Should we be happy that there's now a 50-50 split in Oregon's SD vote before we've seen our ballots?

In the 1980's only 13% of the delegates were unelected. Today it's 20%, because the rules committee said so. How much bigger will it get? At what point in time does the super delegate count bloat beyond all reason? When the SDs can meet at the local country club to decide for us?

The rules committees of the 1980's and 1990's failed to anticipate how visible these unelected delegates would become because of today's technology. Now that it's obvious, people don't like it.

Most of the people defending the super delegates claim: "we elected them", "they are us", "these are smart people" with a blanket appeal to authority. These excuses don't justify the size nor influence of the super delegates. You could use the same flimsy argument to authority to justify the War in Iraq. It didn't work for that either.

If the super delegates are so wonderful, why have we lost most of the Presidential elections since 1984? Is it possible that their undue influence is undermining our party's ability to attract new voters or maybe they're wrong a lot of the time?

The super delegates should go or be cut back to 3-5% of the elected delegates in the future.

I will never again vote for any politician that cast their delagte support against the voters decision here in Oregon.

I understand it is the partys choice to nominate whoever they want however they want.

But because the two major parties are the only viable presidental parties at this time, if they cast their votes contrary to the election results, it would confirm to me that really don't care about what WE think, and I will loose what shred of hope I have in our process.

I personally offended and think it is an afront to Democracy that any of them have "committed"to any of the candidates before the election.

And this is why some of us have been concerned about what might seem like arcane knowledge--delegate selection and other rules pertaining to national conventions!

With people like Tad Devine talking about this publicly, and with the 1972-1980 elections (the ones which made people in charge think super delegates were needed)not within the lifetime of those younger than 28, it may well be time to review whether the current superdelegate structure is a good idea. That decision may well end up being made by the 2008 convention--delegates, Rules committee members, etc.

Which is why everyone with strong views needs to get involved with the local campaign of the candidate of their choice and if there is something they don't understand to contact those who do understand (like Wayne Kinney).

As I understand it, to be fair there was a reason for superdelegates which does not fit into this discussion: enabling major elected officials to attend the convention without having to run for delegate against activists who had been with the local campaign from the start. Sometimes those convention delegate campaigns can get heated, although that hasn't happened recently.

The call-in program on OPB Monday with Earl Blumenauer, and Meredith Wood Smith, (last week with Darlene Hooley) was a notably unedifying display, confirming every suspicion about the undemocratic attitudes that are ingrained in the party insiders, their sense of entitlement to their positions, and their unwelcoming attitude toward new activists having a voice in the party. They tried to defend the indefensible, an oligarchical system of "supers". This whole issue has given a big black eye to the Dem. party. What it tells real progressive activists is to stay away from the party. It's unresponsive and rigid and unable to change. In truth the real power today lies in progressive networks that form together to create activist power. The party structures are becoming increasingly irrelevant and unattractive especially to younger voters and activists.

I was called yesterday by the DNC asking for money. I told him I was giving to a candidate and to progressive networks outside of the party, that I wasn't giving a dime to the party for the time being, especially when the party that calls itself "Democratic" is so apparently undemocratic and insular. We live in an age fortunately that if we want to give to progressive candidates, if we want to participate in the political process, or support progressive advocacy networks we can bypass these archaic party structures and have impact.

Sue, you did a great public service.

2 things I would add: 1) anyone interested in being a delegate besides being involved in the local campaign of their chosen candidate should clarify the current rules about how one files to run for delegate both at the district and state level if that is their choice. I filed for both in 1984 and ended up being elected from the state convention after barely losing at the district convention.

2) about cost: When I was a delegate we had 3 in one room: 2 twin beds and a rollaway. I have heard that at other conventions there were other arrangements like several people in a suite. Denver being nearby, delegates might want to check out travel by Amtrak. There is scenery which can be seen from the train which can't be seen any other way. The smaller rooms only fit 2 people if one of them is willing to climb up and down a narrow set of steps to the upper bunk, but the price range may be competitive if booked early enough (forgot to look at the dates for Oregon delegate selection). Also important, the train station is in lower downtown Denver (walking distance from Tattered Cover--Denver's answer to Powells) while the airport is out in the country. And for some of us who have family in Denver and have both flown and taken Amtrak, whatever anyone says of train travel, there are not those air pockets which can happen depending on the air currents as one flies into Denver.

It is thrilling to have the convention so close for the first time in so many years. Best of luck to anyone who chooses to run for delegate!

