I have to be blunt about one part of life in California since moving here. Election year 2006 was not a pleasant experience for me in the state. Before the June Gubernatorial Primary, I watch Dianne Feinstein among others campaign up and down the state for Phil Angelides. I voted for Steve Westley, but when the ticket was set for the November election, I was a good soldier and line up fore-square behind Phil. So where was Dianne?

 

I quickly reached the conclusion that her primary activities were nothing more than part of the CDP and labor making sure everyone knew who was in charge, November be damned. Because when it was time to put balls to the wall for the statewide ticket, Dianne, was nowhere to be found. I went to no less than three rallies in San Francisco and Oakland and never saw her. Now, she’s doing it again.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Feinstein will endorse Hillary for President.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, bolstering what appears to be an increasingly formidable campaign operation in delegate-rich California, will announce her endorsement by Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California’s senior senator, today, sources close to the campaign have said.

The endorsement of the New York senator’s presidential bid by Feinstein — one of the state’s most popular politicians — swells what is now a growing list of recent Clinton supporters among key Democratic political figures in the nation’s most populous state. They include Rep. Ellen Tauscher of Walnut Creek and Assemblyman Sandré Swanson of Alameda, who announced his support for Clinton this week.

Feinstein told Clinton supporters and friends at a private fundraiser in Colorado earlier this month that she would back the New York senator in her presidential bid, but she has yet to make it official.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Hillary and will be there for her if she is the nominee. I also expect her to carry California on November, 2008. However, the California establishment should at least once in their lifetimes take theirs heads out of the sand and look at the big picture.

Charlie Brown will be running for Congress, Jerry McNerney will be running for reelection and we have a shot at picking up to other seats downstate. Why make the hill steeper by nominating someone who will motivate Republicans to turn out? We do not need to see who is “boss”, you’ve shown us plenty of times. For once, look beyong your own interests.

(OMG, THIS IS HUGE!!!! Oh yes, and you can see this at Daily Kos as well! : ) – promoted by atdleft)

Blogging is largely about talking the talk – and that’s important.  This diary is about walking the walk.

A few months ago, another member of this community and I made a pair of expensive decisions — decisions to do what we felt we were obligated to do as patriotic Americans.  He — the good-looking, likable, established-in-the-community one — decided to run for Congress if I would manage his campaign full-time.  And I agreed to manage his campaign (at a steep discount from standard “Democratic consultant” rates) if it would be more than a token run.

A brain trust of Southern Californian bloggers – people like thereisnospoon, hekebolos, Shockwave, OrangeClouds115, occams hatchet, dday, atdleft, vernonlee, honorary Californian clammyc, and many others – were there at the beginning and have provided support and sage advice since.  Others have joined the train since then.  Tomorrow at 9 a.m. PDT, with the announcement of the name and handle of the nominee, the train leaves the station.

We want you on that train with us.  We’re ready to crash that train right through the gates of Congress – and you know that that means we’re going to make a lot of noise.

Previous diaries in the CA-42 campaign rollout series:

7/15: thereisnospoon’s CA-42: A Kossack is running for Congress
7/16: atdnext’s CA-42: The Case Against Dirty Gary Miller

*1. The 435-district strategy*

In graduate school, I studied Social Psychology: attitudes, opinion, group dynamics, emotion – that sort of thing.  I then moved into teaching in Political Science at the University of Illinois.  With all that training behind me, I could explain to you very patiently and extensively why microeconomics dictated that the Democratic strategy — picking out just the swing states and the swing districts and making a stand there in hopes of running the table and winning an election — was not only /right/, but /inevitable/.

In 2004, I started reading the blogs — and I realized that I was wrong.  More than that – almost /everyone/ in the Democratic Party was wrong.  Jerome Armstrong and Markos explain this in /Crashing the Gate/, but I’ll summarize it here: if you don’t run candidates everywhere, (1) you can’t take advantage when a disaster hits your opponent; (2) you leave people in those communities socially and politically isolated, unlikely to develop informed beliefs about politics even when they move to competitive areas, or (even worse) at the mercy of Fox News; (3) you leave time and money on the table, because the time and money such people have to offer largely doesn’t overlap with that available to you elsewhere; (4) you allow the opposing party to concentrate its money on only a few races, needing only a few victories in decisive races to win, and (5) you look cowardly and unimpressive to people who value strength and decisiveness in their leaders.

