Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, November 08, 2010
Monday, August 09, 2010
Why I Am Voting for Margaret Anderson Kelliher Tomorrow
It's something that you don't get to say very often, but the Minnesota DFL is very lucky this year. The Republicans have a candidate so embarrassing that any one of our candidates is polled to win against him. In essence, whoever wins tomorrow's primary is already ahead, and already heads and shoulders a better candidate for governor than the alternative. Overall, I should be happy regardless of who wins, and I likely will be.
But of the two leading candidates for the DFL nomination, I will be voting for Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher over former Senator Mark Dayton.
In general, I feel that Anderson Kelliher has a better legislative experience than Dayton when it comes to the sort of qualifications a governor needs. While it is true that Dayton served as United States Senator, he made decisions only for himself, as one among many other fellow senators. A senator votes as one voice in a collective, but doesn't have to actually develop and push through an agenda on his own.
A governor will need to bring together legislators to further bills and laws. A governor has to make the decisions single-handedly, versus being one voice in a crowd pushing his or her own interests. A governor will need to know how to find the right people to lead the right commissions, how to pick the right judges, fill in the right vacancies.
When you are running a business and you need a new CEO, you could pick a board member and have that person take over. But if you pick a board member on a 100 person board, how well would that member know how to run the company from the day he or she starts the job, simply because that member did a stint on the board? Wouldn't you rather elevate the Executive Vice President of Operations, knowing that the EVP already worked with the other employees and managers, already has years of experience with the company, and deals with its problems in and out every day, rather than comes in for board meetings a few times a year to vote?
Those are my logical reasons for choosing the Speaker over the Senator. Then there are my more emotional ones. As a reproductive health activist, I worry about Dayton's stands on waiting periods and parental notification laws. We've had our reproductive rights gutted under Pawlenty. We cannot take more, or unplanned pregnancies will continue to skyrocket, more women will be forced to wait longer and lose more time at work to access their rights, and more teens will participate in dangerous practices to try and end a pregnancy they just can't tell their parents about. I believe the Speaker will be an advocate for women's health rights in a way that Sen. Dayton just will not do.
It makes me sad that I am not allowed to say that I think it is time for Minnesota to have a female governor as well, without being attacked even by people who claim to be progressive, saying I am playing gender politics. But frankly, it is time, and since to me the most qualified candidate is female, I am happy that I can vote both my conscience and support my favorite candidate.
Finally, I have one last reason I will chose Anderson Kelliher over Dayton. I believe in the DFL. I believe that wanting to advocate for and with the party matters. I believe that a person should be able to succeed because they have put in the hard work, found the people to support them, worked through the system, and eventually will be rewarded for it. I do not like the message it sends that you can succeed because you have endless sums of money to spend, that you can skip over areas that require too much work. I don't like the fact that various interest groups can be weighed, and a candidate can decide that he can bypass the DFL activists, who are comprised of a large group of backgrounds, issues, needs and desires, to focus heavily instead just on one constituency because that way he can win.
Is Mark Dayton a bad candidate? Not at all. Would he be a better governor than Tom Emmer? By far. But in the primary, I have the option to reward the person who I think will be the best governor, not just better than the Republican candidate.
That is why I will be voting for Margaret Anderson Kelliher tomorrow.
But of the two leading candidates for the DFL nomination, I will be voting for Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher over former Senator Mark Dayton.
In general, I feel that Anderson Kelliher has a better legislative experience than Dayton when it comes to the sort of qualifications a governor needs. While it is true that Dayton served as United States Senator, he made decisions only for himself, as one among many other fellow senators. A senator votes as one voice in a collective, but doesn't have to actually develop and push through an agenda on his own.
A governor will need to bring together legislators to further bills and laws. A governor has to make the decisions single-handedly, versus being one voice in a crowd pushing his or her own interests. A governor will need to know how to find the right people to lead the right commissions, how to pick the right judges, fill in the right vacancies.