Superdelegates, the DLC and other undemocratic practices are among the reasons many of us are non-affiliated voters.

Except, Bill, that I think superdelegates (apparently created after what happened at the 1980 convention) predates DLC by some years.

There have been those in the know who have been worried (or making sarcastic remarks about ) superdelegates for years.

Please don't lump an outside group (like DLC) in with a rules change like superdelegates.

And I'm here to tell you that the Democratic Party is really more "democratic" than you give it credit for. If it didn't bend to the wishes of those who have the time and energy to get involved in the internal rules and procedures, Jenny Greenleaf wouldn't be DNC member, Howard Dean wouldn't be DNC chair, and people like me would never have been involved in rules changes like the delegate selection rule process.

There are reasons I may register NAV after the primary, but delegate selection rules and the role of the DLC are not among them.

Obviously the source I used was dead wrong. Apologies and lesson learned. Double sheesh.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has, this weekend, chosen long time political operative Harold Ickes, to thow himself in front of the accelerating Obama train.

Despite having been part of the DNC process that set the rules disqualifying MI and FL delegates for their states' accelerating their primaries, Ickes now advocates seating those delegates in Denver.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080216/D8URLU1O0.html

And FOXNEWS webpage tonight has Ickes proclaiming victory for Hillary, assuming she will land the lion's share of superdelegates.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/16/top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant/

Superdelegates, let the primary process play out. Let's see if Oregon has the 1968 experience again. That was fun, and seemed for a couple of weeks to be historic. Take heed that, should the result of primaries and caucuses across the Nation be reversed, by seating disqualified delegations from MI and FL and superdelegates voting at odds with the will of the voters, there will be hell to pay from the grass roots.

Jenni, glad to hear you are running for delegate. Does your candidate have a local operation set up yet?

If so, I would contact that local campaign and get involved--that helps win the race for delegate. Especially if "presidential candidate right of approval" is still in the rules and your candidate's national campaign has opted to use it.

(That's been around longer than superdelegates, and has to do with whether the local campaign has any say in who runs for delegate assuming a threshold of people running for delegate has been reached--something like 3 applicants for every slot. Locally, we supported delegate candidates who had actually worked on the campaign. )

Good luck. And yes, it is important to stay in the delegation hotel. If you don't stay there, you have to get there in time for the badges, morning meeting, and then security probably says every delegation has to board the delegation bus from the delegation hotel.

We were so close to the Moscone Center in 1984 some of us thought it would be cool one day to walk there. Problem was, security was biased against any pedestrians, so even with our credentials around our necks, we had to walk several blocks out of the way.

And speaking of arriving at the convention center, even in 1984 there was an airport style security screening system. We were glad to arrive early (before prime time) because there wasn't a line.

I hope the food is good at this convention. It was excellent (who would expect less?) in San Francisco, a convention which had great organizers. One of whom is now Speaker of the House.

Except, Bill, that I think superdelegates (apparently created after what happened at the 1980 convention) predates DLC by some years.

But it is the cumulative effect of these and other factors that have turned people off. I suspect if Obama or Hillary has at least a decent lead over the other and the superdelegates give the nod to the one with the lower numbers there will be a significant exodus from the Democratic Party. If Obama has the lead in votes of the people and the SDs give the nomination to Hillary it will be a good bet that all but few of the young people he has inspired will be turned off but good and join their peers in Apathyville.

"If Obama has the lead in votes of the people and the SDs give the nomination to Hillary"

If that happens, all the effort of the past generation to avoid another convention like 1972 will have been for naught. If that happens, it will be the worst nightmare of some of those very superdelegates you mention who have worked so hard to have a united party which can bring people together and win elections. They are not a bloc, but 796 individuals. If the heat gets hot enough, perhaps this convention will re-examine the whole superdelegate system. (But if they went back to the old system, would a governor or senator or member of Congress be running for delegate against an ordinary activist like Jenni? Would that be a better system?)

What I have heard in the news in recent weeks convinces me that there are a lot of superdelegates who understand just the danger you mention. I believe the campaign people who are pressuring superdelegates are going to have to be careful or they will rue the day they started that kind of pressure.

Remember, for all the "train is leaving the station" rhetoric from Hillary supporters at the end of 2007, she is in the fight of her political life.

Anyone who feels as strongly as you do should let Wayne Kinney and the other superdelegates from Oregon know that. If they get a lot of heat, they will let others know about it.