Jerome and Markos and Howard Dean were right.  2006 is evidence for it.  Some of the record 425 (out of 435) districts where we had candidates were ones where “we couldn’t win” — and yet we did!

Here in Orange County, CA, my boyhood home, we have the second-largest concentration of Democrats in the state – far exceeded, of course, by the number of Republicans.  The 50-state strategy – in California, the 53-Congressional District strategy – says that you /have/ to run here.  But no one was on the ballot against Gary Miller in 2006 – one of only ten districts where the Democratic Party did not offer an opponent.  That meant, among other things, that no one could capitalize on Miller’s ethical problems when they came out.

Furthermore, no established Democrat in any part of CA-42 – a district spanning parts of Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties, stretching from Whittier College in the northwest to Chino Airport in the northeast, down through Yorba Linda and Anaheim Hills though Cleveland National Forest down to Saddleback College in Mission Viejo – was stepping forward to run against the ethically challenged Republican incumbent Gary Miller.  (“Dirty Gary,” as atdnext calls him, must never, ever be confused with the excellent California Congressional Democrat, George Miller!)  Everyone knows that it has to be done – the DCCC has actually /targeted/ Miller for opposition (hat tip to dday, who has been all over the Miller tales)– but talks with party officials in the area indicated that no current Democratic officeholder was likely to run.

Whoever would run against the vulnerable incumbent Gary Miller, therefore, would have to be someone from outside, someone who could bring something new and powerful to the table.  A personal fortune would be nice, but no one with one to spend could be found.  In the absence of that, would netroots backing be nice enough?  Maybe it would.

So the candidate and I made our agreement.  I offer my story below, because maybe parts of it will resonate with your experiences and help convey why I think that 2008 is a year to suspend business as usual and make sacrifices – yes, eventually I’m going to ask you for money – for the good of the nation.  You can skip down to part 3 if you’d prefer without missing much.

*2. How I came to manage a campaign*

A year ago, I was ready to leave the country for at least a few years if the Democrats did not capture at least one house of Congress in the 2006 election.  This was not for of patriotism, but for lack of hope: if Democrats could not do well /last year/, with the political winds so strongly at our back, then I assumed that the most severe cynics were right and the system was too firmly rigged against us.  One could do nothing but wait for the system to collapse under the weight of BushCo misdeeds and then make the case for change from the outside, as political exiles have sometimes had to do throughout history.

I wanted to be able to tell myself and others that I had done everything I could to save the country before taking such a step.  So I left work in New York to help manage Jack Carter’s gutty but outgunned campaign for Senate in Nevada.  I was supposed to handle the research and internet organizing tasks, but most of the time ended up being involved in the “meat space” side of things, because those demands were more pressing.  Working on that campaign gave me a good sense of what running an Internet-based campaign would really mean, and what things can go right and can go wrong in any campaign.  Some of those lessons were harsh – but they were learned.

As it turned out, the Democrats swept Congress in 2006.  I wasn’t prepared for that; I had made no plans for what to do after the Carter campaign ended other than renewing my passport.  I thought about returning to the practice of law right away, but I don’t think that the nation is out of the woods yet politically.  This is still a time of crisis, one that still cries out for extraordinary measures and strong individual responses to the perfidy of the Bush Administration.  We still need to fight like our nation depends on it.  So, rather than returning to work, I’ll spend the next 15-1/2 months managing the first homegrown netroots campaign for federal office.

In light of the Democrats’ success last November, after leaving Las Vegas I had planned to some time spent decompressing in California and then go to Oregon to work to take out Gordon Smith.  Then, last January, I met the candidate you’ll meet tomorrow.  And before long I said to myself: to hell with caution and prudence – we’ve /got/ to do this.

I hope that you’ll say the same.

