(Thanks for posting your experience at the Convention! – promoted by SFBrianCL)
Crossposted at the DailyKos, MyDD, and MyLeftWing
I wish every Democrat or progressive could attend a California Democratic Party convention. CDP delegates come in every ethnicity, religion, height, weight, gender and economic class. The convention is a rich reduction sauce of the human comedy. On display is incredible diversity, courage, idealism and dedication… as well as ego and arrogance, pettiness and backbiting… and the tendency of humans to dissent and dispute endlessly… and also come together for common goals.
This was my second convention. I was one of the crop of 2005 delegates brought in on the flotsam of the 2004 presidential campaign: a class of grassroots organizers who were recruited by opposition to Iraq, trained by Howard Dean, and deployed by John Kerry. By the time of the last convention, many of us were new to politics, but already scarred by battle… and ready to try to work within the California party because we needed to reclaim our party.
These are the impressions of one of the “Fresh Horses” one year after.
Day 1: Friday
I arrived in Sacramento a little after noon, parked my car at my hotel and walked to the Convention Center, about 3 blocks away. Registration was slated to start at 1:00… so I milled about and checked out some of the tables/booths set up in the hallways outside the conference rooms. An array of the expected Democratic constituencies had tables: DFA, Progressive Democrats of America, California Teachers Association, California Nurses, NARAL, Planned Parenthood. A number of native American tribes. And there were the candidates seeking state and national office: Angelides, Westly, Garamendi, Spiers, Lt. Col. Charlie Brown, etc.
The Progressive Caucus (which is the one I’m most interested in) starts promptly at 1pm, which is the precise time that registration begins. Hmmm. I asked around… and it turns out that you don’t really need your credentials to attend a caucus meeting. So I deferred the registration and went directly to the Progressive Caucus room… which was a fairly large conference room – and I estimate that about 250-350 people attended.
The folks on the dias were mostly DFA & PDA community activists – Mayme Hubert from Marin, Mal Bernstein of East Bay for Democracy… Karen Bernal from Sacramento for Democracy, Jo Olson from Silicon Valley for Democracy. Ralph Miller from Latinos for Democracy.
I was really proud of the substantive contribution that the “Deaniacs” were already making to the party. We were informed that there were several other State Democratic Parties that had formed, or wer in the process of forming Progressive Caucuses as well… in Utah… and Arizona… and Michigan… and Kansas… and South Carolina…. Yaaahahhhahhhhggghh!!
It was pretty clear that the Progressive Caucus was going to be among (if not THE) largest caucus meeting for the party – with the exception of the Women’s Caucus… and was there to do business.
The Progressives had three petitions for planks they wished to include in the party’s platform, which is being rewritten this year:
First was language about Iraq, stating the the CDP endorses withdrawal.
Second: was to replace references to “comprehensive universal healthcare” with “single payer healthcare”.
Third, which they seemed a bit conflicted about… a proclamation in support of impeachment in the platform. Personally, I view a plaform as an assertion of values… and I don’t know that specific impeachment language belongs there… but read on, McDuff…
Now… to get a petition accepted by the platform committee, it has to get 300 signatures. It seemed like there should have been enough people right in that room to get sufficient signatures for a given petition. And that makes for a caucus with clout.
There were committee reports on Election Integrity, Media Reform, Foreign Relations, Health Care and Outreach. One thing which left me dumbstruck as a first-time delegate last year was that when I attended caucus meetings, you’d be in the middle of a discussion on a resolution (or some other business) and then a bigshot elected official, with entourage, would enter the room and all discussion would stop as these “stars” would be given the floor to address the caucus. You can see how this would be a great opportunity for a candidate to grandstand in front of delegates… but if you care about the caucus actually accomplishing something in the 1.5 – 2 hours that is afforded to it, then it’s an incredible disruption. Because it can happen repeatedly.