And don't forget, in 1984 when Mondale's people tried to fire the DNC chair on the eve of the convention to replace him with one of their own, it was Oregon's DNC member who counted votes among the DNC members and let the Mondale people know they were just setting themselves up for failure because the votes weren't there, and DNC members choose the DNC chair.

Individuals are not powerless in this situation.

" feel strongly that these positions should be unpledged so that presidential candidates can all feel like they have a level playing ground with the state party. "

Jenni, what some people forget is the dynamics of delegate selection campaigns. I had to run at the state level because the woman from Linn County gave such a great speech she defeated me in district convention. "The state party" is made up of individuals, and if they are wise they will treat both candidates well. It will be interesting to see if one or both of the candidates actually comes to Oregon. In years when one candidate shows up and the other doesn't it can have an effect on the primary.

More interestingly, the dynamics of the state convention electing unpledged delegate(s)(and also permanent Rules, Credentials, Platform Comm. members), the actual people in charge of the efforts of the various campaigns may determine who has better organizing skills, if they have a favorite for any of those positions, etc. If everyone supporting the winning candidate decides together who should have some of those positions, they're likely to decide who actually goes to the convention.

And "which individuals do you want on the floor of the convention if things get contested?" could really play into the selection here and elsewhere this year as it hasn't for many years.

Paddy typed:

"So John, I assume that you are calling on Senators Kennedy and Kerry and Governor Patrick from Massachusetts to renounce their previous endorsement of Senator Obama? Shouldn't they support the will of the voters of their state by casting their convention votes for Senator Clinton who won Mass by 56 to 41?"

I've read this kind of comment before and it's infuriating. Is the point that the Obama people in states like Mass should vote for Clinton and allow the Clinton people in states like Virginia and Maryland to also vote for Clinton? Because if your point is that Kennedy should be willing to vote for Clinton if the Clinton people in states where Obama won would be willing to vote for Obama, I'm sure he would be willing to do that.

When you do the math, it is almost impossible for Clinton to win this nomination fairly -- i.e., by capturing more pledged delegates than Obama. Obama is up by 137 delegates according to Real Clear Politics, with a few more delegates in states Obama has won yet to be counted. Even assuming wide pro-Clinton margins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and W. Virginia (states Hillary looks to do well in), but giving Barack Hawaii (a caucus state and one of his home states), Wyoming (caucus), Mississippi (heavily African American), and N. Carolina (heavily African American) ... and assuming all the other states are more or less even, Obama would probably win the pledged delegates by close to 100. Remember that under Democratic rules, New York and California combined netted Hillary only about 85 delegates; there's no way that Pennsylvania and Ohio will net her anywhere near that amount, and Texas might end up for Barack (when you realize that 1/3 of its delegates are chosen at a caucus and that he has an advantage in the primary due to DeLay's gerrymandering).

Trust me when I say that Hillary won't be elected President. If she steals the nomination with superdelegates, or some sort of chicanery with Florida or Michigan, lots of Dems I know won't just vote for McCain, they'll campaign for him! Her people need to fight fairly and know when to back off, unless they are totally indifferent to whether McCain or Obama becomes the next President.

I'm picking Hillary for President!

Eugene, OR

Paddy said: "The use of the term "unelected" as it related to super delegates is almost always wrong. IIRC, all of Oregon's super delegates have been elected,"

Elected by whom, Paddy, and for what. They were elected by party insiders, to be a party insider, there is no mandate for them to represent the people who vote in primaries to select the candidate for president of the U.S. In your own case, isn't full disclosure really pertinent. You ran the Clinton primary campaign in Oregon in '92. And weren't you a Clinton appointee to a high Fed. job? Aren't you simply a part of their network, and an agent of their campaign? Why should you be entitled to particular consideration representing Oregon voters who vote Democratic? Your argument simply erodes any claim to legitimacy this process might have, and drives away potential newcomers and progressive activists to party identification

I believe that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people by endorsing their choice. As long as the current process produces a clear winner, the superdelegates become irrelevant apart from the endorsement of the winner at the convention. To do otherwise would be tantamount to a dictatorship. I don't think America will want to go down that road.

I believe that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people by endorsing their choice. As long as the current process produces a clear winner, the superdelegates become irrelevant apart from the endorsement of the winner at the convention. To do otherwise would be tantamount to a dictatorship. I don't think America will want to go down that road.

