Well, I guess it’s down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purge business.

The short answer is that activists aren’t owed seats in Denver just because they’re activists.  It’s perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton).  Just being a good activist is not enough.  You’re actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you’d be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate.  Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren’t one, you shouldn’t be an Obama delegate.  Bottom line.

What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn’t (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list).  Because you’re talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they’re all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over.  The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn’t lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren’t as vocal.  When you’re talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there’s not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic.  In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle.  And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.

Over…

I’m not defending the Obama campaign at all, but I have to say that there are those in the grassroots that need to, and this is where the flame war might begin, grow up.  You don’t just automatically get to be a delegate to the DNC because of who you are or what you advocate, even.  You ought to get it because of what you’ve done, real work on a personal level.  If you did and you were culled, that’s wrong.  If you didn’t and you’re still on that list, that’s wrong.  But it’s a huge undertaking and you have one or two staffers making value judgments on 1,700 people based on all sorts of criteria, and there’s bound to be slippage and “my activism is better than your activism” arguments.

What’s more, if you actually think your activism is better than someone else’s activism, you can actually appeal to a higher power!  From an email:

It is actually Brent Messenger in Northern California that vetted the candidates.

brent.messenger-at-gmail-dot-com

What they are asking for is evidence like “you were a precinct captain for Obama”

They are purging all people besides those that worked heavily on the campaign.  

They want FOR SURE Obama delegates.  

I spoke with Laura of LAgrassroots4obama and they are rewarding people that have spent the last year of their lives on planes and in the volunteer office.

If you are in Southern California and truly worked on the Obama Campaign prior to the Feb 5 Primary and were cut from the candidate list contact Laura:

laura-at-LAgrassroots4obama-dot-com

I do think the Obama people are a little paranoid from Clinton’s whole “there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate” shtick, and they let it get inside their heads.  But people who did the time should get the prize.  So if you did the work, don’t mourn, send an email and organize.  If you didn’t work and you’re pissed, all politics is local so go talk to your neighbors instead of deciding you’re entitled to a trip to Denver.

Well, I guess it’s down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purge business.

The short answer is that activists aren’t owed seats in Denver just because they’re activists.  It’s perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton).  Just being a good activist is not enough.  You’re actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you’d be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate.  Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren’t one, you shouldn’t be an Obama delegate.  Bottom line.

What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn’t (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list).  Because you’re talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they’re all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over.  The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn’t lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren’t as vocal.  When you’re talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there’s not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic.  In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle.  And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.

Over…

I’m not defending the Obama campaign at all, but I have to say that there are those in the grassroots that need to, and this is where the flame war might begin, grow up.  You don’t just automatically get to be a delegate to the DNC because of who you are or what you advocate, even.  You ought to get it because of what you’ve done, real work on a personal level.  If you did and you were culled, that’s wrong.  If you didn’t and you’re still on that list, that’s wrong.  But it’s a huge undertaking and you have one or two staffers making value judgments on 1,700 people based on all sorts of criteria, and there’s bound to be slippage and “my activism is better than your activism” arguments.

What’s more, if you actually think your activism is better than someone else’s activism, you can actually appeal to a higher power!  From an email:

It is actually Brent Messenger in Northern California that vetted the candidates.

brent.messenger-at-gmail-dot-com

What they are asking for is evidence like “you were a precinct captain for Obama”

They are purging all people besides those that worked heavily on the campaign.  

They want FOR SURE Obama delegates.  

I spoke with Laura of LAgrassroots4obama and they are rewarding people that have spent the last year of their lives on planes and in the volunteer office.

If you are in Southern California and truly worked on the Obama Campaign prior to the Feb 5 Primary and were cut from the candidate list contact Laura:

laura-at-LAgrassroots4obama-dot-com

I do think the Obama people are a little paranoid from Clinton’s whole “there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate” shtick, and they let it get inside their heads.  But people who did the time should get the prize.  So if you did the work, don’t mourn, send an email and organize.  If you didn’t work and you’re pissed, all politics is local so go talk to your neighbors instead of deciding you’re entitled to a trip to Denver.

…I would also say that a part of the problem was having post-primary delegate elections in the first place.  Before the primary it would have been very clear to the candidate who the supporters and activists were and there wouldn’t have been so many mistakes.  Susie Shannon’s delegate selection proposal was far more reasoned and thought-out than what we ended up with.  Her letter from July 10 of last year is prescient.

July 10, 2007

Dear Delegate Selection Committee,

At the Los Angeles Delegate Selection Plan Hearing I testified that my

main concern regarding holding delegate elections post-primary is that it

encourages opportunism over loyalty to a candidate. The plan, as

presented, opens the door for supporters of candidates receiving low votes

in the primary to take over the delegate elections of candidates receiving

high votes.