When you are running a business and you need a new CEO, you could pick a board member and have that person take over. But if you pick a board member on a 100 person board, how well would that member know how to run the company from the day he or she starts the job, simply because that member did a stint on the board? Wouldn't you rather elevate the Executive Vice President of Operations, knowing that the EVP already worked with the other employees and managers, already has years of experience with the company, and deals with its problems in and out every day, rather than comes in for board meetings a few times a year to vote?
Those are my logical reasons for choosing the Speaker over the Senator. Then there are my more emotional ones. As a reproductive health activist, I worry about Dayton's stands on waiting periods and parental notification laws. We've had our reproductive rights gutted under Pawlenty. We cannot take more, or unplanned pregnancies will continue to skyrocket, more women will be forced to wait longer and lose more time at work to access their rights, and more teens will participate in dangerous practices to try and end a pregnancy they just can't tell their parents about. I believe the Speaker will be an advocate for women's health rights in a way that Sen. Dayton just will not do.
It makes me sad that I am not allowed to say that I think it is time for Minnesota to have a female governor as well, without being attacked even by people who claim to be progressive, saying I am playing gender politics. But frankly, it is time, and since to me the most qualified candidate is female, I am happy that I can vote both my conscience and support my favorite candidate.
Finally, I have one last reason I will chose Anderson Kelliher over Dayton. I believe in the DFL. I believe that wanting to advocate for and with the party matters. I believe that a person should be able to succeed because they have put in the hard work, found the people to support them, worked through the system, and eventually will be rewarded for it. I do not like the message it sends that you can succeed because you have endless sums of money to spend, that you can skip over areas that require too much work. I don't like the fact that various interest groups can be weighed, and a candidate can decide that he can bypass the DFL activists, who are comprised of a large group of backgrounds, issues, needs and desires, to focus heavily instead just on one constituency because that way he can win.
Is Mark Dayton a bad candidate? Not at all. Would he be a better governor than Tom Emmer? By far. But in the primary, I have the option to reward the person who I think will be the best governor, not just better than the Republican candidate.
That is why I will be voting for Margaret Anderson Kelliher tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
MN Forward -- Moving the State Backwards
Sally Jo was kind enough to post a copy of the MN Forward donation solicitation letter. It revealed a few things I found pretty interesting.
1) MN Forward doesn't really have a pro-Emmer, pro-Republican slant, it's true. Instead, it seems to be an anti-Alliance for a Better Minnesota attack group.
2) They claim that "one of the candidates for governor" is trying to tax the rich. Which seems like a strange concern for a business, since a business is a corporation, not a person, and would not be subject to the actual proposed rule. Of course, the business OWNER would be, or its key executives. Which means the point of the letter is to persuade the executives to use corporate money to make a donation that would be in their own personal political interests.
3) No one has yet to address exactly how things like redistricting and political appointments are a corporate issue, or why those would be used to help grow businesses and create jobs. I can say that campaigning for a candidate who believes that the GLBT, people of color, women, and the working class such as hourly employees should not have the same rights and advantages as the rest of the state's residents seems like a poor way to grow business and create new jobs, since it makes Minnesota much less appealing as a state to live in.
Minneapolis/St. Paul just was named the #1 best city in the US for working moms by Forbes. We currently rank high in healthcare, education, cost of living, and good salaries and jobs for women. One candidate wants to gut education. One candidate wants to allow pharmacists to chose whether or not they want a woman to have her birth control prescription filled. One candidate thinks that same sex couples should not have the same rights as an opposite sex couple.
How do these stances make for a friendly, appealing state for people to want to come to work? And how are businesses supposed to grow without employees to hire, or customers to purchase their products?
Maybe MN Forward's next ask will answer some of those questions.
1) MN Forward doesn't really have a pro-Emmer, pro-Republican slant, it's true. Instead, it seems to be an anti-Alliance for a Better Minnesota attack group.
2) They claim that "one of the candidates for governor" is trying to tax the rich. Which seems like a strange concern for a business, since a business is a corporation, not a person, and would not be subject to the actual proposed rule. Of course, the business OWNER would be, or its key executives. Which means the point of the letter is to persuade the executives to use corporate money to make a donation that would be in their own personal political interests.
