Richardson pledges to respect DNC Primary Calendar

Bill Richardson just announced that he has signed a pledge to respect the Pre-February 5 window set by the Democratic National Committee. This is a great thing and here's why....

For those of you who missed my earlier posts about this, they are here and here. Basically, the Democratic National Committee set out on a years long process to open the early stages of the nominating process to more diversity than Iowa and New Hampshire had to offer. After a long process, and having given consideration to many States, Nevada and South Carolina were selected to join the original two "Early States".

However, Florida's Legislature moved their Primary date into conflict with DNC Rules. Michigan began the process to pass a law in response. In short, a chaotic nominating process was well underway that could soon have spun out of control. Thankfully, the DNC let it be known that they were sticking to their guns and would severely penalize anyone who held a delegate selection process in violation of the rules.

Apparently, it was heard loud and clear by Michigan, whose State Chair Mark Brewer seems to be backing down from the January 15 Primary he previously seemed to be pursuing. Michigan Liberal has this:

"The Michigan Democratic Party has made no decision as to whether to participate in a primary," (Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer) said in the article. "When enacted, this bill gives us another option in addition to our DNC-approved caucus. When this bill becomes law we will weigh our options and decide how to proceed."

And, in giving credit where it is due, Governor Richardson apparently heard the message loud and clear as well. Who will be the next candidate who is in favor of following the rules?

Michigan and Florida are breaking DNC Rules; disrespect minorities in doing so

As a South Carolina Democrat, I've watched closely the process that has played out over the past six years or so that the Democratic National Committee has undergone to expand the early Primary/Caucus field to include more minorities. It was a very long process and meticulously handled by the Rules and By-laws Committee of the DNC. Many hearings and meetings were held to get input from countless numbers of people.

In the end, Nevada was chosen for an early Caucus and South Carolina was chosen for an early primary. The "window" was set to "open" a matter of days after the SC Primary, giving all other States the opportunity to jockey, as has been the tradition in the past, for position after a date certain.

Unfortunately, after not being chosen for the early Primary period, Democratic Leaders in Michigan and Florida are ignoring the rules that were passed by the Rules and By-Laws Committee and full DNC by an overwhelming margin. In doing so, they're denying minorities a much-sought after voice in the early nominating process.

Nevada was chosen as an early Caucus State because of its' growing labor population, it's Native American population, and its Hispanic/Latino population. South Carolina was chosen because African Americans are expected to represent at least 40% of Democratic Primary voters. These ethnic minorities have NO SIGNIFICANT representation in the other early States.

The Primary and Caucus calendar is a delicate thing. We've all seen the magic of Iowa and New Hampshire and the power they have in dictating the direction of the nomination. Understandably, we are all envious of that magic and would love to have a piece of it.

There was a vigorous competition to win the two coveted spots that the DNC opened to the pre-window period. In the end, Nevada and South Carolina were chosen.

Accordingly, we now have the most diverse early nominating process we have ever had. We, as Democrats should be incredibly proud of that. By having these contests in four 'small' states, it also allows more candidates the ability to compete, giving a wider array of options to Primary voters.

Michigan and Florida have broken the rules and should be penalized for it. They are rogue State Parties that have chosen to ignore the rules and the spirit in which those rules came to exist. It's offensive to those who worked so have to increase diversity in the process.

The Democratic National Committee should realize that they are on the verge of becoming irrelevant. If their Party Rules can be ignored without significant penalty, then their existence may be pointless. The most coveted thing the party controls in our nominating process is the calendar. The DNC MUST stand up and make it clear that any State Party that violates the pre-window period will be severely punished.

'08 Hopefuls Stump Under Same Roof for First Time

The General Session at today's Democratic National Committee meeting dealt with a little party business. However, the main attraction, which packed the ballroom at the Washington Hilton, was the convergence of the men and woman seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for President.

Every speech given was well received by those gathered. Each speech had its own merits. During my little bit of downtime before another event, I wanted to give you the "highlight" of the Obama, Edwards, and Clinton speeches. And when I say "highlight", what I mean is: what I thought about it.....

Barack Obama was greeted like a rock star. He gave a thoughtful, straight forward speech. He returned to campaign themes that he has used before: "it's not about hype", "our politics are too small", and about "the need for a genuine debate about concrete ideas." His speech contained many inspirational notions, but it seemed to contradict reality. Were it not for hype, he would never be considered a Presidential contender, after two years in the U.S. Senate. While his lofty notions and ideas appeal to the rank and file, they lack the concrete specifics he calls for at the same time. I understand that you can't talk detailed policy in a stump speech, but the main criticism coming from activists is that they're not sure what Obama wants to do for America besides raise the level of political discourse. I hope in the near future, Obama will begin to deliver his ideas on how to get us out of Iraq, how to keep jobs in America, how to provide Universal Healthcare, and on many more important issues.