*3. What we’re about:*

Running a campaign is – try not to think of Bush saying this in the 2004 debates as you read this – hard work, as my experiences with the gutty but outgunned Carter campaign taught me.  But at base it’s an exercise in fundraising, management, and persuasion, much like other businesses.  We have 15-1/2 months left before the election; while even more time would have been better, that’s enough time to take a good swing at this.  One thing I learned in Nevada was that if you’re going to be doing “meat space” campaign management (as I was unexpectedly called on to do), you had better have someone else devoted to managing your online volunteers.  And I also learned that some of the best help can come from people from all over the country.  So I will be calling on you, on the individually good and collectively great members of this community, to help shape a new kind of campaign.  It doesn’t matter where you live.  You can be part of this campaign.

This is the first-ever conception-to-execution viable netroots campaign for federal office.  It won’t be the last, but it will always be the first.  As a distributed model of organization, as something that capitalizes on the strengths of our party and our movement, and (not least) as something being organized in more than the two months we had for the Carter campaign, it’s something that ought to scare the hell out of people who like their citizens docile and confused.

We want to win, but we also want to scare our opponents and inspire our supporters enough to change politics for the better.  Our announcement isn’t until tomorrow, but you should already know where your credit cards or checkbook are – and your calendar, if you’re willing to volunteer.  Since a few already figured out and published the name of the candidate, though not the handle, you can go to the ActBlue page if you’d like to make a contribution before knowing /which/ blogger it is that will receive it.  (Talk about a leap of faith!  But when you find out that name tomorrow, you’ll want to make /another/ contribution!)

*4. The First Laplander*

I’ve been telling people in the party and the grassroots that being the first homegrown netroots candidate to run for federal office is a bit like being the first candidate to run from a previously politically dormant ethnic group – let’s say, oh, Laplanders.  (And no offense intended to any Sami People reading this — we all know how well-connected Finland is — your day will come.)  The first Laplander who runs for Congress will inspire pride and enthusiasm and support from the Lapland community, because it is a way of putting that community on the map and showing that is has /arrived/.

No one has appointed our candidate to be the first netroots candidate to run for federal office, but I hope and expect that the pride of this community will be no less than when any community sees “one of its own” take such a step.  We have disagreements here, sure – I’ve been known to take part in them from time to time – but they are mostly around the margins.  Our candidate believes in:

* restoring the Constitution and rule of law by reining in the Imperial Presidency
* removing our troops from Iraq and concentrating our foreign policy on fighting terrorism, poverty, and human rights abuses
* reverting to the fiscal sanity and responsibility that this Administration squandered and dedicating the government to helping people avoid the catastrophes that come from lost health care and pension protection
* respecting facts rather than convenient wishes when it comes to federal policy in areas such as the environment, energy, education, and health
* refusing to use the power of office to enrich oneself and one’s friends at the expense of the public good

And our opponent believes in /none of those things/.  This is a netroots kind of race — a fight to make us all rightfully proud.

We will walk the walk between now and November 4, 2008.  We will take the frustration and disgust that so many of us feel and hammer it into a message of hope and resolve.

Tune in tomorrow: politics will never be the same.  We in the netroots made history in 2006 – and we’re going to make even more history in 2008.

Please note: The candidate intends to post tomorrow, July 18, at noon EDT/9 a.m. PDT.

Highlighting his considerable foreign expertise, Governor Bill Richardson last week set forth a path to avoiding military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Richardson called on Bush administration to stop threatening Iran with “incendiary rhetoric,” and instead recognize our interests in engaging Iran diplomatically. 

Richardson’s week ended with a well-received speech before Latino leaders in Florida.  Decrying the tone of the debate in the Senate on the immigration bill and how Latinos are portrayed in the media, Richardson asked: 

Do you notice that when they depict immigrants, they have someone crossing a wall, jumping as if they are criminals? How about the farmers who break their backs working or those who are cleaning the toilets and working at the hotel where we stay? How about the American media covering the immigrant who died protecting his country?

Also of note, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com stated, “For other Democratic candidates, we’ve not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.”

For a full review of Richardson’s week, continue reading.

Last week began with Richardson campaigning in Iowa.  He stepped up his rhetoric opposing the ongoing U.S. occupation in Iraq. As noted by the Rocky Mountain News:

While all the other Democrats call for an end to the conflict, Richardson goes a step further by saying virtually every American soldier – with the exception of Marine embassy guards – should be pulled out by the end of the year. He is pressuring congressional Democrats to pass a resolution by the end of the summer revoking authority for the war.

