roll call voting shall follow the alphabetical order of the states with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and the territories treated as states for the purpose of the alphabetical roll call. [Still no word as to whether this order will be followed and a full polling of all states completed]

b. A majority vote of the Convention’s delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate. [I would have thought the simplest way to determine a majority vote would be simply to vote, on the floor, as specified by the Call to the Convention.]

...

d. Balloting will continue until a nominee is selected. The nominee shall become the candidate of the Democratic Party of the United States for the Office of President upon the conclusion of his or her acceptance speech.

8. Acceptance Speech by Presidential Candidate: Immediately after the selection of the Democratic nominee for President, the Permanent Chair shall invite the nominee to
deliver an acceptance speech to the Convention.

....

F. Voting:

1. Secret Ballot: No secret ballots shall be permitted at any stage of the Convention or its committee proceedings. [The improvised caucus-like sessions certainly seem like "secret ballots" if one interprets "secret" as nonpublic, not conducted during officially convened sessions, and/or not accessible to press coverage. I would so interpret "secret" but I am confident that others would give the word some other definition.]

2. Proxy Voting: Neither delegate nor alternate delegate votes may be cast by proxy.

3. Roll Call Votes:

a. Voting shall be by voice vote or, when prescribed by these rules, by roll call vote. The roll call voting shall follow the order as specified in Article VIII.C.7.a. A roll call vote shall also be had if the Chair is in doubt or upon demand of any delegate supported by twenty percent (20%) of the Convention’s delegates as evidenced by one of the following methods:

(1) A petition submitted to the Chair indicating support of the demand by delegations which comprise not less than twenty percent (20%) of the Convention’s delegates. In the case of the petition in support of a demand for a roll call vote, a delegation shall be taken to support the demand if a majority of its delegates have signed a petition to do so.

(2) By the rising in support of the demand by not less than twenty percent (20%) of the delegates present.
[Taken together, it would seem that a roll call vote will have to be held, because even if Chair Nancy Pelosi does not regard herself as "in doubt", a demand by 20% of delegates suffices to force a roll call vote and from what I have learned at least that many delegates want a free, fair, and honest roll call - but of course whether they stand up to demand that lies in their own hands at this point.]

b. When a roll call vote is ordered, the roll call shall be called by states, and the Chair of each delegation or his or her designee shall report the vote of his or her delegation and shall send to the Convention Secretary a tally showing the vote of each member of his or her delegation indicating whether such vote was cast in person or by an alternate. Such roll call votes may be conducted by having the Chair for each delegation report by telephone, or electronic voting mechanism, the vote of his or her delegation to the rostrum, provided that the telephone poll shall not be used in the balloting for the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. Business shall be permitted to proceed during the telephone roll call and votes may be conducted by electronic mechanism. After each official vote, the Delegation Chair shall record and tally votes of the delegation on official roll call tally sheets provided by the Convention Secretary. All official roll call tally sheets shall be turned in to the Convention Secretary at a specified location not more than thirty (30) minutes after the close of each voting period.

c. All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

...

e. On a roll call vote by states, the vote cast on behalf of a delegation may be challenged by communication to the Convention Secretary by telephone or other means by any voting member of that state’s delegation within ten (10) minutes after the Convention Secretary’s announcement of the state’s vote. The votes of that delegation shall then be recorded as polled without regard to any state law, party rule, resolution or instruction binding the delegation or any member thereof to vote for or against any candidate or proposition. The Convention Chair may send a parliamentarian to the delegation to conduct the poll. At the discretion of the Convention Chair, the roll call may continue instead of waiting for the result of the polling.

f. On a roll call vote conducted by telephone or other electronic voting mechanism, the vote of a delegation as shown on the video projection system may be challenged by communication to the Convention Secretary by telephone or other means by any voting member of the delegation within ten (10) minutes after the delegation’s vote is shown on the screen.

g. A demand to poll a delegation may be withdrawn at any time before the actual polling has begun.

4. Interruption of Vote: When the question has been put, the vote thereon may not be interrupted for any purpose other than a demand for a roll call vote or a point of order directed to the conduct of the vote.
5. Determination of Question: Except as otherwise provided in these rules, all questions, including the question of nominations of candidates for President and Vice President of the United States, shall be determined by a majority vote of the delegates to the Convention.

