Dear Readers:

We’re moving to a New Blog!

I’m happy to announce that short of finishing some unpacking and little re-arranging, the new and improved Dem Daily Blog is now live. Come on over and check it out!

This blog and all of the archives will remain here online and in a few days the comments will be turned off. Update your bookmarks, and your blogrolls and…

Join us at the New Dem Daily Blog!

I’m happy to announce that short of finishing some unpacking and little re-arranging, the new and improved Dem Daily Blog is now live. Come on over and check it out!

This blog and all of the archives will remain here online and in a few days the comments will be turned off. Update your bookmarks, and your blogrolls and…

Join us at the New Dem Daily Blog!

In Red District elections routine measures of campaign viability, the ‘conventional wisdom’, do not apply. So what is the state of routine measurement in Washington, DC? Secondly, how can existing Officeholders and Political Action Committees of all types and for all causes help change the Red District campaign paradigm?

It is ritual in Washington, DC not to pay serious attention to any Congressional candidate, particularly Red Districts, until they hit $100,000 in funds raised. When that threshold has been met, the DCCC and other organizations begin paying attention. Doors begin to open. In Blue Districts, Open Seat Districts and closely contested races this may be a reasonable method of distinguishing between campaign organizations that are viable and those that are not.

Secondly, Washington and the PAC’s have an aversion to participating in a Democratic Primary Election. While understandable in contested Democratic Primaries, most Red District campaigns have only one Democratic Candidate. There is, realistically, no ‘stampede’ to compete in the most difficult of races against money and incumbency.

In the difficult Red District election money and avoidance of primary participation are not reasonable standards to use to judge whether or not to help the Campaign.

By definition, these campaigns are against Republican held seats. Routinely it is a Republican dominated district. District Democrats are usually not even aware that a viable campaign can be mounted in their district when the ‘conventional wisdom’ is that “Oh well, we’re stuck with the jerk again this election.”

Many times even activist Democrats don’t take effective action and mount only a token campaign.

There are, however, districts that are difficult but viable in 2008.

*Look at Barry Welsh’s Indiana-06 finish in 2006 with only $50,000 in funds. Against Mike Pence, a right-wing Republican leader with a very large warchest, Welsh got 40% of the vote.
* Scott Kleeb in Nebraska-03 did very, very well with a larger bankroll but in a district without a history of Democratic competition.
*Eric Massa in New York-29 had a credible campaign with substantial national endorsements. Still fundraising was an issue I’m told.
*Steve Young in CA-48 faces a formidable candidate and continues an effective fight into 2008.

All were, and are, viable candidates. Each is the only candidate in a difficult Red District. All have experience. All are dynamic candidates in Red Districts. [Political Interviews will be seeking an interview with all these at it returns to action.]

The biggest drawback to any Red District organization is hiring solid, professional talent so they can raise the funds necessary to field a viable campaign. Seed Money in a Red District is very difficult to raise.

So how can Officeholders, state and federal, help seed fund these races and others?

With the reality of non-contested Primaries, Officeholders, using the smallest of contributions, can have an impact on a campaign far beyond the size of the contribution. For example: Assuming the federal officeholders in Indiana chose to support a few Red District campaigns with a simple contribution of $1000 the accumulation of those Democratic officeholders would allow the hiring of a qualified, experienced Finance Director and, perhaps, a Field Coordinator.

What would the logic of that small contribution?
A: A viable campaign presumes organizing the district for maximum effectiveness. Even if the 2008 campaign does not win, it has created a better structure for statewide and national campaigns. The organized District will turn out more votes for Democratic Candidates. Over a period of time, using the right tactics, a repeated effort to organize the district while contesting elections can even bring the District closer to parity.

B: Supporting a courageous, qualified candidate in an election cycle where Republicans are held in disrepute and the majority of their policies are polling in negative numbers simply makes good political sense. With professional help, good fundraising, innovative use of organization and media, these candidates have a real possibility of winning in 2008. The Key is the initial fundraising. Only then can the professional staff can be hired and activated.

So how can state and federal officeholders help?
1. By accepting the phone calls and visits of Red District candidates.
2. By taking these candidates seriously and giving them an audience.
3. After interviewing and examining the campaigns, choose several to support with more than just a contribution. How? Give an endorsement. Open their own fundraising operations to assist the smaller staffs of the Red District Candidates. Recruit other Officeholders, even outside the same state, to open their doors and give the Candidates an audience…and opportunity. Use the Officeholders influence with PAC’s to also give the Candidate the audience he/she might not otherwise get.