It is my strong opinion that delegates of presidential candidates to the

Democratic National Convention should be representatives of that candidate

and should, to the best extent possible, be loyal supporters.

How are we to stay unified through the 2008 general election if we create

a process that risks fracturing California Democrats between those who

work hard and are loyal supporters of a particular candidate and those

looking to become delegates any way possible? The delegate selection

plan as presented also raises basic issues of fair play and can be

disheartening for hard working democrats who we hope will maintain a

strong will to work through the 2008 general election.

After the Los Angeles hearing I spoke to Eric Bauman about the possibility

of having elections post-primary but setting the delegate filing deadline

prior to the California primary. I also mentioned this plan to the 42nd

AD delegates at our meeting last month and to various other delegates and

E-Board members of the CDP. I believe that some of them have already

submitted testimony to your committee. This seems to me the only fair and

logical compromise. It would allow candidates more time to locate venues

and arrange for elections post-Iowa Caucus, but also create a more fair

delegate selection process in California.

My proposal is to set the delegate application deadline for January 31,

2008 (pre-California primary) and hold elections the weekend of March 1,

2008 – 30 days from the application deadline.

I hope that this proposal will be given serious consideration by the

Delegate Selection committee.

G. Rick Marshall has basically been a failure at everything he’s ever tried.  He chaired the state steering committee for Alan Keyes’ Presidential campaign in 1996, which drew I think 7 votes.  He has run for Torrance school board on multiple occasions, losing badly every single time.  Now he wants to be on the school board again, despite having such little respect for the Torrance School District that he home-schooled his own child.  He sued the Torrance School District back in 2001, with such an ill-advised lawsuit that his own lawyers were sanctioned.  His Facebook page, symbol of the movement he leads, has a whopping 10 friends.  If failure had a face it would be G. Rick Marshall’s.

Mary Pallant’s support of the Responsible Plan marks the fifth Congressional challenger in California to endorse.  At Calitics, we feel that this is a plan that not only makes sense for Congressional candidates but progressive organizations and grassroots groups as well.  Therefore, the editorial board of Calitics proudly endorse the Responsible Plan and urge all candidates for federal office in the state to follow suit, be they challengers or incumbents.

Given the current situation in Iraq, leaving 60,000 or 80,000 troops to babysit the Iraqis will do about as much as having 160,000 troops do the same; in other words, nothing at all (Russ Feingold understands this).  There is no military solution and the goals of the surge have not been met; indeed what meager gains have been established have now essentially vanished, as Basra, Baghdad and beyond grow more violent.  Until the fundamental question – whether a continued presence in Iraq is making us safer now and in the future – is addressed, we’re doing nothing but spinning our wheels.  Keeping troops in the region to try and put a lid on violence until George Bush is safely tucked away creates a huge moral hazard which actually increases the potential for chaos.

The Responsible Plan reflects the opinion of a significant wing of the Democratic Party which is simply not willing to wait around anymore while the leadership in Washington tries to come up with a coherent endgame strategy.  Well over 50 Congressional challengers have endorsed the plan, understanding that a comprehensive strategy to end the war and repair the broken institutions that enabled it not only makes political sense but is absolutely vital to our national security.  Ilan Goldenberg sums up the plan nicely.

For the past two years, Democrats have been offering plan after plan to end the war in Iraq. But this one is different. As opposed to the usual broad language, combined with a laundry list of policy proposals that make up traditional party platforms, the plan has a sharp focus, with a clear strategic logic focused around two fundamental principles. First, the United States must find a way to sensibly end its military mission in Iraq–and use the political, diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic tools at its disposal to mitigate the negative consequences of the war. Second, the Iraq War has done irreparable damage not just to Iraq but to our country, and the time has come to reform our institutions and put the checks and balances in place to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated […]

“A Responsible Plan” would instead serve as the congressional corollary to a Democratic presidency. It doesn’t include elements over which Congress has little control, but it does push for 15 pieces of existing legislation, which focus on issues such as improving healthcare for a new generation of veterans and phasing out our reliance on military contractors such as Blackwater. Only the president can end the war in Iraq, but Congress can do its share by focusing on institutional repair and funding the right programs.

This approach is apparent in the most creative part of the document, titled “Preventing Future Iraqs.” These policies focus on checking presidential authority and ensuring that Congress can’t easily give the president a free hand to go to war. It calls for incorporating war funding into the regular defense budget instead of using “emergency supplementals”; eliminating the president’s use of signing statements to alter the substantive meaning of a law passed by Congress; repealing parts of the Military Commissions Act that suspended habeas corpus; and ending the use of wiretapping without a FISA warrant. These are good policies for both Republican and Democratic presidents to abide by.

Without a robust Congressional counterbalance to executive power, we will not be able to stop more Iraqs.  Co-author of the plan Darcy Burner and the dozens of endorsers are not only running to enter Congress but to restore the institution itself.  