The last straw - by The Denver Group

2008-08-27T08:35:00.003-04:00

Click on image above to enlarge.

Following a true leader's example - and answering a question from one very important friend

2008-08-27T02:23:00.002-04:00

I had the good fortune to be in the Pepsi Center tonight while Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed the Convention. Senator Clinton was at the top of her game. She hit all the important notes she struck throughout the primary season. And then, a woman of her word, she encouraged and asked all Democrats to vote for Senator Barack Obama. Senator Clinton promised to help Senator Obama win the presidency in June, and she keeps on keeping that promise. That's integrity.

After I returned from the Pepsi Center, a very important friend asked me why I am not willing to work to get Senator Obama elected, since somebody I admire so much - Senator Clinton - is herself willing to do so. I replied that I thought I could help the Democratic Party more by focusing on making sure that it earns back all the credibility its current leaders have cost it.

And I do think that. But when an important friend asks me a question in good faith, integrity demands a better response.

Having reflected on the question, here is a fuller response, and one that I think is better. I have offered in the past to actively advise Senator Obama. His campaign has not approached for my advice, and that's natural enough since I am sure they have no idea who I am. But for what it is worth, here is my best effort to advise Senator Obama on how to win in November, assuming that whatever process takes place on August 27th yields him as the Democratic Party nominee.

Immediately and publicly demand Dr. Dean's resignation as DNC Chair.
Ditto for all other top DNC officials.
Ask President Clinton to take charge of seeing who might be willing to run for and accept the office of DNC chair.

Were Senator Obama to take these steps, and assuming that Dr. Dean et al. would indeed resign, Senator Obama would thereby accomplish a number of things that would, in my opinion, up his currently not so hot chances of winning in November. First, he would make it clear that he appreciates the dire need for change in DNC leadership. Second, he would reassure all Democrats the health of their party is among his top priorities. Third, by seeking President Clinton's leadership in the quest for successors to Dr. Dean etc. Senator Obama would demonstrate that he understands the appropriate way to treat a former U.S. President - the only two-term Democratic President of Senator Obama's life-time - that is, by clearly demonstrating respect. Fourth, Senator Obama would demonstrate that he is smart enough to ask somebody who so successfully revitalized the Democratic Party before to play a large hand in doing so once again.

So, there my important friend, is my best shot - as of this writing at least - at helping Senator Obama win the White House, assuming he becomes the Party's nominee.

The Denver Group: celebrating in Denver, moving forward

2008-08-27T01:58:00.002-04:00

Two reads from The Denver Group: tonight's celebration and next steps.

For every person who is supporting Senator Clinton today..and every day

2008-08-26T14:56:00.003-04:00

Many of Senator Clinton's supporters have learned lessons about the power of working together toward the common good; and many of us have learned that while our individual efforts may vary in focus, loose coordination - sometimes even unplanned or accidental coordination - packs a lot of power. One organization that I have become familiar with in recent months is the National Women's Hall of Fame.

Today, when Senator Clinton, who was inducted into the NWHF in 2005, will be addressing the Democratic National Convention, we might consider supporting the NWHF, possibly by purchasing the print pictured here, a print commissioned especially to support the NWHF. Information provided by the NWHF below.

Participate in a unique opportunity to help the National Women’s Hall of Fame continue telling the stories of outstanding American women. Limited edition signed and numbered prints of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Seed of Consciousness, created by acclaimed artist Katherine Pfeffer Pross, are now available for purchase. Each print is only $200.00, and $150.00 of the purchase price goes directly toward the rehabilitation of the Hall’s future home – the former Seneca Knitting Mill in Seneca Falls, NY.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Seed of Consciousness was inspired by a well-known photograph of Elizabeth Cady Stanton taken in 1870, and fuses both paint and words to inspire its viewers. In the print, Stanton is pictured at a table painted to represent the one on which she wrote the Declaration of Sentiments. Jet stone beads, worn at the time as a symbol of mourning, hang around her neck to show the grief she carried for the great losses in women’s struggle for equality, and a red and white striped flag with one gold star hangs behind her as a representation of the 1870 suffrage flag. A compilation of thought-provoking quotes adorns the right side of the print and keeps the viewer engaged with the work for a longer period of time.