3) No one has yet to address exactly how things like redistricting and political appointments are a corporate issue, or why those would be used to help grow businesses and create jobs. I can say that campaigning for a candidate who believes that the GLBT, people of color, women, and the working class such as hourly employees should not have the same rights and advantages as the rest of the state's residents seems like a poor way to grow business and create new jobs, since it makes Minnesota much less appealing as a state to live in.
Minneapolis/St. Paul just was named the #1 best city in the US for working moms by Forbes. We currently rank high in healthcare, education, cost of living, and good salaries and jobs for women. One candidate wants to gut education. One candidate wants to allow pharmacists to chose whether or not they want a woman to have her birth control prescription filled. One candidate thinks that same sex couples should not have the same rights as an opposite sex couple.
How do these stances make for a friendly, appealing state for people to want to come to work? And how are businesses supposed to grow without employees to hire, or customers to purchase their products?
Maybe MN Forward's next ask will answer some of those questions.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Agree To Agree
From a post by Captain Ed:
I'm curious about how he feels about the abortion database currently on hold in Oklahoma, with it's potentially identifying and extremely invasive 37 question survey.
After all, a free people do not need their state invading the most personal aspects of our lives while telling us it's for our own good.
People have a responsibility to themselves for their actions regarding pain medications. A free people do not need the state to start keeping Big Brother prescription databases on their citizens, invading the most personal aspects of our lives while telling us it’s for our own good. A free person can make that determination on their own. This is a bad idea — and a taste of what to expect when government gains more and more control over the health care system.
I'm curious about how he feels about the abortion database currently on hold in Oklahoma, with it's potentially identifying and extremely invasive 37 question survey.
After all, a free people do not need their state invading the most personal aspects of our lives while telling us it's for our own good.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
An open letter to all gubernatorial candidates
Dear Candidate,
I am utterly delighted that you have thrown your hat into the ring. I look forward to learning more about you, your stances, and why you will be the best at the job of governor of this great state.
I am also excited to see that you are all beginning to embrace online media. Many of us have spend years using the internet as a place to share information and organize on line. We are happy that you have decided to join us and engage us here on our home turf.
However, I feel there is something you may not have grasped yet. Paying workers or asking your volunteers to pepper our online homes with comments supporting you and attacking other candidates is not going to win our help our our votes.
Here's a little secret...you may all be brilliant politicians, and you may have fantastically experienced campaign managers. But your online supporters? Not very bright, and not very good at it. If you have a commenter start commenting out of no where, with out establishing him or herself as a presence on a site or in a community, that commenter sticks out. We start to look closely at all of that commenter's comments. We start to google that commenter's name. We review who they attack, and who they support. And in the end, we really start to look down on the candidate that that commenter says he or she is supporting.
You have to understand, if I can't trust you not to sockpuppet a website, or ask your supporters to be constructive, I can't ever hold you in that high of esteem as a candidate. If you can't keep a few overzealous campaign staff or volunteers from scorching the earth online, how can I believe that you have the ability to successfully run something as complicated as the state of Minnesota.
So, long story short, if you are planning an online presence, please treat us like you respect us, and that you don't think we are stupid. Have your campaign staff use real names. Ask your supporters to identify themselves. At the very least, tell them to try and be a part of the community. We don't run our sites so you have a venue to self-promote, and to run down the other candidates in anonymity.
Thank you,
Respectfully
Robin Marty
I am utterly delighted that you have thrown your hat into the ring. I look forward to learning more about you, your stances, and why you will be the best at the job of governor of this great state.
I am also excited to see that you are all beginning to embrace online media. Many of us have spend years using the internet as a place to share information and organize on line. We are happy that you have decided to join us and engage us here on our home turf.
However, I feel there is something you may not have grasped yet. Paying workers or asking your volunteers to pepper our online homes with comments supporting you and attacking other candidates is not going to win our help our our votes.
