CDP Convention Sunday Session Thread

OK, Art Torres is saying his goodbyes in his final convention as chair. To set up the day, we've already seen the new party officers elected, with the increased accountability from the selection of Hillary Crosby, the surprisingly good showing from Chris Finnie (24% of the vote), signaling the newfound muscle of the progressive grassroots.

The big showdown today will be over the party endorsements. The Resolutions Committee voted to endorse a Yes vote on all of them, but Prop. 1A will surely be pulled from the consent calendar. It's really anybody's guess what will happen after that. The party may vote on a substitute motion to endorse a "No" vote, or there may be an offer to go neutral on the proposition, or the Yes side will pass on the floor, or somebody could call quorum and throw the whole convention into chaos. We shall see.

I also spoke with Gavin Newsom, John Garamendi, Bill Hedrick (running in CA-44), Beth Krom (running in CA-48) and more in various blogger sessions, and we'll be rolling out some of those interviews throughout the week. Much more convention coverage to come.

...The LA Times went yes on all the props but 1B, by the way, which, since they are a center-right editorial board that detests public employee unions, makes perfect sense.

...Forgot to mention that Russ Warner announced last night at the Take Back Red California dinner that he would run again in CA-26 against David Dreier. Obama took that district, and the increased name recognition of Warner, who has already run district-wide, will surely help.

...After the regional directors finally finished giving out their awards, new state party chair John Burton comes out in a bowling shirt to the tune of Survivor's Eye of the Tiger.

...Burton basically calls for unity regardless of the differences on the ballot propositions on the budget. This "Democrats in disarray" meme is plenty overrated. We'll deal with whatever happens after May 19. Incidentally, mediaptera reports that Yes on 1A folks are getting paid $25 an hour to hand out lit at the convention.

...Burton says "we will be the party of peace, not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan." Wow, nice going. "We need some exit strategy in Afghanistan." He leaves to a standing ovation.

...Howard Dean enters to massive cheers and a standing ovation. "You have the power!" He made his biggest splash right here six years ago with his 2003 speech at the CDP, the speech that catapulted him in the 2004 Presidential race. He's talking about the "generational revolution" that Democrats have brought to America. "The first multicultural generation in the history of America, the first multicultural President in the history of America, and we took our country back. Isn't it great to be a Democrat?"

...Dean talks about the rise of Blue State Digital and how they came right out of the Dean campaign into Obama for America.

...Art Torres has introduced a colleague from his new organization, the founder of the Institute of Regenerative Medicine

...Debra Bowen will be introduced in a moment. She's a rising star in the party.

VICTORY: Impeachment Inquiry Into Bybee On Consent Calendar

Several weeks of hard work have paid off, and the California Democratic Party, the largest Democratic Party in the country, is poised to provide a major tool in the fight for justice and accountability for the Bush torture regime. The Resolutions Committee included on their consent calendar the resolution to begin a Congressional inquiry into Judge Jay Bybee and other lawyers who wrote opinions justifying and providing the fig leaf of a rationale for torture, with all punishments allowable under the law, including impeachment. The language was softened slightly from the original resolution, but as Congress must begin the inquiry to get to impeachment, this has the same practical effect and can be used.

Without the release of the OLC memo from August 1, 2002, showing Bybee admitting that waterboarding gives the impression of imminent death and allowing it anyway, showing Bybee allowing the CIA to put detainees in a small box with bugs in a Room 101-style exploitation of phobias, I'm not sure this resolution would have passed. A few weeks back, John Heaner, a party activist in the San Fernando Valley, offered the resolution, prior to the release of the memos.

After the release, the grassroots and netroots massed a groundswell of support. The Los Angeles County Democratic Party and other local organizations offered their support to the resolution. My petition to urge the CDP to support it gathered 4,827 signatures in about a week. Courage Campaign hopped aboard as well and got 9,000 or so sigs on their petition. Activists called the CDP offices and pushed for passage. And the party got the message.