Chuck Schumer, Hillary supporter and Michael Mukasey facilitator, came across on "Meet the Press" this morning as being in favor of the superdelegates voting for what they see as the Democratic Party's interests which he would consider to be votes for Hillary even though polls show McCain would have a good chance of beating her and not Obama. Transcript here.

I'm picking Hillary for President!

Eugene, OR

Lemme guess: you shop at Walmart?

"Chuck Schumer, Hillary supporter and Michael Mukasey facilitator, came across on "Meet the Press" this morning as being in favor of the superdelegates voting for what they see as the Democratic Party's interests which he would consider to be votes for Hillary even though polls show McCain would have a good chance of beating her and not Obama."

As a Novick supporter, I didn't need to like Schumer any less than I already did. That dude needs to step back and let other Americans have some say -- or else go to a Party not called "Democratic."

I’ve been an elected party officer for almost 4 years. When I engaged with the party 4 years ago, the organization was open and welcoming and it was very easy to find something relevant and meaningful to do, including reading and commenting on the delegate selection process.

With time I have come to know, honor and respect a very large number of party activists from all over the state. These activists are a tiny minority of the population of registered Democrats and they do most of the work, both to keep the party alive between elections and to prepare for the influx of people who inevitably engage for an election cycle. They are extremely important to the success and maintenance of the party and we elect them to honored positions based on their skills and judgment.

I know many of the Oregon super delegates and find them to be extraordinary people who give a significant part of their lives to the party. They may not have been elected based on a declaration of support for a given candidate, but their their actions demonstrate their commitment to an open and inclusive party.

In 2004 we elected delegates to the national convention who were passionate for their candidate and elegant in their speeches. Some these did little or nothing for the election and disappeared when the work was less glamorous. My vote for delegates will not only be for people who support my preferred candidate but who will also be around to ensure that Howard Dean survives to continue the transformation of the party.

I’m quite happy with our “super delegates” using their judgment and knowledge as the basis for their vote at the convention. And, we will use their judgment and knowledge as criteria for their reelection.

(and remember, always use air quotes when you say "super delegates".)

Thank you Steve P.

If you are familiar with a concept "presidential candidate right of approval" (not sure if it is still around or if either campaign is using it), that was used in the past precisely because of what you said,

"Some these did little or nothing for the election and disappeared when the work was less glamorous".

It is the "footsoldier" grunt work which keeps a party alive and helps win elections.

The selection of the Democratic nominee for President is entirely the responsibility of party members. Others are certainly welcome to watch and judge, but there is nothing in our constitution that mandates a role for non-members and, in fact, there is specific language about the right of association which ensures the opposite.

Becoming a member of the party is extraordinarily easy and requires only the completion of a form. Nevertheless, there are some who demand a role in the selection of our candidate who won’t even make that effort. I realize that changing one’s registration might be considered admitting a mistake and such and admission might take a decade or two. Still, this election has four incredible races with difficult choices. If one wanted to affect change, this would be the election to join the party.

I was an antiwar activist in the 60s and 70s and experienced firsthand the evils of a party leadership that secretly controlled the delegate selection process. Getting people to understand and accept proportional representation and open nation-wide election of delegates was nearly impossible. I am very grateful that the early work has resulted in the rules we have today where proportional representation is widely accepted and the rules are published ahead of time. I just wish we also have proportional voting but that is a different topic.

The rules we have today are not perfect. They have evolved over time and have a few warts. Wart removal can be a task for the off election year when the few of us who actually care will have time to work on something other than a campaign. The fundamental flaws derive from letting states determine the processes used to select delegates. We now have a hodgepodge of processes that defy logic. Primary states have 40% participation and caucus states have 10% participation, neither a huge endorsement of the chosen process. And, early states squandered votes on candidates that are no longer running and late states pile votes on the presumptive winner.

In Florida, Democrats were stripped of their delegates by the actions of a Republican majority in the state house. Floridian Democrats have a real grievance which we need to address. The possibilities for redress are mind numbing!

The result of this primary campaign is surprisingly close and this closeness highlights the flaws. A candidate with a narrow lead can hardly claim the high ground of righteousness when the margin of victory is within the margin of error. I’m going to accept the outcome, whatever it is, and work with the rules committee for an improved process in the future and maybe, just maybe, my grandkids will see a rational process when they turn 30.

(And, thank you, Paulie for pushing my button!)

Bill R. writes: Elected by whom, Paddy, and for what. They were elected by party insiders, to be a party insider, there is no mandate for them to represent the people who vote in primaries to select the candidate for president of the U.S.

