Liberal and Loving It

My Coffee with Hal

In CD-5 (and CD-6) we have a thankless job for a volunteer. Run as the Democratic candidate in an almost impossible district. Oh, and we want someone who is professional, polished, competent, thoughtful, and has 6 months to devote full time to this quest. In return you will get dragged through the mud and called every dirty name in the book. What a deal.

To me it's surprising that we get anyone to do this. It's simply amazing that we get someone who is, by every measure, a really good candidate that we can be proud of to have represent the Democratic party. Hal Bidlack is a really good candidate. And candidates like Hal are one of the key means by which we implement the 50 state strategy.

Normally when I do these meetings my main question is "what are you going to do in office." But in this case I started off with a more basic question - "how on earth do you have a prayer of winning" (I said it a little nicer than that).

I got a realistic answer. It's a very tough fight. Jay Fawcett moved the Dem vote up from 20% to 40%, but that next 10% is a gigantic battle. Hal talked very honestly about the situation, but at the same time it was about how he could win. Not how he unquestionably will win, but how it is reachable. I think that balance speaks very well to both his staying grounded in reality but also with an eye on pulling off an upset.

He also discussed at length how it is important in a Democracy for their to be two choices on a ballot. How even if one party has zero chance of winning, it is incumbent on them to put forward a quality candidate. A lot of people talk about service to our country - Hal is practicing it. I guess after 20 years in the Air Force it's natural for him, but I find it impressive.

As he said, this is not just a choice on the ballot. This is having an impassioned advocate to present an alternative approach to solving our problems in the election. In the debates, in the media, in the ads. Regardless of the odds, the voters in CD-5 are going to hear about both approaches.

Hal's approach is very measured. At first I considered that a severe negative. There are tremendous advantages to a Barack Obama who can lift a crowd and carry them along with them. But as I thought about it, I'm not so sure. Hal has to reach people who have never voted for a Democrat in their life. The most effective way to reach them may be to almost be in stealth mode, to not stand out until after they have considered his words.

To sum up, can Hal win? I have no idea. But that's lots better than no way.

So what do we get with Hal in the House? First off, he's a realist. He understands that as a junior member of a 435 person body, his influence is minimal. But it is much greater as a Democrat than as a Republican as we Democrats will control both houses of Congress as well as the White House. And that's a significant help for Colorado Springs.

What lit him up was talking about fair trade. He saw the damage done to Colorado Spring's economy when Intel pulled out. And he saw that it is not "free trade" when China pays Intel to move the fab to the PRC. He supports global trade, he understands how high tariffs have historically done great damage to all economies. But he also sees that having no barriers as other countries practice predatory economic policy won't work either.

This to me is a very interesting emphasis. A number of House members do this country great service by investing a lot of their time and energy on a difficult issue and working with others to find ways to address the problem. This is one of those problems that does need a couple of members who make it their major emphasis. He will serve the country well in this capacity.

The other major topic that lit him up was early American History. We got on the topic of Alexander Hamilton - I did not realize that he has spent a lot of time studying Hamilton. If it wasn't for having to write this blog, I would have happily spent the rest of the time discussing this. He had a very interesting take on Hamilton's speeches vs his true intentions at the Annapolis convention that I think makes a lot of sense. I also agree with him that Hamilton was one of our essential founding fathers. (I think the Washington/Hamilton partnership was arguable the most astute political team in human history.)

I think there is great advantage in having politicians with a strong knowledge of our history. It helps put what we do today in perspective. And in many cases it gives us examples of what has worked and what has not worked.

He's an exceptional candidate and it's the candidates we have stepping up in races like this that show the true strength and depth of the Democratic party.

Hillary will not be the VP nominee

With this quote Hillary just ended any chance of being the Vice President on the ticket:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Regardless of what she intended (and I think it revealed a deep-seated subconscious hope she has), placing her on the ticket would mean this comment would be constantly replayed and it would make the possibility of Obama being assassinated a central issue in the campaign.

It was clear in March (to anyone good at math) that Hillary was not going to be president this time around. Now it's clear she is not going to be Vice President either.