This is part of a legitimate sea change inside the California Democratic Party. Yesterday Hillary Crosby, a progressive candidate, beat the incumbent in a race for state party Controller. After multiple scandals with releases of funds from the party and a lack of transparency and accountability, the grassroots decided they have had enough, and this time they have the numbers to make a difference. This has been a growing movement since the entry of the Deaniacs in 2005, and a tipping point of sorts has been reached. We really are seeing some change inside the party.

But the big story is this resolution, which can now be sent to all 6 Democratic California members of the House Judiciary Committee, as well as California's own House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Party that provides money and organization has decided to make their will known, that we want accountability for those who authorized torture in our name, that we do not want the continued presence of one of those authorizers for torture on the federal bench. Resolutions can go flat if they aren't picked up and used as a tool. Today, when it passes the full party on the convention floor in a few hours, we can celebrate. Tomorrow, we put this to work.

Thanks to everyone who put in the time and effort to get this done. This is a huge victory.

UPDATE: Here's the full text of the resolution:

CALLING FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF JUDGE JAY BYBEE AND OTHERS FOR THEIR ROLE IN ALLOWING TORTURE AS PART OF "ENHANCED INTERROGATION"

Whereas, former Assistant Attorney General, and current Federal Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Jay Bybee signed the "Bybee Memo," or "Torture Memo" of August 1, 2002, which advised the C.I.A. that "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment was at times allowable under U.S. law, and authored, co-authored and signed other memos on "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation," more of which are being currently revealed to the American public as the new Administration brings them to light; and

Whereas the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, the supreme law of the land under Article VI of our Constitution, requires the prosecution of those who authorize torture, and it has been established that waterboarding is torture; and

Whereas, on January 15, 2009 before leaving office, President George W. Bush, in an effort to cover his culpability, and the culpability of others, had his Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice issue a memo stating that certain opinions issued in 2001-2003 with respect to "the allocation of authorities between President and Congress in matters of war and national security do not reflect the current view of this Office;"

Therefore be it resolved that the California Democratic Party supports resolution of inquiry and vigorous investigation of these and related actions by the Congress of the United States, including the full use of Congressional subpoena power authority and all appropriate remedies, to disclose completely the possible criminal actions of Judge Jay Bybee and others to the American people and to take necessary and available action with appropriate remedies and punishment allowed by law; and

Be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution with its original authorization be sent to the Office of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, and that copies of the signed resolution be sent to each Democratic member of the California delegation to the United States Senate and House of Representatives.

General Session Open Thread

Here's a thread for the opening session at the CDP convention. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis is taking the stage right now, leaving me wondering what this would be like if she was speaking as a candidate for Governor. Ah well.

The juicy tidbit I've heard is that Phil Angelides is strongly considering jumping into the CA-03 race against Dan Lungren. This makes a pretty good deal of sense. Angelides has the policy chops, the ability to raise money (he has a huge list of supporters to tap from 2006), and a focus on green jobs and clean energy from the Apollo Alliance. I'd like to see this.

Solis' money quote: "This is the most progressive Administration I've seen in a long time."

More later.

...The Garamendi-bots are out, bringing him to the floor. I think they just had a bunch of leftover signs from when he was running for Lt. Governor.

...Most awkward quote ever: "George W. Bush, you are bad history!" Garamendi followed up with the old "We now have a President who can speak a complete sentence" standby...

...So Gavin Newsom is being introduced now. Lots of "visibility" in the crowd.

As Gavin talks about his alleged delivery of health care to everyone in San Francisco, can someone please ask him about cutting the city health care budget by 25% across the board to cover his city's budget deficit? I will, in a couple hours.

Money quote - "We're not intent to relive history." Yes, just to rewrite it.

Boy, Jack O'Connell is wooden.

Barbara Boxer is up right now. I'm reading over the speech, and it's a bunch of red meat.