The artist, Katherine Pfeffer Pross, and her husband, Jack, own and operate Heirloom Picture Framing in Seneca Falls, NY. Pross attended the Center for Creative Studies in Detroit, Michigan and took classes at the University of Michigan, where she studied under several great artists. She has owned and operated picture framing shops and galleries for over thirty-five years, and her work hangs in various organizations throughout the country. The limited edition print, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Seed of Consciousness, with a remarque of Susan B. Anthony, hangs in the national archives at the White House. Also in the permanent collection at the White House is a Christmas ornament that Katherine recently completed depicting the Women’s Rights National Historical Park. As an artist, Pross strives to use her work as a teaching tool with the hope that it will inspire equality through education.

Contact the National Women’s Hall of Fame via telephone at 315.568.8060 or via email greatwomen@greatwomen.org to purchase your print of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Seed of Consciousness today!

To purchase a print with a remarque or to learn more about custom framing options, please contact Katherine Pfeffer Pross via telephone at 315.568.5454 or via email at katherinepfefferpross@yahoo.com. For more about Pross and Heirloom Picture Framing, visit www.heirloompictureframing.com.

USA Today covers The Denver Group

2008-08-26T01:35:00.000-04:00

Click the title or go here to learn more.

That pesky problem: actual reality

2008-08-25T07:45:00.005-04:00

The DNC, Dr. Dean, Speaker Pelosi, et al. are learning, the hard way, that faux unity is no unity; that when you try to create your own reality, real reality tends to get in the way.

So now here we are in Denver and Dr. Dean's and Speaker Pelosi's preferred candidate is dead even with John McCain in the polls; it is quite clear that delegates to the convention - especially those who have organized a nominating petition to be filed if the DNC reneges on its previous commitment to put Senator Clinton's name in nomination - understand their rights and responsibilities and want to have the opportunity to elect Senator Clinton as the Party's nominee; the DNC seems to be in a panic over its decision to enter Senator Clinton's name in nomination; the DNC and DNCC still will not confirm that they will hold a straightforward, transparent, regular roll call vote as specified in the Call for The 2008 Democratic National Convention, the Party's own official convention governance document.

Forget about making it seem like the Party is unified. At the moment, Dr. Dean and Speaker Pelosis cannot even make it seem like the Party - or at least its top officials - are honest.

Breaking press coverage of The Denver Group

2008-08-24T22:07:00.002-04:00

Click the title or here for the scoop.

Confusion and illusion: the DNCC and DNC continuing efforts keep pretending that the convention is a done deal

2008-08-24T15:26:00.006-04:00

News has arrived that Florida and Michigan will be seated, literally seated in prominent places in the Pepsi Center.

As a measure of a party united, the Florida delegation will be seated just off to the left of the Delaware folks, the Michigan delegation just off to the right from Illinois. There was a time, during the contentious party primaries, when none of those delegates might even have been promised a seat here. [source]

What is not clear from these early news reports is whether the delegations are being seated as the voters in Michigan - that is with no Michigan delegates going to Senator Obama, who was not on the ballot there and with Senator Clinton's 4 add-on delegates in place.

At least one news source is falling for the party line: a tightly scripted convention geared to the outcome party leaders keep saying is a done deal, an Obama-Biden ticket for this fall. McClatchy News writes:

The step won't make any difference in the outcome, even though most of the delegates' involved are pledged to Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama already has enough delegates to win the nomination.

But Senator Obama does not in fact have enough delegates to win the nomination. He is in the same position as Senator Clinton. Neither won enough pledged delegates during the primary season to qualify as the automatic nominee, presumptive or otherwise. Since the party is allegedly holding a roll call vote with both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama's names in nomination, superdelegates - who will decide the contest and who may vote for either candidate on the first and any subsequent ballots could treat the press, the public, and the DNC Party leaders themselves to surprise. Sure, a Clinton nomination would be an upset, but elections have produced upsets before.