My guess is a significant number of her super delegates are telling her she has a week to end the campaign or they will switch to Obama regardless.

How dumb is our City Council

from the Daily Camera article about the new digital meters installed by Xcel. From Susan Osborne we have this gem:

“Just a few minutes ago, I turned the dishwasher on and realized that it used 3 kilowatt hours. It helps you to remember to run it as least often as possible.”

Yes Susan, to reduce electrical usage, run electrical appliances as seldom as possible. Another helpful hint you may not be aware of - you can reduce gasoline usage by... driving less.

Scary. Susan is making decisions on some very complex questions with numerous trade-offs, yet she has trouble comprehending that electrical appliances use electricity.

My lunch with Joe (Whitcomb)

I had lunch today with Joe Whitcomb who is running for SD-23. He got lost finding the restaurant (his iPhone was showing the wrong location of the restaurant). However, he broke the second law of guy-ness (according to Dave Barry) and called me and asked for directions.

Joe is a trade-offs nerd. We talked about a number of items but no matter what it was, everything from prisons to education to campaigning - it was the same look at it. With one exception - about his lunch he just said it was good.

So what is a focus on the trade-offs. It is actually a very interesting view he brings to issues. It's not lets go through all the details and get lost in that. It's seeing the significant trade-offs inherent in different solutions to an issue. I've never heard this before but it strikes me as a superb approach in a legislator.

Take prisons, which was the first subject he dived into at length. He saw the stupidity of throwing beginner criminals into a prison where they could graduate to professional crook. He talked about how private prisons perversely have an incentive to not reform prisoners as they then get reduced business.

He then discussed how offering the private firms less up front but a bonus for prisoners who were not arrested again. A very imaginative way of changing the trade-offs in the system.

He also spent a lot of time discussing education, and a bit less on health-care. His discussion on education was almost entirely on the declining physical plant in the schools. With Joe in the legislature we will get better school buildings (which we do need) but I don't think we will see as much of his efforts in how we teach in those buildings.

But what was incredible in all of this discussion was a look at what made the most sense long-term. We have had 10 - 20 years of the Republicans looking no further than next week and essentially spending the principal that this state has invested in it's people and infrastructure. We're all happy to have Democrats who merely talk about stopping the downward spiral.

But Joe is looking at 5, 10, 20 years into the future. In this look at everything in terms of trade-offs, and with taking this long view, he sees how improved medical care for a child today means fewer state paid medical bills in 40 years. Joe will make the investments today that he will personally never get the benefit of. But boy do we need them.

He also has a good feel for where the free enterprise system works well, and where it does not. And more to the point, how the combination is needed. Both that there are places where private enterprise is not the answer (insuring full health-care coverage, etc) and places where government oversight is needed (Enron, etc).

Throughout his conversation was discussion of the need for transparency and oversight. He is driven on this subject. And he makes a very passionate argument for this. In fact, if anything he over-makes it, to the detriment of other issues.

So this is what you get with Joe - I don't think it's any one or two issues that drive Joe. Instead it is a desire to craft the best solutions understanding all the trade-offs and focusing on the best long-term benefit. This will make him an incredibly valuable addition to the legislature.

I also see him incredibly driven when it comes to determining what went wrong and why. Put him in charge of an investigation and we are going to know exactly what went down and why. And how to avoid it the next time.

He is applying that same drive to this election. I think he will be a better legislator than he is a candidate. But I think he is a good strong candidate (not awesome) and he has immense drive. And that is worth a lot.

He also respects Shawn Mitchell, both as a person and for his political consistency. That's to his detriment as a candidate, but speaks well of him as a person. He's a bit of a rough diamond that after 4 years in the Senate could be one of our upcoming stars.

College Opportunity Fund - a sham?

From the Rocky Mountain News

In 2004, Colorado took a bold, new approach to funding higher education. Rather than state money going directly to public colleges and universities, most would be put in vouchers that students could use for tuition.

