I just watched the stream from both Hillary in Tacoma and Barack at the Key Arena. Hillary spoke on issues, and took questions because of the smaller crowd. Barack spoke on hope and inspiration, and did not take questions because there were 18,000+ people in the Arena, with another 3K outside. Just based on those two speeches, I have no idea what I'm going to do tomorrow. Just following the issues, Hillary spoke to just about all of them. Her health care plan is better. Not the best, that's Dennis. But I got the sense from both of them that they would BOTH sign HR676 if we can push it through Congress. His ability to build a movement is better. The only thing the right wing has against him are lies and false advertising that he could turn on a dime.
The electoral math is amazing. Hillary got most of the states that will go blue anyway. Barack got states, with blowout turnout, that we haven't seen blue in years or decades.
So here's what it comes down to for me. All politics is local, and all activism is personal. I'm going to sign in for my candidate, John Edwards. Then I'm going to lead my precinct through a discussion, and give people a chance to talk and inspire others. I'm going to base my decision tomorrow morning on the people in my neighborhood who show up. Because that's what this is all about, showing up.
Make it a great day!
--
Chad Lupkes
http://chadlupkes.blogspot.com
4 comments:
I read your letter to the editor in today's TIMES and I have to wholly disagree with you. Too bad in that I also supported Edwards. But you are wrong to think the caucus process is at all good in its present form for democrats. I've talked to many who were very excited after going, and excitement is good. But look at the numbers. About 20% of the dems got there, by the most generous estimate. That means 80% are disenfranchised. No amount of telling people they don't care or that it ought to matter more can make a process work where people would have to leave work, skip chemotherapy treatments, leave home while ill/aged/infirm, and the list goes on. The ballot actually enfranchises every circumstance. That is why we have it. watching party insiders make the democratic party exclusive is not my idea of what ought to be happening in the most vulnerable year for republicans and thus the most likely year for democrats to regain the White House. Frankly, I am wondering how so many party leaders could be so blind.
Bill, what did you support about Edwards?
I don't think the caucus process is perfect. They used to be held in people's homes, and in many states they still are. But I don't know anyone's home that would have been capable of handling the 59 people that we had attend from my precinct, or the 168 people that attended the best attended precinct caucus from the 46th. You're right, about 20% of voters turned out for the event in the 46th. And the normal turnout for a primary election in King County is around 40%, still leaving 60% disenfranchised.
People have not been involved because they didn't consider it important enough to get involved. Now, suddenly, we have a lot of people who want to get involved and just want the process to work perfectly and just the way that they think it should. I'm not telling people that they don't care, I'm stating the fact that waiting until 6 months after the vote at the state party meeting last September when we decided to use the caucus instead of the primary to allocate our delegates is too late. Waiting 6 months after the rules committee at the WSDCC decided that Military service, disability or religious observance are the only reasons why anyone should be given a vote if they can't attend is too late. The primary ballot only enfranchises people who bother to open it when they get it in the mail, or bother to show up on a Tuesday after working. I don't think the Primary gives the power to people any more or less than a Caucus does, because it's still dependent on who shows up. We have a presidential primary in this state because of an initiative of the people:
INITIATIVE TO THE LEGISLATURE NO. 99
(Shall a state presidential preference primary election determine each presidential candidate's percentage of delegates to major party national conventions?) Filed on April 24, 1988 by Ross E. Davis of Seattle and Joe E. Murphy of Seattle. 202,872 signatures were submitted and were found sufficient. The measure was certified to the Legislature on February 6, 1989 and it was passed by the Legislature on March 31, 1989. The act is now identified as Chapter 4, Laws of 1989.
The Democratic Party has never used the caucuses to choose delegates from this state.
There are no party insiders. I hate that illusion, and I've done my best to destroy it over the last 4 years. The door is open. Party leaders have been begging people to get involved for decades. Maybe how we'll start listening.
So who did you end up supporting at the caucus? I can't imagine that you're not a delegate for someone.
I liked Edwards until he dropped out. Then I started supporting Obama.
Obama. With 2/3rds of the delegates from the Precinct level, it means that 27,000 people need help staying together as a block that will move through the rest of the caucus cycle. I still torn on which of the candidates is better, but I'm not torn about which grassroots group needs the most help. I got involved to support the grassroots. And that's what I'm doing.
Post a Comment