Well, the Progressive Caucus didn’t yield the floor to candidates and elected officials trying to grab the mike. Which I thought was great – it’s a sign of self-respect: we support our elected officials and we want them to support us too – and not derail our work. It’s too bad that the elected officials present (some of whom were excellent) didn’t get time to speak at the end of the program… but they would have plenty of opportunity to schmooze over the next few days.
One thing of note that happened at the Progressive Caucus was that Assemblyman Paul Koretz, who introduced California’s “Assembly Joint Resolution to Impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney” spoke. California is one of a handful of states that are in the process of considering such legislation, which takes advantage of Section 603 of Section LIII of Jefferson’s Manual… which provides that impeachment proceedings in the US House may be set in motion by charges transmitted from a state legislature. Maybe it’s just a symbolic act… but it’s also standing up for the rule of law and the Constitution. And that’s certainly worth doing. He got a standing ovation.
Oh, and Brad Parker, an LA PDA guy, sent around a statement to fax to the DNC: “Gov. Howard Dean, We’ve Got Your Back”. A statement of support for Dean’s 50 State Strategy and his promotion of grassroots politics. In the past I’ve noted a tendency for PDA folks to be a lot more critical towards Gov. Dean than DFA, so I appreciated seeing a PDA leader going out of his way to stand up on behalf of Chairman Dean. If nothing else, that was great coalition building in addition to bolstering our controversial party chair.
After the Progressive Caucus, I grabbed a bite to eat and then attended a presentation given by Christine Pelosi and Donnie Fowler on Promoting Your Democratic Message. Some of this was pretty standard George Lakoff fare that would be familar to denizens of the left blogosphere. There was a third presenter whose name escapes me, too, who does polling and voter attitude analysis. There was a discussion on how message discipline helped California Democrats defeat Arnold’s initiatives last year.
Next: the Platform Committee (which Christine Pelosi chairs… so I got a double-shot of Christine). The platform actually would be voted on for adoption on Sunday by the entire convention… but there was a meeting to try to work in some of the most recent proposed language changes… and some of the more popular amendments (like ones the progressive caucus was promoting).
First up was a woman who had gotten the requisite 300 signatures for a plank to address the Democratic policy towards poverty. Always important, but especially relevant in the wake of Katrina. Although the committee process can certainly be frustrating… especially when people dig into their set positions… in this case it ultimately resolved in a satisfactory way – where all parties were respectfully heard. Although no one gets exactly what they want, it’s gratifying to witness that the end product can indeed be stronger as a result of the input of all concerned.
People joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee… but a Saturn V was designed by committee too, and it got us to the moon. I felt that Christine chaired the meeting well and kept things moving along productively.
Next came new Iraq War opposition language submitted by the Progressive Caucus. The sticking point was language about turning Iraq over to the Iraqis immediately… and bringing the troops home now. This language was deemed too strong… and impractical… by some committee members, including a veteran who was concerned that we have a moral obligation, after breaking Iraq, to stay long enough to help clean it up. (I know… I know… I’m just reporting what his concerns were!)
But also, on a practical point, there’s the fact that withdrawal won’t be able to be accomplished overnight. This was acknowledged by the progressives, who said that this was a misinterpretation of their intent. But that we need to strongly express our desire to end our occupation at once, even if ending it would take time.
It was recommended that the language be altered to “turning Iraq over to the Iraqis starting immediately… bringing the troops home starting now. This was still considered too strong for some. And too weak by others.
So it was adopted. This is the final language:
We call upon the Bush Administration and Congress to bring our troops home starting now. This war of choice has squandered America’s standing in the world and our alliances against al Qaeda, especially considering the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the basing of decisions on cherry-picked intelligence, and the lack of proper planning and equipment for our troops. America must be a light to the world, a beacon of freedom and democracy, which respects and promotes international cooperation and sovereignty, and promotes human rights in our deeds as well as our words. We honor our troops best by returning them home to their loved ones to protect against the real threats to America. We honor the valor of those who have sacrificed their lives, by bringing home their colleagues safely to their families, and we honor the men and women of our military when we only place them in harm’s way against the real and immediate threats against our beloved country they so nobly serve. We must also properly provide for this new generation of veterans upon their return.