The impetus behind this was two-fold. First it would reward the schools that attracted students. Let the power of the market determine where the funds go. Second, it avoided TABOR because of how it was structured.

But, along the way something happened.

Ok, there's the expected complaining by students that it's complicated and by school administrators who just want a check delivered for no effort.

But here's the giant problem:

The legislature tells each school what it likely will receive based on estimated enrollments. Then it is supposed to adjust the funding once actual enrollment numbers come in. But that didn't happen this year.

Nancy McCallin, president of the Colorado Community College System, which oversees 13 schools, said her colleges saw an increase of more than 800 students this year above projections. The system should have received an additional $2.2 million from the state but didn't.

University of Northern Colorado saw a drop of more than 580 students compared with its forecasts. But it still kept the $1.5 million for those empty seats.

Skaggs, the higher ed chief, noted that Colorado's public colleges are scrambling for dollars. He said the state didn't want to take money from schools that missed projections to pay those that exceeded expectations.

Did you get that? Getting more students did not mean more money. In fact, getting more students hurt you because the student got the discounted tuition but the school did not get the money.

This punished the most successful schools and rewarded the least successful. It financially rewards schools who reduce their attendance.

This is brain dead. To bring some free-market incentives you must take money from schools that missed projections. That's the definition of the free market.

In addition, since this turned out to be a direct funding of the schools and not a scholarship, doesn't it now fall under TABOR? If so, can we expect Doug Bruce or the Independence Institute to be suing the state shortly?

Reverse incentives are not going to "fix" our higher ed system.

The Question we Democrats need to answer

Ok, I just put up a list of questions for the Republicans to answer. Well fair's fair and so I have a question for us Dems.

In our case it's one single issue. But it's one we have been dancing around and trying our best to avoid. And in addition, two key questions. 

The Republican party has run on a magic combination - lower taxes and increased benefits. And hey, we're Americans - we love getting something for nothing. That winning combination is very powerful in elections.

And what have we Dems done in return? We have played defense. We have lectured on the importance of financial responsibility. We have fought for specific programs. We have promised tax cuts to different groups, to our base.

We have ceded the battleground to the Republicans. We have ceded the initiative to the Republicans. We have ceded the terms to the Republicans. And then we are surprised when fighting their battle on their terms where all we do is play defense - we lose.

What a surprise.

The best approach to this issue I heard from Mike Huckabee when he was still running. He said that people want roads & bridges, schools & hospitals, police & fire departments. And those services require taxes.

To be successful, to not just win in '08 but to then implement the policies and programs and initiatives that we know will help this country, we need to change the discussion.

We Democrats need to step up and strongly discuss what the appropiate level of government is, why that level is appropiate, and then critically, speak directly to how to fund that level.

We need to sell the public on how it is in their self interest for us to tax them at a given level and what they get for it. We need to change the discussion from how do we keep lowering taxes to what is the appropiate level of taxation.

Until we do this, we remain on defense fighting the battle the Republicans want to fight. And they will win that more often than they lose it.

And two key questions:

1. Will we take on the entrenched bureaucracies in the public school system to fix our schools? Our public schools are the key point where we fail our people, especially our poor. And they are by and large a Democratic party failing where we defend the vested interests, the teacher unions, the administrators, the school boards, the entire system. Will we do what is truly required to fix our schools?
2. TABOR is a dagger aimed at the heart of our state and local government. It constrains everything, and makes futile any long term planning. At the same time, the people of Colorado clearly support the idea of voter approval being required for tax increases. Will we step up and truly fix this, permanently and in a way that most in Colorado (including responsible fiscal conservatives) find acceptable?

This is what we Democrats need to do if we wish to earn the right to lead Colorado in the future. And if we waltz around these issues, yes we'll control things for a couple of years, but then it will be back to the Republicans for awhile.

Yes stepping up to address these issue will require great political risk. But what's the point of just being a caretaker for a couple of years - and that's the alternative.

What do Republicans stand for?

I am not trying to be snarky here, I honestly think these are the questions the Republican party needs to answer if it wishes to remain a credible national party.