Richardson also addressed the question of the process he would employ if as President he believed war necessary:

If I am president, I would only go to war if I get authority from Congress. If you go to war, it’s my view that first you exhaust every diplomatic option, you exhaust mediation, even sanctions, build international support for your goals.  I would not hesitate to go to war if it preserved the security of this country, but I believe this administration has been too trigger-happy. And I would use diplomacy.

Richardson has been consistent on the primacy of diplomacy in conflict resolution.  On Iraq, Richardson advocated that the U.S. explore all diplomatic avenues, including returning to the U.N. and developing support within the Security Council for U.S. objectives.  Under the U.N. Charter, only the Security Council can authorize a member state to wage war. 

Richardson’s view, that the U.S. must place the matter of invading Iraq to a vote of the Security Council prior to commencing hostilities, was rejected by many in Congress, including John Edwards, and ultimately was the path President Bush pursued.

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson urged patience and diplomacy, criticizing the Bush Administration’s rush to war, in an interview on CNN.  At this time, polls showed most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N. Richardson defended the work of the U.N. Richardson explained how unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we’re going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we’re to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don’t support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it’s doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don’t do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there’s not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don’t want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don’t want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we’ve used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its 1881 resolution. And it’s not doing that. So, it’s going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that’s the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That’s the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq’s behavior, let’s do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don’t do that, I think it’s going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it’s going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it’s frustrating, but what’s the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it’s not an immediate threat. It’s not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we’re under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let’s be judicious. Let’s be calm. Let’s be patient.

While in Iowa, Richardson sat down for an interview with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register. The reporter covering the interview wrote:

Richardson might not be the best-known candidate – for now, anyway – but he might have the best credentials. His resumé includes U.S. congressman, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy and governor. He served in Congress under three presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

That’s him on paper.  In person, he’s a bit beefy, his eyes scrunch up, and his body shakes when he laughs. He boasts that he holds the world’s handshaking record – more than 13,000 handshakes in eight hours. And his sense of humor comes through loud and clear. . . .

Yet he has a serious side.  It’s the side that made him a go-to envoy while still in Congress. He helped negotiate the release of the body of a U.S. Army helicopter pilot killed in North Korea in 1994. The next year, he negotiated the release of two Americans detained in Iraq. Then he secured release of three Red Cross workers being held in Sudan.

During the interview, Richardson highlighted three issues of such importance that he would make special efforts to reach bipartisan consensus: getting out of the Iraq war; setting up solid funding for Social Security and Medicare for future generations; and achieving energy independence.  The reporter added:

If that sounds like a lot, his vision for the country is equally expansive. Building an America without divisions by race or ethnicity. Launching an Apollo-like program to secure energy independence. Curing cancer. Giving the middle class a break. “My vision is to think big for this country,” he said.

On June 27th, Richardson gave a major address at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C.  Richardson laid out his vision for engaging Iran and convincing Iran to halt its development of nuclear weapons.  Richardson also spoke on building support to fight international terrorism and nuclear proliferation, while bringing peace and stability to the Middle East.

I am convinced that a concerted diplomatic effort, backed up by tough sanctions, undertaken with our international partners and grounded in bipartisan cooperation at home, stands an excellent chance of persuading Iran to forego nuclear weapons and to adopt more responsible policies.  We need to end the taboo on open-ended talks, so that we can begin serious, continuing, and senior-level negotiations on the full range of nuclear, Middle East security, and economic issues. . . .

We need to be absolutely clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and we need to be absolutely credible when we say what we will do about it if the Iranians continue to disregard the will of the international community. . . .

Richardson added the Bush Administration was foolish to fund Iraqi exile groups in the delusional expectation that they would somehow topple the regime, and called on Bush not to repeat the mistake with Iran:

The Bush administration foolishly tried this approach with Iraq, and we know what it got us. There is no reason to expect better results with Iran. . . No constructive dialogue with Iran is possible until we break the vicious cycle of suspicion and hostile, incendiary rhetoric. If we want Iran to improve its behavior, we would do well to stop threatening to attack them.

