DNC Winter Meeting Report
Andrew Simon
Last weekend I had the pleasure of attending the 2007 DNC Winter Meeting in Washington, DC. The Winter Meetings held prior to the Presidential election year act as a testing ground for candidates' message and viability. In 2003, Dean's "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" speech electrified the crowd and helped propel his campaign to months of surprising levels of support and unprecedented fundraising achievements. During last weekend's meeting, no candidate exited with the same momentum Dean had four years ago but, for the most part, candidates revealed the tone and nature of their campaigns for the next few months. They were allowed seven minutes to address the DNC members, guests and press. Here are some brief notes I took while listening to each speech. Full Disclosure: Although I am not committed to any campaign, I have some biases.
Biden: Starts speech with an awkward apology for Obama gaffe. Delivery and substance are so-so.
Clark: I can't help but focus on his few and far between supporters' tacky camo t-shirts. Uninspired and uninspiring text and tone of speech make it seem like he isn't running for President.
Clinton: Sounds like a leader. Still trying to establish a clear Iraq message.
Dodd: I'm not entirely sure why he is running and it doesn't sound like he knows either. Got bored of the Senate?
Edwards: Language and themes make this seem like a speech from a guy running for President in the 80s. Domestic message is outdated. Should be more worldly, forward-thinking.
Gravel: What exactly has he been doing during the 26 years since he left the Senate? A national initiative system? No thanks. Name is pronounced GRAH-VELL. Way over seven minutes.
Kucinich: Is he really doing this again? If he runs in 2012 he's going to take on a LaRouchian presence. Mentions wife an uncomfortable number of times. Also includes long, misplaced discussion of Israel/Lebanon.
Obama: No fluff. Very serious, cerebral. Perhaps gravitas. Trying to counter expectations as the young, inexperienced guy?
Richardson: A bit informal and chummy. Popular with the crowd. Sounds... electable?
Vilsack: The politician's politician. More crowd support than anticipated but that could be due to the Vilsack for President popcorn machine downstairs.
Finally, I think it is important to recognize a point that Kari made a little while ago that Lieberman and Gephardt were at the top of the national polls during this point during the 2004 campaign cycle. National polls mean next to nothing, everything changes and this will be a very different field a year from now.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:13 p.m.
Feb 7, '07
Hey Andrew... This is great. Keep on blogging!
Feb 7, '07
Edwards: Language and themes make this seem like a speech from a guy running for President in the 80s. Domestic message is outdated. Should be more worldly, forward-thinking.
Don't know what was said, but I feel like some backward thinking is order. Besides Kucinich, Edwards is the only pushing for what was the Democratic Party agenda. You might provide a little more detail on why you think Edwards ideas are so outdated and what's wrong with the classic appoaches ... or why you think Obama's are so cerebral.
3:49 a.m.
Feb 8, '07
(Clinton) Sounds like a leader. Still trying to establish a clear Iraq message.
An inability to establish a clear Iraq message does not sound like leadership to me.
Like "Anon" above, I'd like to hear what was so "80s" about Edwards message.
4:00 a.m.
Feb 8, '07
Of course, the smartest presidential candidate of the 1980s - and whose foresight has been repeatedly borne out - was Senator Gary Hart.
Maybe a little 80s is a good thing.
4:11 a.m.
Feb 8, '07
Maybe a little 80s is a good thing.
Gary Hart, yes. The music...no!
5:47 a.m.
Feb 8, '07
Anon: Edwards' protectionist economist message has always felt to me like something that should be coming from a 1988 Gephardt. I don't think that anything is particularly "wrong" with this but it seems like a cheap populist-style way of appealing to the masses without consideration of reality. Bill Clinton, for example, often finds an equitable rhetorical balance between America's role in the new global, technology-based economy and ensuring the folks in the heartland have a job. Also I did not claim that Obama's idea were cerebral, rather that he came off as cerebral.
Frank: "Sounds like a leader." and "Still trying to establish a clear Iraq message." are not exclusive. She employed leadership-oriented language - a different style from someone like Dodd and Kucinich who fumbled around with issues and anecdotes. I disagree when you say "An inability to establish a clear Iraq message does not sound like leadership to me." because clearly President Bush can't establish a clear Iraq message but remains tosound like a leader (although I'm never quite sure where he is leading to). I would agree with you if you would have said "An inability to establish a clear Iraq message isn't leadership."
All: Nitpick my comments all you want but remember that they are observations, not conclusions.