So my question to you Republicans is, please either answer the below questions or explain why these questions are not key the the Republican survival. Without credible answers to these questions, you are not an alternative philosophy of governing, you are instead a philosophy of no government.

1. The Bush administration had the active assistance of the Republican majority in congress - this was the party as a whole who gave us the last 8 years. How can this not be called the results of the Republican party as it is sonctituted today?
2. Where is the committment to fiscal responsibility? A balanced budget and eliminating the most egrarious pork? No Republican is proposing a budget that eliminates the deficit ever. There has been no serious Republican effort to reign in spending.
3. Where is the committment to people's constitutional rights when we have people stuck in Guatanamo indefinitely, and illegal spying on people in the U.S.? Kudos to the few Republican congressmen who have tried to address this.
4. Where is the committment to responsibility when total incompetency is answered with promotions while only being true to the country rather than the administration is what leads to being fired? Since when did sycophancy become a primary conservative value?
5. Where is the understanding that war should be the answer only when all other avenues have been exhausted rather than the first avenue? This is the antitheses of tradational conservative thought.
6. Where is the willingness to state that there are roles for the government even from the conservative point of view? Where is the discussion of the appropiate level of government funding rather than a constant refrain of reduce, reduce, reduce? Avoiding this subject shows an unwillingness to speak to one of the hardest issues of responsible governance.
7. Where is the discussion of what the government should do for those less fortunate than us? What should the government do?
8. Where is the discussion of where the government needs to balance out the power of the corporations? 200 years ago a company had essentially no power compared to an Exxon or IBM today. With no government role in this, the corporations would rule supreme. So what is the proper role of the government in this case?

Live-blogging the state convention

Friday - 9:30pm - So we're driving into Colorado Springs on I-25 and there's a sign that says "El Paso County" and then 10' further one that says "Ronald Reagan Highway." Sort of sums it up - huh? Checked in to the hotel (some people take their wife to weekend getaways at lousy places like San Francisco - I go all out with a romantic weekend in Colorado Springs at the convention).

Checked in and was talking to the person at the front desk about the convention. I asked her if Democrats are allowed in Colorado Springs and her answer was, I quote "I think so." Also discovered this is not a terribly green convention - no shuttle buses to the convention. So everyone will be driving their own car.

Did get a chance to look up at Pike's Peak earlier. I don't care what Bob Schaffer says, I don't think it looks anything like Mt Denali.

More tomorrow live blogging all day at the convention.

Note: first part written offline while the DNC press person tried to get us wireless (I forgot my cellular modem).

9:30 – This is amazing. We’re talking rock concert levels of people, Hannah Montana levels of craziness in the crowds, and all kinds of candidate crap for sale from t-shirts to a life size cut out of Obama.
The Clinton team has not given up. I shared a cab over with 2 Clinton supporters and they are still in this to win. The signs outside are all for Hillary. And walking the outer ring hallway there are more Obama t-shirt booths but more people carrying Hillary signs on sticks.

The other large presence out there is for Udall. There are Udall supporters everywhere wearing blue Wal-Mart type vests with UDALL on the back of them. They’re handing out credential strings with a Udall flier attached. It looks like the Udall campaign is starting to move.

Jared Polis has a booth here but I did not see one for either Joan Fitz-Gerald or Will Shafroth. I did see some Fitz-Gerald signs taped up, but not a lot. It looks like they are taking a pass on the CD-2 campaign today. Curious since the people here are voters in the primary.

9:55 – The Hillary team has a major chant going on the floor. They are here to win. It is nice to see that the still have the enthusiasm.  Obama is so correct in handling the end of the primary gently.

10:06 – I just talked to Taylor West of the Udall campaign and they did not get their greeter jackets from Wal-Mart. They also made sure they were made in the U.S. and not in the Marianas Islands (sorry Bob).

10:09 – Mike Mayfield just lead the pledge of allegiance. He has a really good voice.

10:15 – Pat Waak is calling us to order – standard stuff.