Bill Richardson advocated that the U.S. reach out to moderate elements in Iranian society to defuse the standoff between the two countries.  Richardson reiterated his position that the U.S. must remove all troops from Iraq as soon as possible:

The presence of American troops in Iraq fuels the insurgency and strengthens Al Qaeda.  I strongly believe that the complete withdrawal of all US military from Iraq will have a salutary effect on all of our goals in the region, including our efforts to build a better relationship with Iran, and to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Back in New Mexico, the leading state organization on environmental issues, the non-partisan Conservation Voters New Mexico gave Richardson an “A” in its annual scorecard of elected officials:

The CVNM Scorecard recognizes Governor Bill Richardson with a solid “A” for his commitment to protecting the environment. The Governor weighed in behind a strong renewable energy agenda in 2007 and exercised his veto power on several anti-conservation measures, including a line-item veto of $945,000 for “Gila basin water development”, and a pocket-veto of SB 220 that would have provided a de facto $6.9 million subsidy to the coal industry.

Sandy Buffet, the Executive Director of the CVNM applauded Richardson’s efforts to make “New Mexico the ‘Clean Energy State.‘” She also complimented Richardson for his work on a non-environmental issue, but one affecting the integrity of the state government and New Mexico elections:  uphelding strong campaign finance reporting rules from efforts by the state legislature to reverse progessive statutes.

In response Richardson stated:

We have worked closely with all those who seek to conserve our water, air and public lands and establish New Mexico as the clean energy state — and this grade shows we’ve worked well together.  Having enacted 23 pro-conservation bills this year, this legislative session was an unprecedented success with significant increases to our renewable energy portfolio standard, passage of the surface owner’s protection act and the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority.

On the political front, independent polls issued last week re-confirmed Richardson’s growing support in Iowa and New Hampshire.  The campaign’s internal poll released to the media showed Richardson at 13% in Iowa, and at 18% (above Obama) among likely caucus voters.  And, in in action I believe is related to Richardson’s rise in the polls, the week also saw Obama launch TV ads in Iowa and Edwards commence a TV campaign in New Hampshire. 

In response to Richardson’s momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com explained, “While Richardson is still in fourth place in both states (5th in NH if you include Gore), his is the only trajectory that is clearly moving up.” 

The positive trend in Iowa polls was noticed by reporters in the state:

Lending credence to a poll showing his support has jumped to double digits among likely Iowa caucus-goers, Bill Richardson attracted more than 200 people to a “job interview” in Iowa City. The Democratic governor of New Mexico made an impression Tuesday with the folks who will be doing the “hiring” when Iowans caucus in January.

“He’s the ‘been there, done that’ guy in the field” of Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination, Sally Peck of West Branch said of listening to Richardson. “He’s not just mouthing platitudes. He has the experience others don’t.”

For months, Richardson has been calling for comprehensive immigration reform in harmony with the ideals upon which our nation was founded.  In a speech last December at Georgetown University, Richardson spoke on the issue:

I come here today as a border state Governor, and a  Hispanic-American who knows that our nation can no longer afford to  ignore the issue of illegal immigration. I come here as a Democrat who  believes my party has an obligation as the new majority party to pass  comprehensive legislation to reform our immigration laws. And I come  here as someone who believes it’s time for our leaders to tell the  simple truth about this — and every other — issue.

Today, there are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Most are law abiding, except for the fact that they have entered this country illegally. And almost all have come here to work — to build a  better life for themselves and their families, just as previous generations of immigrants have done.

Eleven million people living in the shadows is a huge problem, and we need to address it intelligently and thoughtfully — and urgently. If Congress fails to do so, it will only get worse, and the demagoguery about it which we have heard so much of recently will only get louder.

Sadly, Richardson’s prediction that the demagoguery on immigration would only get worse proved true last week. Following the failure of the Senate to advance a bill, Richardson stated:

I am deeply disappointed. You can’t solve a problem by ignoring it. We have got to find a way to bridge the divide and bring people together to address the critical problems facing our nation — immigration, energy, healthcare, education. This is the price America pays for divisive leadership. Congress should continue to work on passing immigration reform.