Resolutions Committee Passes Support For Congressional Inquiry Into Jay Bybee

The very, VERY good news is that the resolution to impeach Jay Bybee from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals passed the Resolutions Committee with only small changes to the language. Any impeachment process must begin with a Congressional inquiry that gets remanded to the House Judiciary Committee. That's exactly the language we got, a resolution supporting a Congressional inquiry into Bybee and the other lawyers who justified torture. To everyone that signed petitions, you helped make this happen. We're not done yet, however. In order to get to the floor, the resolution must get ranked among the top ten at a "prioritizing" meeting today. Many more than ten resolutions passed in committee, so it will be a fight to get the Bybee resolution on the floor. I will be testifying in the committee today and lobbying for passage, armed with the thousands of signatures and personal testimonials gathered over the past week.

This could be as consequential as anything done in this convention, despite it happening off the floor and relatively outside of scrutiny. A resolution of support from the full CDP would be powerful. I'll keep you updated.

...Maybe some of Jay Bybee's anonymous friends will show up to speak on his behalf.

Resolutions Committee Recommends Yes on All Propositions on May 19 Ballot

In the Resolutions Committee meeting here in Sacramento, the committee approved a "Yes" vote for all the measures on the May 19 ballot. The discussion was fairly revealing and typical of what I've seen around the state. The committee members, almost to a man except for Calitics' own Brian Leubitz, argued that the ballot measures reflected the best that the legislature could do, and spun tales about the consequences of failure. Out in the audience, the crowd loudly cheered any time this official narrative was challenged by remarking on the consequences of success, for example the spending cap that would ratchet down state services permanently. My favorite part was when someone, arguing for 1D, said that "if we don't pass this, children will suffer painful cuts." Which of course is the POINT of 1D. "We have to think of the children when we cut programs for children!" was the basic message.

Once again, we see the grassroots/establishment divide, where the legislature and their compatriots in learned helplessness wail about tales of woe while urging a Yes vote on measures that would make things demonstrably worse in the state. We've gone through this over and over again, so the fact that the resolutions committee supported the measures doesn't surprise. However, the strength of the opposition in the room tells me that something may occur on the floor on Sunday.

I would guess that the establishment will try to push the entire package through, and since the only real institutional opposition is on 1A, there will be an effort to pull 1A from the consent calendar. I think it's genuinely up for question as to whether or not it was successful, which is interesting in and of itself.

More later...

CDP Convention - On The Way

Headed out the door for a nice, leisurely six-hour drive through the Central Valley to Sacramento for another California Democratic Party Convention. Calitics will have full coverage, of course - many of our writers will be on hand, both as delegates and as plain old media. There's a lot to cover, from party elections to endorsements on the May 19 election to the resolution to impeach Jay Bybee from the 9th Circuit to the unofficial opening of the 2010 election.

The early pre-convention news is that Antonio Villaraigosa won't be making the trip with me (although there's still room in the car, so you never know). It's a confusing development, considering all the high-profile events other gubernatorial hopefuls Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown are holding (Jerry's got a kegger at the old Governor's Mansion, while Gavin is part of an outdoor block party featuring Wyclef Jean). But that may be the reason, as Villaraigosa wasn't able to compete.

Villaraigosa’s press office sent out a release announcing: “Mayor Villaraigosa today announced that he will convene emergency weekend meetings with union leaders to tackle the city's budget crisis.

“Talks will focus on ways to close a $530 million budget deficit through shared sacrifice and shared responsibility. The Mayor will begin meetings in City Hall with labor leaders on Friday evening and will continue through the weekend.” [...]

Calbuzz asked Tony V spokesman Sean Clegg if the emergency budget session was "just a lame, bullshit excuse" to skip the convention. “It’s exactly the opposite of that," Clegg said. "The city of Los Angeles and most cities across California are facing an unprecedented economic crisis and jobs come first.”

Clegg said Villaraigosa is putting the needs of his city before his personal political fortunes by trying to pull together an agreement that would require labor unions to give back some hard-earned gains in order to save jobs and services in Los Angeles.

“This is a leadership moment. Antonio Villaraigosa is not going to Twitter while Rome burns,” Clegg said -- a clear shot at the other mayor who would be governor: San Francisco's Gavin Newsom.