Meanwhile, the DNCC official press releases do not discuss the roll call nor the specifics of the Michigan/Florida seating. Instead we learn that a tribute to Senator Edward Kennedy will take place - but no word from the DNCC on whether Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones will get any sort of recognition - and that the DNCC and Obama campaign have announced Women's Caucus speakers in a press release that makes nary a mention of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Pretending that Senator Obama has won the floor vote smacks of trickery. The other measures being taken all point to the Party's misguided efforts to downplay Senator Clinton, her top surrogates, her delegates and her rank and file supporters. The DNCC, Senator Obama, and the DNC are of course free to try to confuse and deceive people with such measures. But even if they manage to put on a boring if predictable TV series next week, the best that can do is create the illusion of consensus in the Party. I continue to believe in and fight for the procedural measures that I think might actually bring about the sort of durable, real consensus that could land a Democrat in the White House in November.

News from The Denver Group - August 24

2008-08-24T11:02:00.003-04:00

Click the title or here for the latest.

From one gorgeous woman with a doctorate to another; a request for help in reaching the merry Speaker Pelosi

2008-08-24T10:05:00.002-04:00

Dear Jill Biden:
Although we have never met we apparently have three things in common: we are Democrats, we are gorgeous, and we have doctorates. One big difference between us is that you might actually be able to get some information from the lighthearted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, whereas I seem unable to. The information I am seeking pertains to the details of the upcoming roll call votes to be held this August 27th, one of which will, it seems, include your husband's name in nomination to become vice-president of the United States of America.

I have been trying for weeks to ensure the integrity of the roll call votes for both the Democratic candidate for President and for Vice President. We all know that voting procedures must be handled with care if the they are to be resistant to tampering or error. Every time I inquire of the DNCC or the DNC what steps are being taken to ensure that the roll call is appropriately resistant to these problems, I get the same same answer: the mechanics of the roll call votes are being "worked out." Not only do I keep getting this answer, so do reporters who have been trying to learn the mechanics and get information about what needs working out.

Since you are well educated - with a Ph.D. in education from the University of Delaware - and yourself an educator - an English professor at Delaware Technical and Community College - I think you will understand the importance of disseminating detailed information about the measures that will be used to make sure that the Democratic Party's nominating elections will be truly free and fair.

If you are able to contact Speaker Pelosi, I respectfully suggest that you explain to her that the continuing vagueness with regard to the details is rapidly enforcing the impression that the DNC and the DNCC have no interest in holding genuinely free and fair elections. You may also wish to tell Speaker Pelosi that I do not think the details of the voting mechanisms for such elections need that much working out. I am happy to volunteer my services to my Party if they need help in arranging properly tamper and error resistant voting mechanisms.

Yours in lighthearted merriment,
Heidi Li Feldman

One kind of limbo: a party's nominee becomes unavailable after the party's convention but before the Electoral College meets

2008-08-23T11:43:00.003-04:00

As we learned this week from the sudden loss of Stephanie Tubbs Jones, people can be struck by illness or encounter other difficulties that make them unavailable even for highly important future events. Whether Republican or Democrat, and regardless of which Republican or Democrat, I certainly hope that whoever becomes his or her party's official nominee after the respective party conventions will remain available to serve as President if elected freely and fairly by the voters of this country.

That said, it is entirely reasonable to be asked, as I have been, to explain what happens if, between the time of actual nomination but before the Electoral College meets, a presidential candidate becomes unavailable to hold office. (For general information about the Electoral College, I recommend this site.)

Remember: when voters vote in the general election, they do not vote directly for any Presidential candidate. They vote for electors from their states. These electors then meet to determine the President-Elect who, in recent time times, takes office in January, assuming availability.

So, the question on the table for this post is, what happens if after the Democrat Convention this coming week or after the Republican Convention in early September, the official nominee of either Party becomes unavailable before a President-Elect is elected by the Electoral College? My best informed understanding of the answer follows.

The Constitution does not address this issue directly nor does any federal law of which I am aware. Presumably then, the DNC or RNC would have to select an alternative candidate. Again as far as I know, neither DNC nor RNC rules provide for this situation, so the matter would become one of the leaders of each to decide how to proceed to name a new nominee.