Here's a little secret...you may all be brilliant politicians, and you may have fantastically experienced campaign managers. But your online supporters? Not very bright, and not very good at it. If you have a commenter start commenting out of no where, with out establishing him or herself as a presence on a site or in a community, that commenter sticks out. We start to look closely at all of that commenter's comments. We start to google that commenter's name. We review who they attack, and who they support. And in the end, we really start to look down on the candidate that that commenter says he or she is supporting.
You have to understand, if I can't trust you not to sockpuppet a website, or ask your supporters to be constructive, I can't ever hold you in that high of esteem as a candidate. If you can't keep a few overzealous campaign staff or volunteers from scorching the earth online, how can I believe that you have the ability to successfully run something as complicated as the state of Minnesota.
So, long story short, if you are planning an online presence, please treat us like you respect us, and that you don't think we are stupid. Have your campaign staff use real names. Ask your supporters to identify themselves. At the very least, tell them to try and be a part of the community. We don't run our sites so you have a venue to self-promote, and to run down the other candidates in anonymity.
Thank you,
Respectfully
Robin Marty
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
The announcement you may or may not have heard this weekend
For those of you who didn't get to make it to my panel, or that I didn't talk to over the weekend, I wanted to let you all know that after almost three and a half years, I am now in the process of leaving the Center for Independent Media. For background, when they arrived here in 2006 I was hired to set up and launch the Minnesota Monitor (now the renowned Minnesota Independent), which I did until mid 2007. But as I began to spend more time helping the CIM set up other state based networks, I moved internally to the CIM and Paul Schmelzer took over MinMon, probably the best thing to ever happen to that site.
Over my years with the CIM my job became more and more operational based, and now that they are larger, they have hired enough people to move all operations into the DC office itself, and now having an operations person outside of DC just doesn't make a lot of sense functionally. I'll be wrapping up some advertising projects for them in the next two weeks, and then I'll be moving on altogether.
Luckily, this gives me an opportunity I haven't had in a while. The reason I came on with the CIM was my love for editing and writing about politics, as well as networking with writers, bloggers, advocacy groups and candidates, helping each of them find ways to talk to each other. It's something that I was doing less of once I left MinMon, and much less of as I worked more on the operations side.
Long story short, I'm grateful to the time I had with the CIM, but I'm also realizing I'm very grateful to move on. For now, I am going to be working on freelance and consulting projects, my first being a contract to work part time with one of my favorite advocacy groups, RH Reality Check. RH Reality Check is a news and advocacy group that covers reproductive health for both men and women in a national and global setting. Reproductive health issues are what got me into activism in college, and was one of the reasons I started blogging in 2004, so to have a chance to write, edit, and in other ways assist the group is sort of a dream fulfilled for me.
And of course, I'll be looking for other projects to work on as well. If you have any leads on freelance, I'm all ears.
My office email will shut down December 10th, but you can always find me through my personal email accounts, on twitter, or by commenting here.
Over my years with the CIM my job became more and more operational based, and now that they are larger, they have hired enough people to move all operations into the DC office itself, and now having an operations person outside of DC just doesn't make a lot of sense functionally. I'll be wrapping up some advertising projects for them in the next two weeks, and then I'll be moving on altogether.
Luckily, this gives me an opportunity I haven't had in a while. The reason I came on with the CIM was my love for editing and writing about politics, as well as networking with writers, bloggers, advocacy groups and candidates, helping each of them find ways to talk to each other. It's something that I was doing less of once I left MinMon, and much less of as I worked more on the operations side.
Long story short, I'm grateful to the time I had with the CIM, but I'm also realizing I'm very grateful to move on. For now, I am going to be working on freelance and consulting projects, my first being a contract to work part time with one of my favorite advocacy groups, RH Reality Check. RH Reality Check is a news and advocacy group that covers reproductive health for both men and women in a national and global setting. Reproductive health issues are what got me into activism in college, and was one of the reasons I started blogging in 2004, so to have a chance to write, edit, and in other ways assist the group is sort of a dream fulfilled for me.
And of course, I'll be looking for other projects to work on as well. If you have any leads on freelance, I'm all ears.