Richardson explained further his opposition to the Senate immigration bill, while calling for immigration reform, in an address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on June 30, 2007 in Orlando, Florida.  As reported in the Boston Globe:

“The Congress failed to pass an immigration act, and they must return” to it, said Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a lawmaker of Hispanic background who received one of the most enthusiastic receptions among the seven Democratic candidates for president from the members of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials.

“But it was a bad bill. What I objected to was that they stopped working” on it, Richardson said. He decried that he called an overly onerous provision that would have required undocumented immigrants to return to their home countries to be considered for a green card giving them permanent legal status.

As reported in the Chicago Tribune, at the same conference Obama decried an “ugly undertone that crept into the debate” this year. Yet, Obama defended his vote last year to build the 700-mile fence along U.S. boarder with Mexico because that provision was just one part in a “much more humane” reform bill.  This was not the case.  The “Secure Fence Act of 2006” that Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden voted for contained only provisions authorizing the wall and securing the border. Richardson has consistently opposed the border wall as ineffective, a terrible symbol for America and in conflict with our goal of seeking Mexico’s cooperaton on immigration issues.

The Chicago Tribune’s coverage of the Florida conference continued:

But Richardson landed the hardest punch with the crowd when he suggested that the failure to pass fair immigration laws is due partly to a societal failure to recognize that “immigration has historically been a very positive element.”

“I have a message to the American media,” Richardson said. “Do you notice when they depict immigrants, they have somebody crossing a wall … as if they’re criminals? How about the American media looking at the farmworker who breaks his back? How about the American media covering the Latino immigrant that has died for this country?”

Richardson added:  “I’m not running as a Latino candidate. I’m running as an American governor who is enormously proud to be Latino.”

There has been significant blog commentary on the Democratic Presidential debate last Thursday at Howard University.  I won’t add anything further with one exception.  Much of the commentary focused on style and ignored the substance of the candidates’ statements. In particular, on the question of economic growth and tax unfairness, Richardson set forth an unique vision. 

Richardson’s voice is important as he is the only Democratic candidate in the race with executive branch experience and success in working with local communities, private corporations and public entities in creating thousands of new, quality jobs. 

Richardson advocated repealing the Bush tax cuts at the very top of the income bracket, which other candidates did as well.  But Richardson would go much further by replacing the Bush tax cuts with tax cuts for the middle class and to promote job growth, including in the inner cities and rural areas.  Richardson stated: 

We need to rebuild this economy by being pro-growth Democrats. We should be the party of innovation, of entrepreneurship, of building capital, getting capital for African American small businesses. We need to find a way in this country that we say that globalization must work for the middle class.

Finally, the Bay Area Reporter, the leading LGBT paper for the San Francisco Bay Area, profiled Richardson last week:

B.A.R. publisher Thomas E. Horn, who was born and raised in New Mexico and whose family has been involved in the state’s politics – an uncle served as a state legislator and then the state’s Democratic Party chair in the 1950s and 1960s – first met Richardson when he served as a congressman.

“I really think he is the most qualified Democrat in the race for president,” Horn wrote in an e-mail. “His track record is exceptional. He’s done a fine job as governor … and was re-elected with around 70 percent of the vote.”

Horn, who said he expects to make an endorsement in the primary but has yet to back a candidate, said winning the southwest will be key to the Democrats taking back the White House. Not only does he see Richardson having an advantage in the West, but Horn also praised his gay rights track record.

“If a Democrat carries New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, we don’t need Ohio or Florida to win. Richardson is very popular throughout the southwest and stands the best chance of being able to do that,” wrote Horn. “His record of LGBT issues has always been stellar.”

In what I expect to be the first of possibly three Republican retirements in California, Robert Novak is reporting that Jerry Lewis will not seek reelection.

(Cross-posted on Daily Kos)

Republican sources on Capitol Hill and in California say Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee who has been criticized on ethical grounds, will not seek a 16th term next year.

Lewis came under fire last year for pouring millions of dollars worth of earmarks into his heavily Republican southern California district. He has not apologized and vigorously defended himself behind closed doors in the House Republican Conference.

Before we celebrate I should note that this is a pretty red district and we won’t have an embattled Lewis to run againt, but with California likely to go blue for President next year, perhaps we can score sn upset with a strong candidate. The trick now, is to find the candidate. Any suggestions for that candidate?