An example: Suppose Senator McCain becomes the Republican Party nominee at the Republican National Convention. Then assume he withdraws or becomes otherwise unavailable to run in the general election, or after running in the general election he withdraws or becomes otherwise unavailable, prior to the Electoral College vote. The RNC leadership would then have to decide whose name to put before the Electoral College, perhaps first deciding upon a process by which to make this decision.

The same holds for the DNC and the Democratic Party's winning nominee after this week.

Heidi Li's Potpourri

February 15, 2009 - reminder to update your bookmarks

Heidi Li's Potpourri

New materials at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0 and at 51 Percent

January 2, 2009: a host of new posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

December 28: New Posts at the New Home

51 Percent

A bushel of posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

See Heidi Li's Potpourri for latest news about 51 Percent

The latest posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0 - please take a look

Too many new posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0 to list

Latest from Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

Latest posts on Hillary Rodham Clinton at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

Advisory Boards for Presidents and Cabinet Heads

"Could You Stop Braying at Me?"

Trio of posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0

Thanksgiving message to readers and more...

11/24 - new posts at new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

Putting gender equity front and center

Fresh posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

New posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

A pair of pre-election posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

Sunday morning reads from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

November 1 - New posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri

Recent reads at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

October 27: Latest at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

October 24: The latest posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

October 22 - Latest posts at Heidi Li's Potpourri new home

Latest entries from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

The latest at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

To read these head to the new home of this blog.

Latest posts at new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

Of friendship and fortitude; of withdrawing one's cooperation from that which has become corrupt

Of friendship and fortitude; of withdrawing one's cooperation from that which has become corrupt

The latest over at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

Latest posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

See the latest at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

The quality of intent: What is at stake in the 2008 election

The quality of intent: What is really at stake in the 2008 Presidential Election

Latest from new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

The Pelosi-Obama style - not so much the rage at themoment

The Pelosi-Obama style - not so much the rage at the moment

Truth squads and Speaker Pelosi's latest shining moment

The two latest posts from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri.

After you finish debating tonight's debate check out these recent items from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

Two recent posts at the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

If Howard Dean were a CEO, he'd be ousted by now

Latest from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

Senator Obama and the DNC are truly determined to make the Democratic party as undemocratic as possible

Latest posts from new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

See the new site to read the following posts. Please consider updating your feed subscriptions to the new site.

From Heidi Li's Potpourri 2.0 - the latest entry

Latest posts regarding Ed O'Reilly from the new home of Heidi Li's Potpourri

The Denver Group: Fundraising progress report from The Denver Group

Senator Obama: Candidate Without Coattails

Beware an Obsessive Focus...

See the latest post on Potpourri 2.0 - and subscribe to the feed for future posts there

A match offer - help troop families and help The Denver Group

From the Denver Group Comes DEMOCRATS FOR PRINCIPLE BEFORE PARTY

The Centrality of Character in Political Leadership

Populist Progressivism again - this time with a preliminary caveat

Heidi Li's Potpourri moves to a new location

Looking beyond the heat of the moment

Free facts about Act Blue and why their treatment of The Denver Group is unprincipled and objectionable

From The Denver Group: ACT BLUE'S PRO OBAMA STANCE DE-LISTS THE DENVER GROUP.

A reader asked, so here it is: a link to the DNCC's official roll call tally

Desperation seems to bring out the worst in people

Word to the wise: if you are a Democratic officeholder you should definitely sign this

Substance over spectacle: Ed O'Reilly specifically asks supporters ensure focus remains on content

Debate Closed to the Public--No Purpose to Appear

The Denver Group: THE DENVER GROUP'S FIRST POST-CONVENTION AD

Sometimes you have to quote a friend: "Democracy should not be a spectator sport" - Ed O'Reilly, 9/3/2008

From the Party that brought us the original Voting Rights Act to a DNC that refuses to recognize the significance of votes

From the wicked to the absurd: the saga of the California "pass"

And the wickedness goes on...

From The Denver Group: Post Convention Goals

The Denver Group: Labor Day update from The Denver Group

How every Democrat can help us let Senators know we want Senator Clinton to be the next Senate majority leader

Why Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton must be the next Senate Majority Leader

Reforming the Democratic Party through documenting what went on Denver