10:18 – Bill Ritter is in the house! Listing off the people to applaud for, nice cheer for Romanoff. Another big cheer for Udall winning the Senate. Ritter is a forceful speaker, but he’s not inspirational. It’s a good speech and he makes his points well, but it’s not one that lifts the audience up.

Now we’re getting the laundry list of issues we need to address here. They’re all real problems and saying we must address each gets the correct cheer.  Maybe I just spend too much time following politics but this actually gets boring hearing it all again. The crowd liked it – he got a standing ovation at the end.

10:32 – I see a cowboy hat – it must be Ken Salazar. The crowd is on it’s feet welcoming him. Now Salazar is getting them charged up. Short, sweet, and to the point – about how we’re going to take back the country and undo the damage inflicted on us by 8 years of Republican mis-rule.

10:38 – Dianna DiGette is up. More of a professorial listing of what we need and why we are going to win. It’s interesting how each has a very distinct way of speaking. And then a zinger – “we are going to mop the floor with John McCain” – crowd loved it.

She’s now listing out what McCain stands for and is getting giant boos from the crowd as she lists each of McCain's points. It’s interesting, with our primary not officially decided (although anyone good at math realizes it is over), it’s an anti-McCain speech rather than a pro-Clinton/Obama speech. Good approach. Same for CD-2, that we need to send “a Democrat” to Washington.

Interesting, she just started a “Yes We Can” cheer about sending all our Dems to Washington. I don’t think that was a spur of the moment item. We’ll see Dianna switching to Obama soon.

10:47 – Hey, we have a Lt. Governor! Starting off with a girl-power speech. A couple of anti-McCain points. Back to when women vote Dems win and so women - go vote.

10:52 – Cary Kennedy is up. Not a great speaker. You know you’re not carrying the crowd when the speaker has to start the clapping herself. Nothing new from her.

10:57 – Apparently the cowboy hat store had a 2 for 1 sale. John Salazar is up and has a cowboy hat on too. Apparently that is required to win the rural districts. I can’t wait to see if Betsy Markey wears one when she speaks. John is giving a good talk. It’s all about all of us coming together, working together, to take back our government. Good job on this being about all of us.

11:04 – Ed Perlmutter appears to be a rockstar. Got about half the audience on it’s feet when he walked up on stage. He’s doing a really good job. About how the change started in ’06 (it definitely did for him) and we need to continue with it on ’08. Very inspirational speech. Not so much the content as the delivery – very good job.

Bill Ritter was just up in the press box asking if anyone had news about Ted Kennedy's condition. Speaks well of him that his prime concern is the well being of another over talking up the press.

11:28 - Udall is being nominated. Apparently he's climbed every 14er in Colorado (unlike Schaffer who doesn't even recognize the one he proposed to his wife on). Joe Rice is seconding him. Joe gives a good speech - I think we'll continue to see him climb.

11:39 - Udall is still being nominated, now by Salazar who keeps saying Udall is a "true Son of the West" - I'm guessing as opposed to someone from Ohio who doesn't recognize Pike's Peak. The interesting thing was Salazar said we needed another vote to get us out of Iraq. Neither Salazar or Udall have been pushing that recently but he was talking the talk at least just now.

Note to my daughters if you're reading - Hi Girls!

11:46 - Finally! Mark is coming up. They have the lights low and Mark is walking the length of the floor with a crowd around him and a spotlight on him. He's getting a standing ovation.

11:52 almost to the stage walking up. It looks like a Wal-mart rugby scrum with all the campaign staffers (wearing the blue greeter vests) around him moving him through the crowd.  He definitely has the crowd behind him. The contingent that's mad at him for not pushing to leave Iraq yesterday is nowhere to be seen (and this is the Democratic party - there's no control on who's where here).

11:56 - Really Finally! Ok, Mark is on stage, the others have left the stage, and he's starting to talk. Only 28 minutes to nominate him.

First 10 minutes is about how we have to get it right on energy, with an emphasis on how it hurts us to be sending money to the oil countries and where the money goes on to. Then going through the economic mess the present policies inflict on families.