This is factully incorrect--the superdelegates are elected members of Congress, governors, and officials elected by party members, the very activists so often celebrated here.

No "mandate" is simply an odd formulation, since each political party chooses the method by which its nominee is chosen.

But no odder than Paulie's opening formulation: Five of these 12 announced on Valentine's Day that they support....GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM...also known as Oregon's voters.

"voters" = "grassroots activists"?? Who believes this is true?

I watched the show this morning and didn't at all get that sense from what Schumer said.

Kevin: I guess that makes me more cynical about Chuck Schumer than you. Before the vote in the Judiciary Committee on Mukasey I would have bet Schumer would have sold out despite his claims of being uncomfortable about doing so. Because of this, Schumer's vote to authorize the war on Iraq and other votes I find it better to consider Schumer guilty until proven innocent.

Paul G. says: "This is factully incorrect--the superdelegates are elected members of Congress, governors, and officials elected by party members, the very activists so often celebrated here.

No "mandate" is simply an odd formulation, since each political party chooses the method by which its nominee is chosen."

<hr/>

These supers were elected to be members of Congress, not to be nominate candidate for president. Their oath of office does not include nominating a president. As for the other supers, they are not members of Congress but simply party officials.

Legitimacy is not an "odd formulation." Any system of governance relies on it. An oligarchical system of choosing a presidential nominee possesses no legitimacy. Given the fact the Clinton agenda now sees no need for legitimacy, if it is pressed to the convention, and your beloved supers go along with their ambition for a co-presidency, then the outcome will be a stolen election. That would result in a convention walk-out, the destruction of the party, and the Democratic coalition, and a massive defeat all the way down the ticket. If the supers are that stupid, then we are headed for disaster.

Apparently not all of Hillary's friends are willing to take the party over a cliff with her by stealing a nomination with the supers.

This from Newsday:

Charlie Rangel knocks Hillary's plan to win with Supers (0.00 / 0) (Apparently Charlie Rangel is feeling the Heat.)

No convention duel, Clinton supporters say Hillary allies rap her tactic to rely on superdelegates http://www.newsday.com/service...

MILWAUKEE - Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel - one of Hillary Clinton's most stalwart African-American defenders - is apparently questioning her reliance on unelected superdelegates to stay competitive with Barack Obama, saying they may not reflect the "will" of Democratic voters.

"It's the people [who are] going to govern who selects our next candidate and not superdelegates," Rangel said last night at a dinner for the New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators conference in Albany.

"The people's will is what's going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people's will is," he added.

What's the point of the "super delegates"? If it was to improve the chances of a Democratic candidate for President, it's failed. Only Clinton's been elected since 1982. Before the SD's existed, we had JFK, LBJ, and Carter elected.

I don't disagree w/ the idea of a reward for a few of giants of the party having a vote to break a tie, but I strongly disagree w/ flooding the floor w/ this many SDs. It runs contrary to the principles of the Democratic party.

Steve's welcome to insult and dismiss the people who disagree with him, that doesn't advance his cause.

If the party seats the Michigan delegates (with only ONE NAME on the ballot) or the Florida delegates without a new election, if the SDs overturn the majority vote then the future of the Democratic party will be harmed.

Any politician running for re-election in '08 will not act contrary to the party's interest.

Also, a point made in today's Oregonian by Jenny Greanleaf is that the SDs were designed to be a "moderating influence" on the party activists.

Is it possible that instead of moderating the party, they're holding it back--like the old general who keeps trying to fight the last war with outdated tactics?

Darryl>I believe you're missing my point. I compared the six election w/ a 50% win rate before the super delegates to the 67% lose rate after the Super Delegates. That's not demonstrating that this level of SDs are helping the Democrats win.

Also, the Ferraro compromise was designed to enlarge participation in the SD group. But by enlarging the group from 13% of the total to 20% of the total, they haven't added better representation of the electorate.

You're right, we're stuck now. But that will change in the future.

Steve>I don't see the point of your blather about "Purity Trolls". You can craft an argument for the current "super delegate" system or you can't.

Or are you saying that people like myself, should sit down and shut up because our health and mobility problems preclude us from taking a more active role in the party today?

Steve Maurer: I like to sit on my ass and do nothing. I live to be a holier than thou hypocrite.

I don't like the way the world is, don't want to put in any effort to change it, and so spend all my time inventing excuses for why any group I might deign to help is undeserving of my aid. I'm too filled with hate to ever do much of anything positive.