We must turn Iraq over to the Iraqis: starting immediately, end the wrongful occupation of Iraq and re-establish a commitment to the rule of international law and human rights; provide for the financial security of the Iraqi people during Iraq’s transition toward self-governance; return the national territory of Iraq to the sovereign control of the people of Iraq with no permanent U.S. bases in that country; support international diplomatic efforts to assist in peaceful reconciliation amongst the Iraqi people; and, contribute financial resources to rebuild Iraq’s physical and economic infrastructure.
I actually think this was a quite strong, stirring, and progressive statement… and that the proponents needn’t feel compromised: they got something like 95% of what they wanted in this. The highlight of this process was testimony from two soldiers who had been fighting in Iraq… who spoke briefly… but eloquently… about the multiple tours of duty they endured. The lives of their friends (and their own) at stake. The futility of the venture. Their feeling of betrayal. The position of the progressives is that the American people already oppose the war. They are ahead of the Democratic party here. And that we shouldn’t be timid in our opposition.
BTW, it’s looking like the platform will come in at about 10 pages, when contrasted with the 27 pages of the 2004 platform. Brevity is good!
I’m hoping that we can end up with a strong and progressive platform on Sunday. I’m hoping it will be a fitting response to those Republicans who say the Democrats have no ideas and don’t stand for anything. They’ll still say it, but we’ll at least have something to whack ’em on the snout with.
DAY 2: Saturday
Today is all about candidate endorsements… with the biggie being the gubernatorial race.
Steve Westly has a posse of orange-shirted earnest young supporters marching around, holding up signs, chanting and handing out bottled water to the conventioneers. There are rumors that this is “astroturf” – fake grass-roots support… the best that money can buy… but I’m willing to accept on face value that Westly might somehow legitimately inspire support from primarily nubile young Democrats. If so, more power to him!
The press narrative that I’m hearing is that Westly is the party outsider, the energizing candidate winning the support of the pierced and wired Millennial Kidz, while Angelides is a hum-drum nerdy and unexciting favorite of the smoke-filled room crowd: the old boys network. You know, kinda like Dukakis the Geek.
Ignoring for the moment that Angelides’ old boy’s network would have to include Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Lynn Woolsey… that dog won’t hunt because of the significant number of new grassroots delegates who support Angelides: folks wearing DFA and PDA buttons. You know, the Deaniacs who were last years’ pierced and wired crowd. Unless the gate-crashers become insider “old boys” in the blink of an eye, the press must be radically oversimplifying. Imagine that.
Much of the day was spent in candidate speeches. Former SF Mayor (and longtime Assembly Speaker) Willie Brown acted as the conference chair since party chair Art Torres is recovering from cancer surgery. Bill Clinton was called “slick Willie”, but that sobriquet might more properly belong to Brown. He’s smooth… real smooth. If he weren’t in politics, he’d have to have gone into showbiz. Speaking of Clinton, he provided a video address to the convention, which was a big hit. Clinton has major rock-star appeal with this crowd. I wouldn’t be surprised if women flash him at these kinds of events.
OK, the Democratic Party is big enough for TWO “slick Willies”.
Given the omnipresence of the Orange Shirted Westleyans, it would have been possible to conclude that Westly’s support at the convention was just massive.
As it turned out, when push came to shove, 67.2% of the delegates picked Angelides. Debra Bowen did even better with something like 80%. And in his district caucus, grassroots darling Jerry McNerney, who’s running against Pombo in the 11th CD, bested the DCCC-supported ‘centrist’ candidate Steve Filson with 75% of the vote.
Damn good times.