John Edwards entered to the tune of a country song that I recognized, but don't know the name of. The recognizable lyric was "This is my country"....or something like that. He started out slowly, talking about people in different situations. I wasn't quite sure where he was headed with it, then he brought it all together in a rousing, momentum building rally cry to "Stand with" each of the people whose stories he had just told and to "Stand with America." From that moment on, Edwards was on fire. He spoke to the historical values of the Democratic Party to take care of children, carry the mantle on education, and help eradicate poverty. He talked about working people worrying about losing their pensions and having no safety net after thirty years of work. The unions were mentioned several times and cheered loudly in response. His words about the War in Iraq were by far the strongest in opposition, which was very well received. Edwards' message was populist, inspiring, and incredibly popular. And....he won the standing ovation competition.

Hillary Clinton also entered the room like a rock star. She delivered a traditional stump style speech that was well received by those in the cavernous room. She covered all the right points: Bush's failed leadership, the need for healthcare, the economy, jobs, and Iraq. There was one thing I just couldn't get out of my head, though: the vote she cast to go to war in 2002. I'm very confused about my opinion on this. On one side of the room, Code Pink, an anti-war organization, staged a small protest. They each had a letter on their shirts that altogether read "NO WAR" and with their left hands, held up in peace signs. I know that Hillary has said many things about the vote that she cast to go to war. Today, she even said "If I was President in 2002, we would not have gone to war in Iraq." So, she's danced all around saying her vote was wrong and apologizing for it. I just don't understand why she won't do that. For me and many other party activists, that will remain an issue in the back of our minds. It may end up being an issue that will make room for someone else to gain support. That being said, she also gave a great speech and she's still the front-runner among the establishment.

I'd say each of these three will be well-received around the country. But, each of their speeches were different. As they take their campaigns from State to State and City to City, people will decide which ideas and style they want to represent them in November 2008. Given that each of their approaches is different enough, we may see a narrowing of the field sooner than we all think.

DNC Meeting: Young Democrats lose quest, but it's okay. Really!

The big activity at this afternoon's DNC Winter meeting occurred late in the day during the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting. The Young Democrats, led by YD President Chris Gallaway of Virginia, sought a change in Party Rules to require State Parties to have goals and timetables for increasing youth representation in the delegate selection process.

According to Phil McNamara, DNC Director of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection, in the late 70's "youth" was included in a group for which the Party sought Affirmative Action policies to increase their representation in Party Affairs. By 1980, the word "youth" had been deleted.

The Young Democrats' Gallaway correctly contends that the Charter of the Democratic Party includes "youth" in the list of constituencies for which the Party "shall adopt and implement an affirmative action program which provides for representation as nearly as practicable of the aforementioned groups, as indicated by their presence in the Democratic electorate."

Currently the DNC Rules require equal representation between men and women. It also requires State Parties to have goals of representation by African-Americans, Asian/Pacific-Islanders, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Gallaway and his band of young party activists sought to have the Rules changed to reflect the Charter by having "youth" added to this list. They, in fact, believe there should have been no other choice because their position is that the Rules are in violation of the Charter

There seemed to be ample support for the YD's position. However their motion didn't pass. Why? Apparently they missed a date certain that amendments must be filed. They did however get a compromise passed which was offered by DNC Staff and DNC's General Counsel. The insertion of one sentence directly states that State delegate selection plans may "establish goals and timetables for the under-represented groups identified in Rule 7.....Such as the special importance of the inclusion of youth as reflected in the Party's Charter." In other words, they make it optional for States to include additional groups, including youth, to their goals for representation. Confusing enough?

So, they didn't get what they wanted, but it's okay. Here's why: when young people run for Delegate, they win! I've done it twice and there is incredible support among the party activists to provide young people with the experience of attending a national convention.

The problem is that not enough young people are knowledgable about the complex process to become a National Delegate. It begins at local precinct reorganization and ends at the election of Delegates at the State Convention, which is usually several months later. I am convinced that if the Young Democrats make a concerted effort to educate their members about the process by which they can be a Delegate to the National Convention, they will significantly increase their representation with outstanding young Democratic activists.

I hope they are not too disappointed to get to work on exactly that. They can surely reach 20% percent representation and perhaps surpass it. They will find sympathetic Democrats all around the country that will elect them as long as they work for it.