My office email will shut down December 10th, but you can always find me through my personal email accounts, on twitter, or by commenting here.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Updated Minnesota Progressive Blog roll - last update Monday 7:30 am
if you aren't on here and should be, please email me or tweet me here.
I assume you can copy/paste the code from here. If not, contact me so I can email it to you.
Minnesota Progressive Blogs
I assume you can copy/paste the code from here. If not, contact me so I can email it to you.
- Aaron Landry
- Across the Great Divide
- Aliance for a Better Minnesota
- At the Hillocks of Hysteria
- Barataria
- Blog of the Moderate Left
- Blue Man in a Red District
- A Bluestem Prairie
- Both of Us
- Centrisity
- Cinna.MN
- The Colu.MN
- The Cucking Stool
- The Deets
- Dump Bachmann
- Hindsight - From Minnesota 2020
- Dump John Kline
- Eyeteeth
- Hegemommy
- I Don't Hate America
- Mercury Rising
- Metroblogging Minneapolis
- Minnesota Brown
- Minnesota Central
- Minnesota Independent
- Minnesota Progressive Project
- Minnesota Rising
- Mississippifarian
- mnpACT!
- MN Moderate to Liberal Political Roundtable
- MN Publius
- MNStories
- News Day
- Perfect Duluth Day
- The PF Hyper Blog
- Pharyngula
- Power Liberal
- Progressive Veteran
- Rook's Rant
- Roott333's Blog
- Small of America
- Smithers Minneapolis
- Tild~
- Truth Surfer
- Twin Cities Sidewalks
- Twin Cities Daily Planet
- The Uptake
- The Usual Suspects
- Vox Verax
- WoMN Focus
Friday, August 14, 2009
Watch Rachel Says
I don't know how anyone can watch this and think that anything resembling a real debate is happening.
(Via MNPP)
(Via MNPP)
Monday, July 13, 2009
Once upon a time in 2007....
Once upon a time, back in March of 2007, I was working on opening the Iowa Independent for the Center for Independent Media. It was very early spring...I had quite literally just turned 30 4 days earlier, and I was in a hotel in Des Moines interviewing people to be the Managing Editor of the new site.
Sitting in Iowa in 2007, looking for people to work for a politics-focused blog, one of the first things you're going to discuss is what is happening with the caucuses. It was still 10 months until caucus day (maybe more -- I can't remember the real timing of the original, pre-leapfrog caucus date). However, we were already 4 months into heavy campaigning thanks to Iowa's governor jump starting the process less than 4 weeks after the 2006 election.
If I remember right, Vilsack had just dropped out of the running. The general consensus with most Iowans I met was that he was urged to enter the race, and enter it very early, in order to help the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign was believed by many to think the nomination would be won by whoever had the most money to spend. It was assumed that the combined fundraising power of a New York Senator/former First Lady and the former President of the United States would be totally dominant, and the longer the race lasted, the more expensive it would be. Since announcing first, especially that early, would be too obvious, Vilsack was allegedly talked into being the stalking horse that would force the rest of the candidates to declare.
In March of 2007, it seemed like an excellent plan. Clinton had the very early positioning of the front-runner status. She had a very loyal base. She quickly became the one to beat. And with her name recognition, her endless pool of money, and her early mobilization of supporters, she pretty quickly ended up with the mantle of inevitability. Sure there were some problems. The people who liked her really liked her, but the people who didn't? Let's say there were some pretty high negatives involved. Some were rational, others, not so much.
As the primaries continued, it only got worse. Probably the true death knell of her candidacy was the Michigan primary, where she left her name on the ballot. Sure, she played exactly by the rules, but for a lot of people it just didn't seem exactly fair or right somehow. For her supporters, they didn't understand why other people were upset since they were simply campaigning and running. But for those who didn't support her, the wedge was deeper, and the negatives grew.
Clinton's campaign was right about one thing -- it was a long campaign, and the person with the most money won. But no one expected that a relative political newcomer could ever raise the kind of funds he did. They also underestimated the desire many people had to see a new name in the running for office. After so many years of Clinton and Bush White Houses and the same names and faces running over and over again for different positions, "change" became mostly a desire to see someone new do (hopefully) something different.