Have the PAC’s repeat the same steps and a Red District campaign, with a viable, qualified candidate, can create the foundation for a very professional competitive campaign.

Seem simple and obvious? The innovative change in political process usually does seem simple and obvious once articulated.

“Gee, that’s fairly straight forward. Why weren’t we doing this before? It won’t take much staff time, It won’t cost much from the campaign warchest. It will create, at minimum, more Democratic votes for our candidates. Hmmm, run this up the line and let’s get this put together.”

Let’s see what the response of Officeholders and PAC’s might be to the concept.

(Please forward this article to your state and federal incumbents as well as any PAC’s that you know. This could directly impact the 2008 cycle.)
(Disclosure: I was Communications Director for Steve Young in 2005. I have interviewed Scott Kleeb both before and after the 2006 election at Political Interviews. I am currently a member of the ‘kitchen cabinet’ for Barry Welsh. I pick these candidates to highlight in this article as I am most familiar with them. There are others, of course.)

For starters, people got tired of being associated with these drooling retards. Then, when they realized that these drooling retards had ideological allies running the show in the Bush administration and then began to experience their idiotic policies, they moved from disgusted to outright hostile.

Like me. It had nothing to do with Burke, and everything to do with what the party had become. A bunch of bedwetting, loudmouth, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent boobs with a mean streak a mile long and no sense of fair play or proportion.

Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers.

And that isn’t even getting into the COMPLETE and TOTAL corruption of our political processes at every level. The shit is really going to hit the fan after we vote these jackasses out of power in 2008.

Go read all of Cole’s brilliant observations! I’ve never voted Republican and probably never will, but it’s heartening to see the truth laid out from a former believer.

If you’re poor, if you don’t have health insurance, if you’re sick — well, they don’t think it’s a serious issue. In fact, they think it’s funny.

On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded S-chip, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, providing health insurance to an estimated 3.8 million children who would otherwise lack coverage.

In anticipation of the veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: “First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea. I’m happy that the president’s willing to do something bad for the kids.” Heh-heh-heh.

Most conservatives are more careful than Mr. Kristol. They try to preserve the appearance that they really do care about those less fortunate than themselves. But the truth is that they aren’t bothered by the fact that almost nine million children in America lack health insurance. They don’t think it’s a problem.

“I mean, people have access to health care in America,” said Mr. Bush in July. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”

And on the day of the veto, Mr. Bush dismissed the whole issue of uninsured children as a media myth. Referring to Medicaid spending — which fails to reach many children — he declared that “when they say, well, poor children aren’t being covered in America, if that’s what you’re hearing on your TV screens, I’m telling you there’s $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that.”

Of course, there’s nothing funny about not having health care. It’s one of the most serious problems in America today. But the “the lack of empathy shown by Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Kristol, and, yes, Mr. Bush is genuine, not feigned,” Krugman points out and I agree wholeheartedly.

Mark Crispin Miller, the author of “The Bush Dyslexicon,” once made a striking observation: all of the famous Bush malapropisms — “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family,” and so on — have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.

By contrast, Mr. Bush is articulate and even grammatical when he talks about punishing people; that’s when he’s speaking from the heart. The only animation Mr. Bush showed during the flooding of New Orleans was when he declared “zero tolerance of people breaking the law,” even those breaking into abandoned stores in search of the food and water they weren’t getting from his administration.

What’s happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you don’t belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoples’ woes, you fit right in.

And Republican disillusionment with Mr. Bush does not appear to signal any change in that regard. On the contrary, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to condemn “socialism,” which is G.O.P.-speak for any attempt to help the less fortunate.

So once again, if you’re poor or you’re sick or you don’t have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny.

That’s the true sickness in America. The total lack of compassion and empathy that emanates from these sick minds that find humor in the human condition.

The N.Y. Times also notes the SPIN today that Bush is using to “justify his ideologically driven veto of a bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.”

Mr. Bush stretched the truth considerably when he told an audience in Lancaster, Pa., that he has long been a strong supporter of the S-chip program. “I supported it as governor, and I support it as president of the United States,” he said. As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush fought — unsuccessfully — to restrict the state’s program to children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, well below the 200 percent allowed by federal law. As president, he is again trying to shrink the program for the entire country. His proposed five-year budget does not provide enough to continue enrollments at current levels, let alone cover millions of the uninsured.

There is NO justification for this travesty.

As a candidate I’ve been impressed with the fire Dodd has shown in the debates, the innovative use of live video ,(thank you, Tim Tagaris), and his specific policy statements.