At the same time, a Tulchin Research/Acosta|Salazar pre-convention poll (which is three weeks out, but released on convention eve) shows Villaraigosa slipping. The poll had Garamendi in the race at the time.

Tulchin Research/Acosta|Salazar +/- 4.5% (Mar. 31-Apr. 2)
Brown 31%
Newsom 16%
Villaraigosa 12%
Garamendi 11%
O'Connell 6%
Other 4%
Undecided 20%

Obviously, that top-line support is soft, with 1 in 5 undecided. But I'm frankly surprised how quickly this is turning into a two-horse race, which could actually open the door for a progressive movement candidate, if one existed. But alas...

Anyway, those are just a couple of the issues we'll see unfold. Stay with us throughout the weekend.

(I've teed up a few posts while I'm on the ride, but it'll be a light post day until late afternoon)

DFA Steps Up For True Grassroots Progress In California

I am both surprised and heartened to see DFA send their members in California information about the race for Controller of the California Democratic Party. Simply put, this is not a front-burner issue for most progressives, especially those not at the activist level inside the Party. But it's no less important, and in fact reforming the party and making it more attentive to grassroots concerns is paramount if we want to get back to leading the nation instead of lagging behind it. Let me reprint some of the email they sent to their supporters today:

Did you know DFA members first proposed a 58 County Plan to the California Democratic Party (CDP) four years ago? It's true and DFA members have worked hard to help make that commitment a reality.

This month, you have the power to make sure the 58 County Strategy is supported at the top level of the California Democratic Party.

The CDP elects officers on April 25th. DFA members told us months ago about a great grassroots activist running for Party Controller. We've followed the campaign, met the candidate and it's clear that one candidate has earned our unified support.

I'm excited to announce DFA's endorsement of Hilary Crosby for Controller of the California Democratic Party. Only delegates to the CDP can vote, but any DFA member can help Hillary win by making a few calls to delegates or contributing to her campaign.

HELP ELECT HILARY CROSBY CDP CONTROLLER

We're talking about a grassroots movement to elect the Controller of the state party. Crosby's participation at the officer level of the CDP would be a sea change, a real difference-maker in terms of having a voice committed to the 58-county strategy at the table, and willing to follow up with action instead of words. The proof of the past two cycles signals the need for a broader strategy inside the party to win contested seats. And just the model for getting her elected - through a grassroots GOTV process - makes me hopeful that she gets it, and has the right allies to bring about change within the state.

Speaking for myself, I enthusiastically support this effort to help elect Hillary Crosby, in both form and function.

Meet The Candidates: Charlie Brown and Russ Warner

As far as an overall take on the convention I would pretty much associate myself with Robert's remarks. Ultimately these events are more important for the time-honored political practice of networking, of meeting and gathering impressions on colleagues and candidates for the future, not in a formal speech setting but one-on-one. While these endorsement fights and resolutions and platforms get the attention of the activists and insiders, and as well you can pretty fairly judge the activist/establishment gaps in the party in this fashion (the activists got virtually everything they wanted in this convention, particularly with respect to the platform), ultimately it's about people. And at Calitics we were determined to bring that experience right to you by collecting audio and/or video of some of our most promising Congressional candidates.

First up are Charlie Brown and Russ Warner, but before that I wanted to sketch out some of the other candidates I met over the weekend:

1) Bill Durston (CA-03): We have an audio interview with Dr. Durston, an emergency room physician and a Vietnam combat vet. Unfortunately the audio might be a little heavy on the background noise, so let me offer this. While I've heard from some that Durston may be preaching too much to the choir and not going after Dan Lungren supporters, I feel he certainly would be credible if he chose to do that. Durston is pretty progressive, and his views on health care (he supports single payer and does so from experience) and Iraq (he opposed it from the beginning and speaks powerfully on the morality of war) are compelling. As I've been noting, CA-03 is a changing district, with more Democrats than any Republican-held seat in the state, and hopefully more to come before November, so this is an opportunity to offer a real contrast to Dan Lungren and roll the dice. Durston is running on Iraq, health care and the environment (Lungren has a worse environmental record than even Richard Pombo by some measures) and we'll see if he can gather support.