I'd been working on this post ever since Fecke put up his Entenza piece, because I see a lot of parallels between Matt Entenza and the early Clinton campaign. Both candidates were seen as early on favorites due to finances, name recognition, and, in some ways, by this weird political idea of "it's my turn." Both candidates had extremely high positives, but for those who didn't like them, they REALLY didn't like them. Both have done things in campaigns that weren't necessarily officially unethical, but could be seen by their dissenters and coming dangerously near the line if not crossing it. Both were running early, long campaigns at a time when, let's be honest, a democrat really should have an excellent chance to win.
There are a few large differences, though. The most significant is that in a national election, a third party candidate is usually not that much of a factor (yes, 2000 aside). But we lost the governor's house in 2006 in part because the Independence Party ran a candidate who was often more progressive than the DFL's own nominee. Minnesotans do not just hold their nose and party vote. If they did, we probably wouldn't have just sworn in a senator last week.
Is Matt Entenza the most winnable candidate running right now? Perhaps. He certainly has more name recognition, money and staff than the others involved. For those who gauge a political race on weighing those factors then yes, he probably would be the inevitable candidate.
But we are still 16 months before the election. We are still almost a year until we even have a nominating convention. There are more candidates to declare, and, much of the "he's ahead, don't talk about negatives" talk seems to be a push to keep the "inevitable" meme in place so these candidates don't run.
From the point in which I started drafting this post to now, Fecke once again nailed it with this piece about inevitability. Inevitability is a game you play when you are trying to keep the race exactly as it is at this moment. Inevitability is a fear of change in circumstances.
16 months is a long time in real life, and an even longer time in politics. The trend of ridiculously long campaigns that start less than two months after the last election may be a boon for those of us who are peripherally involved in politics, but have the disadvantage of making people want to declare races over before they even begin. The only thing inevitable at this point is that there are many, many months before we will have a candidate, and hopefully that candidate will be decided on by the strength of her or his stances on bettering our state, and not on who has the most money or their communications team organized the earliest.
(Note: I think I have made it no secret that I am hoping to support a female, pro-choice gubernatorial candidate. But in case you have somehow missed that about me, go here.)
Sitting in Iowa in 2007, looking for people to work for a politics-focused blog, one of the first things you're going to discuss is what is happening with the caucuses. It was still 10 months until caucus day (maybe more -- I can't remember the real timing of the original, pre-leapfrog caucus date). However, we were already 4 months into heavy campaigning thanks to Iowa's governor jump starting the process less than 4 weeks after the 2006 election.
If I remember right, Vilsack had just dropped out of the running. The general consensus with most Iowans I met was that he was urged to enter the race, and enter it very early, in order to help the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign was believed by many to think the nomination would be won by whoever had the most money to spend. It was assumed that the combined fundraising power of a New York Senator/former First Lady and the former President of the United States would be totally dominant, and the longer the race lasted, the more expensive it would be. Since announcing first, especially that early, would be too obvious, Vilsack was allegedly talked into being the stalking horse that would force the rest of the candidates to declare.
In March of 2007, it seemed like an excellent plan. Clinton had the very early positioning of the front-runner status. She had a very loyal base. She quickly became the one to beat. And with her name recognition, her endless pool of money, and her early mobilization of supporters, she pretty quickly ended up with the mantle of inevitability. Sure there were some problems. The people who liked her really liked her, but the people who didn't? Let's say there were some pretty high negatives involved. Some were rational, others, not so much.
As the primaries continued, it only got worse. Probably the true death knell of her candidacy was the Michigan primary, where she left her name on the ballot. Sure, she played exactly by the rules, but for a lot of people it just didn't seem exactly fair or right somehow. For her supporters, they didn't understand why other people were upset since they were simply campaigning and running. But for those who didn't support her, the wedge was deeper, and the negatives grew.