I actually had an opportunity to engage Debra Bowen in a 1-on-1 conversation about electronic voting systems… and she’s incredibly sharp. And knowledgable. She understands the complexities of securing the vote, from the moment a ballot is cast, through transporting ballots (or memory cards), and the counting process… and beyond. And she’s well versed in the problems with electronic voting (and counting) technologies now employed. She discussed – very knowledgably – the problems with Diebold systems used in Max Cleland’s race against Saxby Chambliss in Georgia… and the irregularities of that race.
Speaking of which, Sen. Cleland is here… I saw him in a hallway. That’s the other thing about these convetions… you look up from some piece of literature you’ve been handed, and boom… there’s one of your heros. And this man is one of mine.
I had lunch with the California for Democracy steering committee… which I’m apparently going to be an incoming member of. I decided to run for election to that committee… but it turns out that they have exactly as many candidates as there are positions on the committee… which doesn’t make for a particularly exciting or surprising election process.
California for Democracy is the umbrella group for all of California’s DFA local groups… and was instrumental in providing the information necessary to get DFA people elected to be delegates. And it’s looking to me that this one small act set into motion a series of events that is transforming the California Democratic Party.
I mentioned yesterday that the Progressive Caucus was the largest caucus in the CDP, aside from the Women’s Caucus? I was wrong. It’s the largest Caucus including the Women’s Caucus. The Progressive Caucus is being driven by these new grassroots delegates… and California for Democracy brought them into the party apparatus. The other thing that C4D did was get the DFA groups working together to oppose Arnold’s initiatives last year. So it’s something of a big deal.
After lunch there was a session on the use of new technologies in politics, given by Simon Rosenberg – who wrote the intro to ‘Crashing the Gate’, and we spoke breifly afterwards. There’s no doubt that new technologies are dramatically changing politics, and blogs and online fund-raising are only the tip of the iceberg. Cable broadcasting vs. networks… the impact that PVRs which allow easily skipping commercials – all of these are changing the terrain of media messaging. I was surprised that podcasting wasn’t mentioned at all in this session, which is interesting because I see it as a growing medium.
After that session, it was time to cast my ballot… as I was standing in line I was approached first by Steve Westly, who decided to avoid direct engagement with me upon seeing my big bright orange “Steve, you can’t buy my vote!” button. However, I got to shake Angelides hand and let him know that this is but the first of three votes I intend to cast for him this year. It’s a little bit of whistling in the graveyard – Westly is so wealthy that he may very well be able to flood the media and essentially buy the primary… which I’d personally hate to see. I’m tired of a system which results in the wealthiest people in a given state being the only ones who can run for office… and justifying self-financing with the fiction that it “will keep me from being beholden to the special interests”. Arnold said the same thing, and we see how true that worked out to be.
Having said all this, if Westly wins, I’ll be the first to sing Kumbayah and start working for Westly this fall because I simply can’t handle 4 more years of Arnold.
Finally, the big event of the evening was that the Progressive Caucus was sponsoring an event at a local theater on considering the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I went there to check it out, and I think of myself as a pragmatist. So I’m aware that there’s no chance in hell that this Republican congress will allow even a fair investigation of any of this president’s wrongdoing. Impeachment proceedings? Never. It’s something to dream about after recapturing Congress.
So I wanted to see if this would be out there on the fringes… or a real practical discussion of the issue. And it truly was the latter. Moderated by Mike Malloy (of Air America radio) who provided both snark and seriousness, there was a very credible panel… including experts on federal law, Assemblyman Koretz, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters
One funny thing that Rep. Waters mentioned is that when she’d talk to her colleagues about impeachment, she’d get the same batch of excuses “He’s the Commander in Chief. We’re At War.” (Yeah, and how did that happen?) So she thought outside of the box… and realized, well, you can’t say those things about Dick Cheney, so maybe we should impeach him! But when Sen. Feingold introduced his censure resolution, she thought that she’d back off and see how that played out. And then said that maybe it’s time to revive her idea.