5:49 a.m.
Feb 8, '07
*to sound
Feb 8, '07
Clark: I can't help but focus on his few and far between supporters' tacky camo t-shirts. Uninspired and uninspiring text and tone of speech make it seem like he isn't running for President.
He is not running, yet. If you want to hear him in campaign mode, listen to his address to the Texas Democratic convention 2006.
His speech at the Winter meeting was meant to tell the Democratic leadership to get off their collective duffs and end the fucking war.
Yes we can. By not giving those who voted for the President to use force a pass. JE and HRC have blood on their hands and are not worthy of consideration IMHO. Those who are still in office have a duty to uphold their oath of office and remove the President and VP for violations of the US Constitution.
Wes Clark is working the policy behind the scenes. The Congress consults with him all the time (Maxine Waters mentioned him on Hardball last night.) He is the go to guy for Congress, Feingold and Kennedy both mentioned his testimony before the HASC and SASC when they voted against the war. He is one of the most respected Democrats out there and one of the most progressive. But he puts country before party unlike many of the announced candidates.
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually standup when no one else is standing." Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
When will the other "actually stand up?"
Pelosi/Clark 2007
8:31 a.m.
Feb 8, '07
You may get in trouble with various folks for slagging their candidates (Kucitizens are touchy), but I appreciate the candor. In a campaign season, that's the first thing to go. I know these represent your very subjective opinion, but I found your opinion enlightening. (And, as a guy irresistably drawn to Kucinich's populism, I assumed you were just drunk by the time he spoke.)
11:06 a.m.
Feb 8, '07
Kari: Of course, the smartest presidential candidate of the 1980s - and whose foresight has been repeatedly borne out - was Senator Gary Hart.
Yes Kari!
Sometimes i wonder if our hearts ever left San Fransisco that year. Regardless of some of his personal life choices, he is a pretty smart guy. I remember attending a lecture at Lewis and Clark when he was discussing entering the 04 race. He still had the heart for a campaign.
Feb 8, '07
Adam - what a nice report, thank you. So what were our DNC delegates and reps up too. Did they accomplish anything specifically? It would be nice to hear what they are doing to save our timber funding if anything. Did you see any evidence of their work on this critical issue for rural and southern oregon and the citizens who live there.
Becky
Feb 8, '07
Edwards may have a slightly populist message, but he's hardly protectionist. He's only said he wants real labor and environmental standards for trade, which could actually be enforceable. And by the way, while Carter and Dukakis lost almost every state in '80 and '88, they still won West Virginia, which we have failed to do since 1996. Both were traditional Democrats, like Edwards, whereas Gore is pretty liberal, and Kerry was hopeless for carrying on any kind of populist message.
Feb 8, '07
I actually thought Joe Biden's speech to DNC meeting was quite good. Sure, he sticks his foot in mouth occasionally or turns a phrase around backwards (who wouldn't who has to speak as much as he does?), but he has more foreign policy experience than about all the others combined, and that might be crucial in next election. He also has a good bio and I would urge folks to check the C-SPAN interview that is on his website.
Edwards did not impress me last time and he is not going to make it as a "populist" with his new 5000 square foot mansion on its 108 view acres. Wesley Clark had some good things to say in '04 but I haven't heard much about him lately. Hillary is probably electable (with the Iraq thing hanging over her head at the moment, however) but if she gets the nod the general campaign is going to be extremely vicious.
I don't care what others say, I think Obama is a lightweight--needs 8 more years in Senate or else maybe as a governor?
What I don't get is reluctance of current Congress to address the Iraqi situation in a meaningful way. What the bleep was the last election about if not Iraq??
I have one more thought about the Demo primary, and that is that all of the labor activist/progressive/liberal/stop-the-war groups should unite behind ONE candidate, maybe even the unelectable Mr. Kucinich, and stay together all through the primaries. That way we would make up a large bloc of votes that the eventual nominee would not be able to ignore.
Feb 8, '07
What I don't get is reluctance of current Congress to address the Iraqi situation in a meaningful way. What the bleep was the last election about if not Iraq??
From your lips
Wesley Clark had some good things to say in '04 but I haven't heard much about him lately.
During the 2006 election he criss crossed the county getting dems elected. He was the most requested surrogate for the House races. He also is on the Board of advisors for VoteVets PAC which makes some great ads, such as; Stop Escalation and Because of Iraq
He was also one of the first to endorse Ned Lamont.
10:02 a.m.