He's getting an occasional heckler now. He started talking about Iraq and that started. It's an occasional lone voice among the background crowd noise and Udall is just continuing through it. At the applause points in his talk he is getting strong applause. You have the core of the base her and he has all except a very few behind him.

The speech is good. Hits all the right points, covers all the key issues with great applause points. Find moments of humor, and moments of serious commitment. But it's not great. It's not as good as Ritter or Salazar. Udall has to win this on what he will do rather than how he speaks. I think that is how all campaigns should be. But to win, I wish Udall could lift up the audience.

BREAKING NEWS - 12:17 - Udall was just won the primary by acclimation.

12:21 Jared Polis is in the house! Short & sweet speaking mostly of the economy. He did not get much of a response.

Joan is not here - she is out walking precincts today. That's interesting that she did not show - I'm not sure what it means.

12:26 - Terry McAulife is up to speak for Hillary. Lots of cheering for him. He starts off saying "Colorado is the greatest state in the United States." What a dick - we're supposed to believe that? Full disclosure - I think McAuliffe was a horrible DNC chairman so I don't like the guy.

So he's up there talking about how we are going to put "a Democrat" in the White House. Now he's listing out the vote totals for each (using the Florida & Michigan numbers too) and he turned a come together moment into a very divisive one. The entire audience is on it's feet, 1/3 cheering and 2/3s booing.

Now saying we need to continue the primary to not upset the voters in the remaining states (I agree with that). Getting a giant chant of "Yes We Can" in response to shut him up.

Ok, now he's brining them back together. "when this process ends, and I believe it will end in early June, then we have to come together." And he's talking more about how we have to come together in the general. If McAuliffe sees it as "over in early June" then he knows Obama has won.

Ok, now he's talking the positive points to Hillary. Getting a good response to that. Interesting, brought up Bill Clinton for an applause line, and got almost nothing. Bill seems to have worn out his welcome with the Dem party, at least here in Colorado.

Closed with we have 2 great candidates, but we need to elect Hillary because she has a uterus. Repeated again that the primary will be over in 2 weeks. And once again that Colorado is the greatest state in the country.

I don't know how this guy every got to be chair of the DNC. It definitely was not for his speech-writing or presentation skills. Thank god it's over. Wellington Webb was much much better.

1:15 - during the platform presentation I walked around outside and met someone interesting. Here's a picture of the two of us (I'm the one on the right). He had some very thoughtful ideas - I'm hoping he decides to run for office someday.

We now have the presentation of the candidates running for the state Senate. They all just got to wave from the stage as each was introduced. The only thing of interest was that Rollie Heath was there, but Cindy Carlisle was not.

Now Andrew Romanoff is introducing the house candidates.

At the end one of the other legislators spoke about Romanoff and that got a giant round of applause and some people standing. He clearly is liked & respected by the other legislators and is very well respected by the base. If Ritter's 2nd term ended in 2 years, Romanoff would be it. I hope he finds a way to stay this visible for the next 6 years. Maybe Secretary of State?

1:32 - Betsy Markey is now speaking. I think she is trying to channel JFK. The speech she is giving is superb. But it isn't grabbing the audience. They are paying attention but it's not sucking them in. I'm guessing that people are getting very tired and it is hard to be speaking at the very end of the assembly part.

Ok, she's starting to carry them along. Oh wow - she's good. This is my favorite speech of the day. She is taking it to Marilyn Musgrave ending with a direct attack on the disaster that is MM. For those of us worried that Betsy won't be getting in MM's face and won't get aggressive - she's starting to do it.

1:41 - Hank Eng up now. Taking on Mike Coffman is tough and Hank doesn't have a political base. He is giving a nice professional speech celebrating our immigrant heritage and our diverse demographics. I think he'll be a candidate that we can be proud of.

But he is not a captivating speaker. Granted he sees the same problem Betsy did - we all want to go home. But to beat Mike Coffman in that district, he's got to be superb, and with an existing political base.

That's too bad as he is clearly a thoughtful and eloquent person.

