Don't look now, but...
...there's a revolution happening in the Democratic Party. The grassroots and the rank and file - the little people, in short - are in full revolt against The Way Things Are, as Hillary Clinton's campaign can attest. Last night, in the Fourth District of Maryland, a genuine people-powered, grassroots candidate, Donna Edwards, shellacked eight-term incumbent Congressman Al Wynn. In what was billed as the Potomac Primary, Barack Obama wiped out - such was the scale of the revolt - the establishment's anointed choice for the nomination, Hillary Clinton, to the point where her continued viability in the race is coming under question on the front page of the New York Times.
This rebellion is being driven by several factors, one of which is the astonishing campaign of Barack Obama. Another is simple sick-and-tiredness of Things As They Are; it's a national moment of Network, a collective "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". An apathetic electorate is becoming aware of itself, and discovering that it has power.
Nowhere beyond the Washington Beltway is such a Great Awakening more desperately needed than in the toothache of a disgrace that is the government of the State of New York. This is an opportunity.
Chris Bowers at Open Left writes of the Maryland victory for Donna Edwards:
With every precinct coming in with at least a 10% improvement for Edwards over 2006, let me reiterate this point: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in the first progressive displacement of a centrist, corporate, congressional Democrat via a primary in years. This it it. This is what we have been working for and building for. This is our emerging majority.
Primaries are a healthy thing, and we could use more of them. Here are some to watch:
Silver versus Newell: At the root of New York's dysfunction is the system of three men in a room. One of those men is Sheldon Silver. He has a primary challenger, Paul Newell.
Towns versus Powell: Congressman Ed Towns is long past his glory days - about a decade, perhaps two. He's being challenged by hip-hop impresario Kevin Powell, who's not an entirely appealing choice, but new brooms sweep better, as they say. Alternatively, his son Darrel is an heir in the wings, and he's smart and ready.
Connor versus Squadron: It's a sign of changing times that someone as god-damn smart as Daniel Squadron is even interested in running for state office. Watch this race.
Harrison versus Recchia: In the primary for the 13th Congressional District, machine hack Dominic Recchia, a creature of the Lopez machine, is running against Steve Harrison, another people-powered candidate who actually ran against incumbent embarrassment Vito Fossella before it became a chic race. A victory for Recchia is a victory for the Brooklyn machine, the same machine that endorsed noted bigot Noach Dear. A win for Harrison is a win for people-powered politics.
Rumor has it that there are primary challenges in the works for Clarke, Dilan, and others. More and better Democrats, please.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2008 Elections | Democratic Party
Why all the challenges?
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 13 February 2008 - 8:59pm.
A couple of years ago, I believe in response to a question about certain conservative Democrats running for Congress, Howard Dean said that step one was getting a Democratic majority. We've done that in Congress, in the state Assembly, and in the City Council, and we're that close to getting a majority in the state Senate.
Step two is getting a progressive Democratic majority. That's a bit harder, but it's why Donna Edwards ran against Al Wynn. The fact of this neo-progressive movement (am I the first to use that term?) is why Edwards won.
The defeat of Wayne Gilchrest, Maryland's moderate Republican from the 1st CD, can be chalked up to the right-wing view that the reason they lost Congress in 2006 was their lack of adherence to "true right-wing principles." (Remember, right-wingers don't live in a "reality-based world.") As a fightin' progressive, the continuing Republican shift to the right is fine with me; it will make it easier for progressive Democrats to get nominated -- and elected.
Most of the local primary races are between "machine" candidates and "insurgent" candidates. That's certainly true of Silver/Newell, Sabini/Monserrate, Conner/Squadron and Recchia/Harrison (and also of Addabbo/Baldeo). Does that mean that the "machine" candidate is necessarily bad and the "insurgent" good? Not always. John Sabini, for instance, is a terrific, progressive, albeit "machine" Senator. Monserrate isn't challenging Sabini because of Sabini's positions on issues or his work in the community; the challenge is because that district was "intended" to be represented by a Latino, and Sabini ain't Latino.
That being said, we're still early in the race, and many candidates haven't made their positions clear -- why they're running, what the insurgents want to change and how, etc. Ideally, this should be the basis for deciding whom to support and vote for, but we live in a less-than-ideal world. Fortunately, there are some people who will be forcing candidates to make at least some of their positions clear, and I'm sure we'll be reading about that in the coming months.
machine vs. insurgent
Submitted by mole333 on 13 February 2008 - 9:29pm.
Not all machine candidates are bad. Nor all insurgents good. And some candidates satisfy all sides: machine, "reform" and progressive. Eric Adams got support from all quarters, leading to his 75% win.
One could argue that collectively machine politics, at least in Brooklyn, is a bad thing and this always worth opposing. The fact that the survival of the machine leads to Noach Dears as judges alone is a reason to oppose them in general. That said, a good candidate is a good candidate and I have endorsed machine candidates when they were clearly worth endorsing.
I have not yet gotten involved with any of the above races except the Harrison/Recchia race. Marty Connor has been in office too long...he's become fossilized. Pity, but that's the way it is. I think Ken is running as well, making it a three way race. I have met Newell and liked him and Shelly Silver is part of the Albany constipation that Pataki, Silver and Bruno perfected. So some new blood in Albany would be really nice. Don't know the others yet.
Some thoughts
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 14 February 2008 - 11:25am.
In Bob Woodward's "The Agenda", Bill clinton is quoted saying "we've become Eisenhower Republicans". So, I guess, it not news for a purported Democrat to have Ike as his role model.
But, in Kevin Powell's case, it's IKE TURNER who's being channelled. Charlie Barron may talking about slapping people, but Powell does it for real.
Monseratte/Sabini.It is clear to everyone who's been following this that Montserate has been encouraged to run by Joe Bruno, and will likely vote with the Republicans to organize if his vote would make the difference.
Squadron talks change, but has been going around to all the Democratic powers that be assuring them that he's not out to cause them any trouble. He personally called on Shelly's chief of staff. And the book he co-authored with Schumer advises Dems to take gay marriage off the table. Check it out, it is a manifesto for triangulation. This may be a great national strategy (or not), but is it what we want for this seat?
I agree that there are some positive signs out there, but
1) The primary fight between Wynn and Edwards was a clear right-left fight which drew focused attention from major progressive groups. 1199, Council for a Livable World and Moveon.org all put resources into that primary.
2) At the same time as Wynn, a pro-war Democrat was defeated, an anti-war Republican from the Eastern Shore was defeated by a Bush-clone, so the overall drift may just be to more polarization.
3) So far as I can tell, none of the NYS primary races which you mention have any clear-cut issues dividing the candidates. Are there differences on policy between Silver and Newall (by the way, is Ken Diamondstone out of this?)? between Monserrate & Sabini? between Squadron & Conner? between Towns & Powell? There seem to be differences between Harrison & Recchia which cast Harrison as a more progressive candidate. But the differences are not clearly in focus yet, at least for me.
If you know better, tell me, please.
While I hope that 2008 will provide greater chances for progressive candidates, I think we will have to pick and choose the races into which we put effort very carefully.
(By the way, is your remark about how smart Squadron is, a sort of backwards insult to all the others running?)