Look again at Rep. Ryan’s list of Dodd’s accomplishments and you begin to get a better view of this man who has been going about his job quietly for 24 years.

*Dodd authored the Family and Medical Leave Act which allows people to take off work when a family member is sick.

*Chris Dodd was the named by Head Start as their Senator of the DECADE.

*He served 26 years on the Foreign Relations Committee and understands what we need to do to rebuild our standing in the world.

*Chris Dodd, the current chairman of the Senate Banking Committee was one of the authors of the Sarbanes-Oxley act which mandated greater protections for investors after Enron.

*Right now, he is leading the fight in the Senate to protect homeowners from the foreclosure crisis.

As to policy disagreements, if we again get caught up again in single issue politics we defeat our own purposes.

If, for example, the NAFTA vote is an activists only reason for not supporting a candidate that otherwise would have your vote….take a deep breath and accept you will 100% agree with no candidate.

Taking Senator Dodd’s experience into account, our choice cannot simply be based on one policy position or past series of votes. For me the choice has to be based on the overall vision of the candidate and his/her overall campaign capability.

Chris Dodd needs a breakout moment.

It will need to be some action/statement that gets the media’s attention and keep it for a period of time. It can happen and I’m sure his staff is working on it.

I still don’t have a dog in this fight. That’s still true. But I deeply admire Senator Dodd and Senator Biden for elevating the debate and giving us very real choices for our nominee.

Congrats to Congressman Ryan for standing up and taking a serious step for Senator Chris Dodd, a serious Presidential Candidate.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush’s presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year’s elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Democrats unleashed a stream of harsh rhetoric, as they geared up for a battle to both improve their chances of winning a veto override and score political points against Republicans who oppose the expansion.

Sen. John Kerry issued the following statement today, in the wake of Bush’s veto of the legislation that reauthorizes and extends the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The legislation was passed by both the House and Senate with a broad bi-partisan majority, and John Kerry pushed aggressively for additional SCHIP funds during the Senate Finance Committee’s development of the plan. He was vowed to work hard to overturn the veto:

“Today with a single stroke of his veto pen, President Bush single-handedly jeopardized health care for millions of poor children,” Kerry said. “The President’s twisted rationale that he opposes ‘federalizing’ health care is a hollow excuse for undermining a successful effort to give Governors the control and the tools to deliver health care for kids who desperately need it. President Bush conveniently forgot that he ran for reelection with a promise to give health care to millions more children and now as a lame duck president he is working to take it away. It seems George Bush was for kids’ health care before he was against it. An overwhelming majority in Congress will fight to keep our promises to America’s children, and we will work to override this cynical, callous veto.”

Jennifer Loven of AP News reported, “The White House sought little attention for Bush’s action, with the president casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage.” The cowardly action of a cold hearted and callous man who cares nothing of the fate of America’s children.

Ted Kennedy had a message today also for “Bush and the Members in Congress who support his veto”:

Would you deny your own family what you’ll be denying to millions of other families if this bill is vetoed? If you don’t believe the federal government should support children’s health care, how can you in good conscience accept it for your own families?

All Members of Congress have the peace of mind that when their children are sick, they can afford to take them to the doctor. Why doesn’t every American family deserve that peace of mind?

The President’s veto will have terrible consequences – just look at the faces on the Families USA video. It’s time everyone understood what those consequences are.

That’s why so many of us in Congress – Republicans and Democrats alike – are fighting so hard for this bill, to keep the faith with the millions of children who are counting on us for the healthy start in life that every American deserves.

Each campaign has hired Online Coordinators, Bloggers and Strategists. We see the candidates themselves make posts from time to time. Their Campaign Bloggers we see in print more often.

The Campaign’s understand that the Campaign Blogger, (CB), isn’t a vehicle for releasing media advisories or news releases. The CB must be far more effective than simply another channel for news releases or event announcements. Most campaigns understand that the primary task of the CB is to create two way communication with the blog reader. This two way communication, far more effectively than in the past, gives the reader a greater sense of involvement in the campaign. It can, and does, become a very emotional attachment to the Candidate.

By and large, they’ve done a fair job of implementing that concept. Fair. Not great Fair.

So if they understand the importance of the Blogsphere and The Social Networking Sphere why aren’t they supporting, in return, the very medium that gives them, essentially, a free unlimited forum?

Well, first the reality of Blog Advertising:

Based on the last two cycles, we see that the candidates, Congressional and Presidential, will come to the blogs for ads in that last 6 weeks of the campaign. It is the time they need the most cash and the time they must drum up each and every voter.