1:53 - Hal Bidlack up now. Another sacrificial lamb, but again he sounds thoughtful and reasonable. Both Hal and Hank give us a good alternative if the Republican candidate in either race is found to have any of the issues that dog so many Republicans, well then we have someone very good to then win that race.

2:05 - We're now hearing speeches from candidates for our rep to the Democratic National Committee. The thing is, how much do we really learn about each in a 3 minute speech? I won't vote as I have no idea who any of them are.

Debbie Marquiez (GreenChileDem) is one of the candidates - vote for her!

2:59 - I was just walking the outer hallway again. They are trying to seat the alternates. Of course, as we are the Democratic Party, it is a total cluster-fuck. So I guess we need all these DNC member speeches to use up time while they get everyone their credentials.

From the AP wire, two people were arrested for trespassing here.

3:08 - Just passed by acclimation, we are not going to let the delegate candidates speak - thank god! I'm a delegate and I don't want to sit here for 3 days as they all get 2 minutes.

How are they going to get ballots to all of us? There are 5,000 people here to vote and we have no ballots yet. They have tables up at the front of the floor of the arena. They will call people up by section and give them their ballot. This is going to take a bit of time.

When you get your ballot, remember to put a check mark next to the name "David Thielen." That is the most critical part of voting.

Someone was yelling from the audience when the guy on the stage was giving instructions. The guy on the stage told that person to shut up and we all cheered - major round of applause.

The guy explaining the voting must be a 3rd grade teacher, he is explaining this perfectly for this crowd.

3:20 - I think the way this works is that the Obama ballot will have the 2 delegates they want on the ballot, and only those 7. I'll write for sure on this once I see the ballot - this strikes me as very questionable if true. Update: read below - this is the PLEO candidates (junior super delegates).

3:24 - Lecture from the El Paso County chair - we need to all go home and work locally to take back not just the country, the state, the county, the towns. Well received and very good advice. I will ignore it as I live in Boulder and we already own the County and City offices - to a degree that is bad for us. But very good advice for all of you - get to work :)

3:36 - Walked through the outer hallway - JeffCo is still seating alternates. Every other county seems to have this all done. JeffCo did appear to have the longest lines most of the day. I guess one county has to be the most disorganized.

Note: All ballot problems listed from here down are only for Obama delegates. For Hillary there is no line and they have full ballots.

3:51 - Getting in a looooong line to vote

4:06 - Talking to a major official in one of the county Democratic parties (not next to Boulder). She was talking to Rollie Heath and afterwards I asked her what she thought Rollie's chances were against Cindy Carlisle. Her reply was that the party owed Rollie after he stepped up to be the sacrificial lamb against Bill Owens 4 years ago. That explains a lot of Rollie's support, but that won't be close enough to win - it's a vote, not a dedicated supporter.

4:52 - They just announced that they are out of ballots, but are bringing more down from upstairs and those will be handed out as they come down.

5:21 - No movement and they announced that they are having to get special 1 page ballots printed but they will be here "real soon now." I asked to see one of the full ballots by someone who had it - the 7 candidates only are the PLEO candidates, the 7 super delegates we elect. This is from a group that is restricted to elected officials and top Colo Dem party officials - not the regular delegates. The whole ballot was about 80 pages of people to vote for.

5:39 - They've got the 1 page ballots. The line moves a lot faster for these. They forgot to put a place to print and sign the ballot - but it does have a line to write in each vote.

5:51 - I'm out of there and my wife is picking me up. I would guess in another 25 minutes everyone will have voted.

I was told by 1 Obama person there that Hillary had 100 delegate slots still empty and Obama 182 still empty so all alternates were seated and there were still empty slots. I asked one of the Boulder County people staffing their desk and she said Hillary had 1 empty slot and Obama about 20 in Boulder County.

6:41 - last post in this diary. My wife wants to know - why don't we just take the initial precinct totals and use that for the delegate allocation and skip the County, CD, and state conventions? My reply was "beats the hell out of me" so anyone who knows why, please post a comment. (Not that's what the law requires, but why the law was written to have all these steps.)

As always, long, exhausting, inefficient, and wonderful.