Or maybe, just maybe, Vermont and/or Illinois and/or California will step up to the plate. We need to let these state legislators know we’ve got their backs.
The consensus, which is one that I’ve come to agree with, is that the crimes of this administration are so egregious that it’s vitally important to discuss impeachment… to press forward the case for impeachment proceedings… even if they go nowhere. In doing so, we define our values and make our case in the court of public opinion.
It was invigorating to be in a roomful of over about 1000 people (by my estimation) who share my values regarding checks and balances and the rule of law, who clearly see the danger to the republic posed by this administration, and who want to stand up against it without reservation or apology.
The Democratic party can use a lot more of this from our “leadership”, but in the meantime, there’s us. And there are a lot of smart, savvy people on our side in this fight. Competent & articulate people. This gives us an unfair advantage over the President. And we’d like to force the Republican Congress to have to defend “Mr. 32% In The Polls”.
Joe Lieberman would be so disappointed with us.
So, in summation: it was great. I don’t even mind that I missed the Jewish Women’s Caucus Ice Cream Social.
Day 3: Sunday
This was the day to ratify the endorsements made for state offices, as well as the endorsments local regions made for Assembly, Senate and Congressional candidates. There were a couple of disputes about a couple of candidates… particularly a very visible battle waged by anti-war candidate Marcy Winograd who wanted to reverse the local endorsement of her DINO opponent, Jane Harman, by bringing it to the floor of the state convention. The attempt failed, and I was conflicted about this procedural end-run around the local organization… although I personally voted to overturn the endorsement myself. I guess I don’t like Jane Harman’s politics. At all.
Max Cleland spoke… and got more standing ovations than I could keep track of. The man’s a hero… did I mention that?
Finally, the platform was approved unanimously. I think it’s a progressive statement, and shows spine. I might wish that the progressive bid to have “universal healthcare” replaced by “single-payer healthcare” had succeeded… but there’s much for progressives to like. A lot.
What does a platform mean? In the end, candidates clearly count. Legislation clearly counts… but who pays attention to a platform? In my opinion, it represents a consensus of opinion. An expression of ideals and values. A statement of intent.
Here’s the introductory paragraphs. I’ll update the diary with a link when the entire platform comes online.
California Democrats believe it is time to return to our country’s founding principles. At our core, Democrats believe in people: poor and wealthy, old and young, woman and man, immigrant and American-born. We believe that this is America’s strength: different people uniting, working together for the good of each and for the good of all. We believe that government’s role is to protect the people and ensure justice, freedom and equal opportunity. We believe that by standing firm on these values, California and America can reclaim our vision as a land of optimism and unity.
Our nation was built on the belief that bard-working Americans will be rewarded with economic prosperity. The people of California deserve a government that supports their hard work and shares their hopes for the future. California Democrats are committed to programs that will reinvigorate the economy and reinvest in our communities to provide for the common good.
Our Platform represents the Democratic vision for our State, embracing and implementing the dreams of Californians. We stand behind these principles, and we expect our elected representatives to stand by them as well. California Democrats firmly defend our American beliefs, values, and traditions and preserve our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Among our long-cherished and most important commitments are:
- Government that invests in peace, real security and the rule of law, nationally and internationally, and that respects the human rights of all peoples;
- The fundamental right of quality public education;
- Universal comprehensive health care for all Californians;
- Smart, sustainable, safe, environmentally sound and caring communities;
- Senior services and protections;
- Social Security and Medicare for future generations;
- Public support for the arts;
- Protection — now more than ever — of a woman’s right to choose how to use her mind, her body and her time;
- Access and equality in employment, educational and economic opportunities;
- Fiscal common sense and responsibility on the part of our elected leaders.
There were many times over the weekend that I felt proud to be participating in this process, and it’s helping fortify me for the fight ahead. We have many battles to plan, strategies to consider and tactics to employ. This weekend was a war council and a celebration of democracy.
I wish you all could have been there… but in some sense, I believe you were.