I revel in the defeat of progressive causes because it gives me another excuse for pretending that Democrats simply aren't good enough for me.

You must be a genius to have figured it all out. Please respect me as I do you.

Steve, Dorothy McKay was a force of nature! Not everyone is that strong willed or able to be that politically active over the decades (I knew her in the 1980s).

"And while mobility and health problems are never fun"

"And while poverty and hunger are never fun."

"And while death in the family are never fun"

"And while chronic illness and pain are never fun."

Steve>Could you possibly be more offensive or condenscending? Don't confuse rudeness with bluntness.

In what universe is your approach going to encourage people to donate their precious time and money to the Democrats?

It's not productive and doesn't advance your argument. That strategy only works for the Republicans, who are probably laughing at this entire thread.

Darryl>I agree w/ your point about comparing the pre-SD elections to the post SD-elections as an apples-to-oranges comparison, but I don't see how the size of the SD has improved finding and nominating the most electable candidate. The only candidate they've manage to elect to the Presidency is Bill Clinton.

OTOH, the Democrats have always done a great job of defeating themselves, the current Clinton-Obama fights here and in other areas are a great example of it. Although I suspect it's neocons or contrarians posting some of the uglier arguments.

I'm not opposed to ANY SDs per se, only that they should be cut back to a tiny percentage of the delegates (<3).

Overall, I agree that it's gotten out of hand.

I think there is a difference between DLC and superdelegates.

First of all, superdelegates are an integral part of the party structure, and as such the national Rules Committee (elected members are chosen as part of the delegate selection process) and the national convention can change the rules just as the rules were changed after 1980 to create superdelegates in the first place. Wisconsin might not have had an open primary in 2008 were it not for the actions of the 1984 convention and the Fairness Commission.

DLC was originally started to be the antidote to Mondale's 1984 loss. At first they were all white male Southerners--someone asked if I was interested and I said I only met one of the criteria. Then they printed a platform in 1991 and part of it made sense---except some of the DLC said "total agreement with the platform is mandatory" and people who had questions said "nuts to you!".

In 1991 it was a vehicle for Bill Clinton to travel around giving speeches and meeting local folks the way Jimmy Carter did in 1975 (both Clinton and Carter came to little ol' Salem that way) and the way Jim Farley traveled as a one man exploratory committee for FDR before 1932.

But then DLC got too full of themselves and as the old saying goes, hubris is followed by nemesis.

Now they are just another movement seeing the tide go out as a new generation comes in. DLC wasn't real big on Howard Dean and I can just imagine what the remnants of DLC (now that Lieberman has endorsed McCain) think of Obama.

If you want to annoy a DLC person, just say it stands for Democrats Leaning Conservative.

Posted by: Steve Maurer | Feb 20, 2008 10:41:07 AM
SC: In what universe is your approach going to encourage people to donate
their precious time and money to the Democrats? That's not my approach in general. It's my approach with you.

Personal attacks don't substitute for reasoned arguments. You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about.

How many years have you been with the Democratic party? More than 30 like myself?

How many thousands of dollars and hours have you volunteered on campaigns?

How many governments (three for me) and NGOs (more than a dozen) have awarded you for the work you’ve done?

Have you ever been elected to represent Portland to a national NGO conference?

I've also worked fulltime and supported a family after growing up in places where we thought glass windows and indoor plumbing was a luxury.

Now that chronic and genetic illnesses are catching up with me, I’m no longer putting in as many hours on ANY of the groups I used to volunteer with.

But don’t let me confuse you with the facts. You’re having too much fun denigrating and dismissing others and driving people away from the Democratic party.

Anyone who's become ill should leave the party. Isn't that your point? Forget any past contributions or any knowlege we've gained along the way. Without a physical and on-going presence, we don't have a right to criticize. Isn't that the heart of your argument? You're either in the wrong party or the it's time for the Democrats to get a new name.

Posted by: Steve Maurer | Feb 20, 2008 10:41:07 AM
You've already stated that you think it's someone else's job to get
the changes in national health care policy that you'd so greatly
benefit from. And apparently, you think "poverty and hunger"
is a valid excuse not to do what you can to promote economic justice as well.

If the only way to prove your point is with lies, then your argument is already lost.

Posted by: Steve Maurer | Feb 20, 2008 10:41:07 AM
But, you know, prove me wrong. I guarantee you I'm a sweetheart in person.

That’s the real joke.