Obama delegates & alternates - you MUST go to the Springs on Saturday

Here's the latest from the Obama campaign:

The Obama campaign reports that Broomfield County is short confirmed delegates to attend the State Convention this Saturday

...

Remember, if only one person in each of the 64 counties doesn't show up, Senator Obama loses a National Delegate.

If you are a delegate you made a promise to everyone else at the County Convention that you will attend the state convention. You took the place of other candidates who were ready to attend. You need to go down to fulfill your commitment.

And for those that are upset with something, anything, that occurred in the campaign, CD-2 convention, or something that another person working for Obama did or did not do recently - please drop it. This is much bigger than any petty little issue like that.

This primary may be almost over - but the key word is almost. A delegate gain for Hillary Clinton this Saturday would be newsworthy. Lets all go down there and make this an un-newsworthy event.

And for all you alternates, I believe at the CD-2 convention last weekend every alternate who was there was seated, and they were still short a few. So go on down and visit the Springs this Saturday.

Why can't we treat all delegates equally - Part 2

About 2 weeks ago the Boulder Obama Grassroots held a meeting for Obama delegates. First off, I want to stress that this group has no official relationship with the Obama campaign. But it is most of the Obama activists in Boulder.

The purpose of this meeting was to get Boulder to agree on a slate of 5 candidates that we would all vote for. The "cause" of this was that Adams County was doing this already and it was the only way to "wrest control" from Adams County. (Turns out this was not true - see below.)

The idea of telling people they should not run bothered me. I had my hand up the entire meeting to speak to this but was never recognized. DeAnne Butterfield tended to mostly recognize the same 7 people but many times it seems half the people had their hand up so it wasn't easy to moderate.

So I then wrote this post asking for feedback. The one comment did not help much as it didn't speak to my concerns.

I then went to the second "Grassroots" meeting and talked to several people about my concerns. This just reinforced my questions as everyone was happy to talk about why this was the only way to respond to Adams County, but no one had any reason why it mattered.

So then I wrote this post, with more information and in a more aggressive tone, asking for feedback. And there was a lot of feedback, all of which was yes, this "anointed slate" is B.S.

So I went to the convention today and passed out this flier. In it I listed my concerns and asked people to consider all candidates. Now here's where it gets even more interesting. From my live blog of the convention:

I talked to Danny T. Watson Jr. who is president of the Adams County Young Dems and a bunch of other political groups including the Obama teams in Adams county. I asked him about the Adams County list of suggested candidates and he said "there isn't one - that they had heard Boulder had one but they did not have one." In other words, the whole Boulder Obama Grassroots excuse for having a suggested list, according to Danny, is total B.S.

So the whole reason for coming up with a slate is likely a fabrication. (I say likely because there may have been a group Danny was unfamiliar with.) If so, we were not addressing an anti-democratic problem, we were creating it.

As I was passing out my flier I ran into 10+ people who were livid over the whole anointed slate issue. Across the board they felt dis-enfranchised before the vote was even taken. Disenfranchised enough that several asked for my fliers and passed them out themselves. These are people that supported Obama strongly enough that they were spending a Saturday at the convention and wanted to spend 4 days in Denver doing the same - and they felt betrayed. That is not how you build ongoing support.

Even worse, we were short 49 Obama delegates today. That could have cost us a national delegate for Obama. Almost certainly some who decided to not show were candidates who figured why bother as they had been discounted as possibilities. Here is the emergency email sent by the Obama campaign today:

If you are a delegate or Alternate that did not come today to the CD2 Convention, please come immediately!  We are 49 delegates short and are about to lose delegate seats to Senator Clinton

I almost did not hand out the flier today. In hindsight, I am very glad I did. All of my concerns turned out to be very real. And talking to many of the candidates today, I would be proud to have most (granted not all) of them represent me. And what County they are from - irrelevant.

I don't know what motivated the leadership of the Grassroots group to do this. But I don't think they served Obama or the Democratic Party well with this effort. Sending the "right" person to the convention and losing Colorado in the general election - not a good trade-off.