They have not seen, yet, that their continuing advertising on affordable blogs is the best investment they can make for the dollar. Regardless of any other reason to invest money in the Blogs, simple effective self-interest should drive their involvement. While this can be detailed down to the Congressional, State and Local races, the Presidential elections must hit a balance between National advertising and Regional advertising. So let’s use their budgets for an example.

By Arbitron survey, here are some of the break downs for cost per thousand impressions:

* Radio (: 60 morning drive slot) $5.92
* Prime time network TV $11.31
* Newspaper (1/4 page BW) $11.66
* Prime time TV spot $20.54

The most expensive of blogs, excepting DKos, are over a $1.50 per thousand less than the radio spot above. Many cost less than $2.50 per thousand. Some are less than $1 per thousand.

With these numbers, campaigns can use their cash very effectively. They can target the inexpensive national blogs, the really cheap local blogs and the middle run blogs that cover the races both nationally and locally.

Using small amounts of cash, (small in the world of presidential races), can have a huge impact on the number of people that see the ads. More importantly from the blog owners point of view, it will help support the very platform of free media that the campaigns need to create the two way communication so important to any effort.

Using the Political Insiders Ad Network and picking 12 blogs, both large and small, as examples:
allocating $18,000 per month they would create 13,602,000 impressions over a 3 month period. With an advertising package of $4 per thousand impressions that have substantial geographic and demographic reach that is a good deal. Dig beneath the surface and it gets even better.

On a radio station or in a newspaper, the advertisement will occupy a specific time and place. On the radio it’s a specific time during the day. In a newspaper the advertisement occupies a specific placement on a specific day. Each advertisement’s effectiveness is constrained by the number of people that happen to be listening at that specific time or reading that specific page of the newspaper.

What are the primary differences in Blog ad placement that make the Blog ad more effective? The ad on the blog, with rare exceptions, appears on every page of the site. Wherever the visitor goes the advertisement is always creating a new impression. Regardless of the time or number of pages, the advertisement is in the readers eye.

Secondly, the Blog ad is always interactive and can lead the interested viewer to take another action. It is a communications funnel. It can, properly created, create a stickiness that leads the reader greater Candidate awareness and, perhaps, campaign involvement.

So again…Why Don’t the Candidates Consistently Support the Blogs?

It seems that the changing world of the Blogsphere has caught even the most talented Online Coordinators flat-footed. While they adapt to every technological change, social networking, on-demand video and the rest, they haven’t yet realized that their basic platform, the blogsphere, can’t always exist as a non-profit, volunteer enterprise.

Blog owners, who spend substantial time, effort and lost income to create and promote their blogs, are becoming weary of constantly fighting the good fight and not getting paid for it. For most their personal accounts shrink each month. There is talk of a substantial shrinking in well run Blog sites. Many of us simply have run through all our savings and must return to the ‘real world’. The political candidate loses a potential platform each time one of us shuts the door.

Online Coordinators are then going to realize that the Blogsphere must be financially supported. Once they accept that reality they will then have to convince the Communication offices. The Communications office will have to convince the Finance manager of the effectiveness of the expenditure. And the Strategist will have to brought on-board. They are used to spending money on TV and Radio. This will be a new constant tactic.

So why aren’t they supporting the Blogsphere with more advertising?

Because we, the owners of the Blogsphere, have been too willing to give it away for free. The reality of the publisher’s personal situation is hitting home for many owners. We have realized that we’ve created an entirely new platform that is helping elect politicians.

Secondly, we have never united and created a sales force that proactively sells our ads. BlogAds, the only well-known ad placement site, is a passive organization. Perhaps we need an aggressive ‘agency’.

Now that the campaigns understand the Blogsphere’s importance, this conversation about Blogsphere support is beginning to reach the campaigns. When Tim Tagaris, Eric Carbone, Peter Daou and Tracy Joan begin to reach up into their respective organizations perhaps one of them will find a receptive audience. [Truthfully, the second tier of Dodd and Biden should the be first campaigns to use their meager funds to make an impact that would be widely felt.]

If one….just one campaign took this concept to heart next week and made a widespread purchase of 3 month blog ad campaigns, the rest would follow within 30 days.

It’s just that simple. We have to sell one campaign and the rest will follow. It’s in their own best interest. That reality, their own rational self-interest, is the key factor in the sales campaign we must launch into the campaigns themselves.

(Many who read this article are involved in campaigns. Take it on yourselves to start the conversation. Don’t wait for someone else to do something…go for it.)