Clinton's campaign was right about one thing -- it was a long campaign, and the person with the most money won. But no one expected that a relative political newcomer could ever raise the kind of funds he did. They also underestimated the desire many people had to see a new name in the running for office. After so many years of Clinton and Bush White Houses and the same names and faces running over and over again for different positions, "change" became mostly a desire to see someone new do (hopefully) something different.
I'd been working on this post ever since Fecke put up his Entenza piece, because I see a lot of parallels between Matt Entenza and the early Clinton campaign. Both candidates were seen as early on favorites due to finances, name recognition, and, in some ways, by this weird political idea of "it's my turn." Both candidates had extremely high positives, but for those who didn't like them, they REALLY didn't like them. Both have done things in campaigns that weren't necessarily officially unethical, but could be seen by their dissenters and coming dangerously near the line if not crossing it. Both were running early, long campaigns at a time when, let's be honest, a democrat really should have an excellent chance to win.
There are a few large differences, though. The most significant is that in a national election, a third party candidate is usually not that much of a factor (yes, 2000 aside). But we lost the governor's house in 2006 in part because the Independence Party ran a candidate who was often more progressive than the DFL's own nominee. Minnesotans do not just hold their nose and party vote. If they did, we probably wouldn't have just sworn in a senator last week.
Is Matt Entenza the most winnable candidate running right now? Perhaps. He certainly has more name recognition, money and staff than the others involved. For those who gauge a political race on weighing those factors then yes, he probably would be the inevitable candidate.
But we are still 16 months before the election. We are still almost a year until we even have a nominating convention. There are more candidates to declare, and, much of the "he's ahead, don't talk about negatives" talk seems to be a push to keep the "inevitable" meme in place so these candidates don't run.
From the point in which I started drafting this post to now, Fecke once again nailed it with this piece about inevitability. Inevitability is a game you play when you are trying to keep the race exactly as it is at this moment. Inevitability is a fear of change in circumstances.
16 months is a long time in real life, and an even longer time in politics. The trend of ridiculously long campaigns that start less than two months after the last election may be a boon for those of us who are peripherally involved in politics, but have the disadvantage of making people want to declare races over before they even begin. The only thing inevitable at this point is that there are many, many months before we will have a candidate, and hopefully that candidate will be decided on by the strength of her or his stances on bettering our state, and not on who has the most money or their communications team organized the earliest.
(Note: I think I have made it no secret that I am hoping to support a female, pro-choice gubernatorial candidate. But in case you have somehow missed that about me, go here.)
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
A long, long time
On February 27th, 2007, Al Franken dropped by Drinking Liberally. Shortly thereafter, he sent me this note.
858 days later, Franken was certified the winner of the Minnesota Senate election of 2008.
Congratulations, Senator Elect Franken. I hope you've been having as much fun all 867 days as you were the first 31.
858 days later, Franken was certified the winner of the Minnesota Senate election of 2008.
Congratulations, Senator Elect Franken. I hope you've been having as much fun all 867 days as you were the first 31.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Regarding the Ward 1 City Council Coverage
It's been mentioned around the blogs that I haven't been keeping up the Ward 1 city council coverage since the endorsement convention ended. Frankly, I haven't seen the need to do more stories because to me, there has been no news. Doron Clark and Jose Velez ended the convention asking for the delegates to endorse Kevin Reich unanimously, which we all did. Although Susan Howitz Hanna is still in the race, she has yet to even put up a website, much less do any active campaigning that I can see (and I did email her after the convention asking her to keep me in the loop so that I can stay on top of any potential campaign). To me, there is just no news, and I'm not a blogger who will grasp at straws or do rehashes and what might have beens just to fill my pages.
And as for park board, I am fully behind my neighbor Liz.
I understand there is a new ward 1 blog in town, and I welcome all of you to go read it. I won't be covering the race unless until there is actual news to write about.
And as for park board, I am fully behind my neighbor Liz.
I understand there is a new ward 1 blog in town, and I welcome all of you to go read it. I won't be covering the race unless until there is actual news to write about.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Long time no blog
Sorry for the dead blog. I'm working on a new project that I hope to be unveiling soon. In the meantime, I microblog, if you are interested, on twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