Feb 9, '07
I was also at the winter meeting, as were DPO Vicechair Meredith Wood Smith, Wayne Kinney, and the newest member of our DNC delegation, Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. Other Oregon delegates, Gail Rasmussen, DPO chair Jim Edmunson, and Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown were not able to make it to this one.
Becky asks what we were doing about timber payments. I wish there was something we could do, but the DNC's charter is to elect Democrats, not do legislation. There is no real mechanism within the DNC to influence policy other than to pass resolutions which, as you know, don't often have much of an effect.
Meredith Wood Smith and I did co-sponosor a strongly-worded resolution against escalation of the war. At the meeting of the DNC Resolutions Committee, the provisions of that resolution were subsumed into a longer resolution, and the resolution was passed by the DNC. I would have preferred the shorter, more direct approach. Actually, I would have preferred a straight-ahead "get out now" resolution.
All of the resolutions are online here.
This meeting seemed to be mostly a beauty pageant and media event. I did get a chance to talk with many campaign staffers, and brought all the campaigns a flyer inviting the candidates to our 2007 Oregon Summit.
Some personal observations:
DNC members, many of whom seem to have been there forever, can be pretty jaded and sometimes rude. It was interesting to watch how they reacted to each of the candidates.
Obama, who choose not to have music, signs, and stickers, got their attention. You could have heard a pin drop while he was speaking. "This is not a game," he said. He was deadly serious, and I thought it added an important note to the chorus as well as differentiating him. I was impressed. He was also the only candidate to hold a reception, which he did Thursday night.
Edwards gave a great speech. It may have seemed "80s" to Andrew, but the delegates really liked it and responded to the carefully crafted applause lines. He quoted MLK, "silence is betrayal," and then exhorted the crowd to "stand up" for America. For those of you studying speech writing, it was masterful, and I'm told he wrote it himself. It's online here.
Clinton broke all the rules about the number of signs, had the biggest staff in evidence, and sponsored the only open bar at the post-speech meet-and-greets. She got a lot of applause and sign-waving from the New York delegation. The people sitting around me didn't seem all that excited. For me, the thing that comes across as a positive is that she is tough and willing to fight back hard. I just wish I liked what she has to say.
Richardson was also received favorably. When he talked about the North Koreans calling him to ask for advice in dealing with "people who think Axis of Evil is a negotiating position," it really made me long for the days when we had people in the administration who had a realistic world view and a propensity toward diplomacy. Richardson is easy with a crowd. His meet-and-greet room overflowed, and they had to open a second one because of fire codes.
The other candidates did not seem to attract as much attention either during their speeches or afterward.
Clark seemed really low key. Dodd was OK, but not that exciting. Biden held people's attention and seemed to have quite a few people at his meet-and greet. People did not seem to take Gravel seriously. Vilsack seemed fairly uninspiring.
For the Kucinich fans: Dennis was really off his game. I have seem him give great speeches, but he seemed to just wander on stage (to America the Beautiful) and talk in a monotone. DNC members (remember, I said they can be rude) took the opportunity to go get coffee or hit the restroom. He evidently did find love on the campaign trail and has recently married. I don't think he got more than five inches from his bride except while giving his speech. She must feel good, though--he mentioned her seven times.
That's just my view. Tracy Russo, DNC's official blogger, told me that she'd handed out 45 blogger passes to the meeting. There was lots of coverage out there, and while reading it, I was often struck by how differently people can see the same event.
I can't pick a favorite from 15-minute speeches and want to see what these folks do in the coming months before making up my mind to back a candidate.
11:14 a.m.
Feb 9, '07
One more comment I forgot to include - Oregon has a great DNC delegation :-)
Feb 11, '07
Richardson: A bit informal and chummy. Popular with the crowd. Sounds... electable?
After listening to Gov. Bill Richardson speak I was amazed. He seemed to hit the nail on the head on all issues for me. I was smiling the entire speech because I thought the same thing you thought, he is electable and more so than anybody else. Informal, yeah a little bit but I think the electorate wants a man(or woman) of the people and he fits that image perfectly. Richardson was probably the most popular with the crowd too. As a College Democrat state leader I was able to go to the candidat meet and great both days. Hillary had a full room that was large, but Richardson filled two rooms.
Feb 17, '07
While national polls may mean nothing, money certainly does. Polls aside, it's still Sen. Clinton's race to lose.
But this was interesting insight.
P.S. Andrew, I recognize your name from somewhere. Did you do high school journalism?