After Ralph Stanley II and the Bluegrass Brothers finish up “Man of
Constant Sorrrow,” a blue-jeaned John Edwards talks about “economic
fairness” at a town meeting in Conway, NH.

Sound Bite: “We should have a national capital fund
to make money — capital — available to new businesses that will operate
and start in smaller towns and smaller communities. Right now all the
capital stays in big cities. We’ve got to get it out into the rural
areas.”

I believe this is worth watching because it addresses one of the biggest disparities we face today: Rural America and Economic Fairness. It also shows Edwards, in my opinion…having no dog in the fight yet…as a man with a mission. It is the same mission he has talked about for over 4 years: Economic Fairness/The Two America’s. Even if you have a negative opinion of John Edwards, I ask you to watch this video. When he’s addressing a crowd, in an informal situation, I believe him to have a powerful presence.

Peter Gelzinis reports in the Boston Herald and catches perfectly the relationship between Kerry and Warren:

Warren, 37, is just the latest in a long line of Kerry staffers who are presently stationed, or have served, in Iraq. Kerry’s scheduler, Jackie Kohn, is on the front lines for the second time, serving in a combat support hospital unit.

Brady Van Engelen, Kerry’s adviser on veterans affairs, was a platoon leader with the “Tombraiders” of the 1st Armored Division. He was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart and spent the better part of a year at Walter Reed Army Medical Center coming back from a head wound.

At a time when we tend to reach for the nearest stereotype and hide behind red or blue banners, Setti Warren goes off to war calling his boss, an impassioned critic of the current strategy in Iraq, “a true patriot.”

“He’s let me know how proud he is of what I’m doing,” said Warren, who joined the Naval Reserve back in 2003, about the same time he signed on as a trip director with the Kerry for President campaign.

Warren, “met his wife, Tassy,” during the ’04 Kerry campaign and when they got married just a year ago, John Kerry was one of his groomsmen.

Describing his reasons for enlisting, Warren tells Gelzinis:

“In the course of those journeys across New Hampshire and Iowa and the other campaign states,” Warren said, “I saw the fundamental connection he had to this country through his military service as well as his public service, and it mirrored how I felt. Being able to work for him was a kind of perfect match.

“There is also a family history of service,” Warren noted. “My father served in Korea with the Air Force and then spent almost 20 years as a commander in the Naval Reserves. And my grandfather fought at the Battle of the Bulge with the Army.”

With a hint of snark, Gelzinis reminds his readers that Kerry is by no means, what those “who were “too busy” to put on a uniform” have “branded” him:

For his part, Kerry said he told his deputy director that regardless of how one felt about the war, this was a rare moment to serve our country, to wear the uniform and stand with your brothers and put yourself to the greatest test of sacrifice and commitment.

“The experience is something that stays with you the rest of your life,” Kerry said. “It hones your leadership skills as well as grounding you in all the things that are real and true. I am very proud of Setti, as I am of all the people who’ve worked for me and served both in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

This is not what a “blue” senator is supposed to say, unless the senator in question spent a little time running through the deltas of Vietnam.

Gosh, it seems like only yesterday that John Kerry saw his Vietnam combat service “swift-boated” at the direction of people who were “too busy” to put on a uniform. They are the same people who take every opportunity to brand him as a cut-and-run Democrat.

They are the ones who cheer Mitt Romney’s war cry, while paying no attention to the valiant struggle the five fightin’ Romney boys are now waging against those evil fireflies and gnats that plague their Winnebago across the Iowa cornfields.

Hopefully, when Setti Warren comes home just before the next presidential election, he will return with something more than opinions. He’ll bring back wisdom born of experience.

“I’ve asked everyone who’s worked for me and served in Iraq what they thought when they got home,” Kerry said. “I’d be crazy not to look to their opinions of the situation. All of them remain fiercely loyal to, and proud of, the troops they served with. And each and every one has said they wanted their service to have meant something, and not to have been in vain.”

It is no different with Setti Warren. “I have so much respect for all the staff members who’ve served or are still serving over there now,” he said. “Being able to serve the country in this way is something I consider a great privilege.”

On a personal note, having had the opportunity to meet Setti Warren on many occassions during the ’04 election cycle, I wish him the best of luck as he heads off to serve our nation. As Rush Limbaugh and the wingnuts continue to smear veteran’s who are against the war, Setti Warren proves that an indivual can serve our nation in the military, while not being a supporter of Bush’s war.

Thank you Setti for your service. Return safely, your co-workers and boss will miss you.