This Wednesday I’m helping host a low-dollar fundraising event for Darcy in Los Angeles, where she will be flanked by netroots activists like myself, Dante Atkins (hekebolos), Todd Beeton (MyDD), Digby, John Amato (Crooks and Liars), Arianna Huffington and Rick Jacobs, as well as at least two California candidates who have endorsed the plan, Ron Shepston (CA-42) and Mary Pallant (CA-24).  If you want to reward and recognize true leadership and courage, join me in Los Angeles on Wednesday night.  All the information is at this ActBlue page, and you can donate before the event at the link as well.  I’ll add the text of the invitation below.

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

Darcy Burner almost beat Dave Reichert to win the Congressional Seat from WA-08 in 2006, and she’s back for a second run! The Republicans are scared-they’ve already send both George AND Laura Bush to raise money for Reichert.

Reichert has the Bushes, but Darcy Burner has us-and she’ll be in Los Angeles on April 9th.

Darcy is a solid progressive candidate: she is not only the co-author of the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, but also a leader on other progressive issues like telecom immunity and net neutrality.

And she’s not just a wonderful candidate; she’s a wonderful person too. Please take this opportunity to see Darcy in person:

Date: April 9, 2008

Time: 6:00 to 8:00 pm

Place:

Home of Rick Jacobs and Shaun Kadlec

1556 Courtney Avenue

Los Angeles, California. 90046

Grassroots friend: $25.00

Blograiser: $100.00

Host: $500.00

Sponsor: $1,000

Join our growing list of hosts in supporting and contributing to Darcy Burner:

Dante Atkins (hekebolos), Rick Jacobs and Shaun Kadlec, Digby, Dave Dayen (dday),

Arianna Huffington (huffingtonpost), Ron Shepston, candidate for Congress, CA-42, Todd Beeton (MyDD.com), John Amato (crooksandliars.com), and Sal Rosselli!

To RSVP and make your contribution online, go to the bottom of the page. If you would rather contribute by check or credit card at the door, please RSVP to [email protected], and bring your contribution with you to the event.

State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas is forcing a vote on a bill that ought to be named after a certain Berkeley professor:

The California Senate is preparing to weigh in on the hot-button topic of torture, with a twist that combines elements of the Hippocratic oath and the military oath.

Under a resolution that state Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas plans to put to a vote Thursday, California regulators would notify physicians and other health professionals that they could lose their license and be prosecuted by the state if they are involved in the torture of suspected terrorists […]

During a committee hearing in January, Ridley-Thomas said there is evidence that physicians, psychologists and nurses licensed by the state “have participated in torture or its coverup against detainees in U.S. custody.”

He cited “confirmed reports from the International Red Cross, New England Journal of Medicine, military records and first-person accounts.”

“California has the obligation, I believe, to notify its licensees of laws pertaining to torture that may result in prosecution,” Ridley-Thomas said.

The senator said physicians have reportedly advised interrogators whether prisoners were fit enough to survive “physical maltreatment, informed interrogators about prisoners’ phobias and other psychological vulnerabilities that could be exploited.”

Invoking the Hippocratic oath that physicians traditionally take, he said the state can “withdraw its consent to torture by demanding that its health professionals remember their oath to first do no harm.”

This is extremely small-bore, but if the federal government is abusing detainees, the states ought to be able to step in and inform their own residents of the Constitutional and international treaty obligations citizens are required to uphold.  

California Republicans will have a choice to make.  There is substantial evidence in the public record of health professionals aiding and abetting in the practices at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.  For each Yacht Party member, they must understand that their vote could either sanction these abuses, or affirmatively state that some parts of the United States still follow the rule of law.

I can only applaud Sen. Ridley-Thomas for this courageous proposal, which hopefully will spark a movement of revolt amongst state legislatures.  This Administration is lawless and reckless, and diminishing what credibility we have left globally with each passing day.  California can stand up, and steadfastly shout “We do not agree; we do not consent.”

Via Randy Bayne:

Simón Salinas has pulled papers to run in the Denham recall. He has until 5 p.m. tomorrow to turn in papers and signatures.

One Republican has also pulled papers, but there is a question about residency which may disqualify John Nevill, a Monterey County health care compliance officer.

I’m sure there will be a few stragglers on the ballot, but if Salinas is it that would significantly increase the chances of the recall, since Denham is not on that part of the ballot.  It’s an expansive district and no candidate has a power base throughout it, but between Salinas’ stronghold in the Monterey County area, and the new report that Stanislaus County has turned blue, with a 5,000-vote registration shift between 2006 and today, there is obviously a lot of movement here, and if Denham continues to whine about the process than his record, his days are numbered.

[UPDATE by Robert] Hank Shaw is reporting that Anna Caballero’s brief flirtation with a run has ended, clearing the field for Salinas.