2) Debbie Cook (CA-46): Audio and video of our interview to come. Cook, running against certified loon Dana Rohrabacher in a district mostly in Orange County and part of Long Beach, is running on the environment, but not as an advocate against global warming necessarily. She is on the board of directors of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO-USA), and really is passionate about moving to a post-carbon future and radically reinventing our energy infrastructure. When I asked about carbon taxes or cap and trade systems, she really looked beyond that debate about greenhouse gas emissions and toward a debate about sustainable living. This is about land use, about smart growth, about living closer together, adopting mass transit, eating locally grown foods, reorganizing society to deal with the prospects of a world without as much oil. It's an interesting message for a Congressional campaign, especially when going up against someone who speculates that global warming may have been caused by dinosaur flatulence. But Cook also supports the Repsonsible Plan to End the War in Iraq and understands the post-carbon fight as a national security and an economic issue as well.

3) Russ Warner (CA-26): We have full video of this. I've seen Russ speak on a number of occasions, and let me say that I'm very impressed with his maturation as a candidate. He's more than ready to stand on a stage with David Dreier and go toe-to-toe with him. And there's a new passion to his message, including his belief that the Bush Administration is waging an effort to "destroy this county from the inside out," that is uncompromising. Warner will make Iraq a front-and-center issue in his campaign, along with health care and the economy (his answer on the housing crisis and the financial mess was pretty good). This is a race we'll all be talking about soon.



4) Charlie Brown (CA-04): WE'll have full video of this, but for the moment we have a couple bits and pieces. Listen to this part, when I ask how he'll deal with the expected "anti-government" message from the Republican he'll have to face in November, and you'll see exactly why those military veterans support Brown and rebuke those career politicians who claim to want to represent them.



There's another four-minute clip here.



Overall I think we have an excellent crop of candidates. I was only able to talk briefly with some of them but I'll be following up in the weeks to come. Ultimately the fight for progressive change must not end at a convention but be wrested away at the ballot box. These are some of the leaders trying to do just that.

Clinton About To Speak

Betty Yee from the Board of Equalization is up right now. There's a webcast of the speeches at this link.

Unity is really the overriding theme from the lecturn, and calls for an end to the attacks between the rival campaigns. If Clinton goes in any way negative he's going to be roundly booed.

...The secretary of the party, Reginald Jones-Sawyer, is up now, getting off some good lines on McCain ("he wants 100 years of war... well, he was around at the time of the 100 Year's War") and talking about the need for a Democrat in the governor's mansion. That's going to be a free-for-all, by the way. The 2010 race could feature 6-8 candidates on the Democratic side.

...OK, Bill Clinton is being introduced right now. There's a lot of Hillary visibility in the room and everyone is on their feet. Remember, Clinton won California by 8 points, and the party establishment here adores Bill Clinton.

...President Clinton enters to a standing ovation. He thanks the party chair Art Torres, calling California "the key to America's future."

..."I want to get something out of the way. This has been an utterly amazing election year... we've had unprecedented numbers of people participating... you really didn't have to be against anybody in this election year... there's a reason there's been all this energy... the American people know that the country has to change... we have to restore America's leadership... therefore they have lifted the stakes and energy in this process... there is somehow a suggestion that we're going to weaken this party in the fall.... I didn't win the Democratic primary until June 2, 1992... I was running third in the national opinion polls, and Ross Perot was running first. Six weeks later Al Gore and I were in first place and we never lost it. The fact that we had a vigorous debate in the Democratic primary turned out to be a blessing in disguise."

..."Chill out, we're going to win this election (we meaning Democrats), let's let everyone have their say. I don't know any Democrat who believes that we should continue the current Iraq policy and economic policy. WE want to change the future of this country."

..."Hillary said that if she were elected, she would have someone in the White House to pay attention to concerns in the West, including the interior Mountain West"... now he's ripping on Bush a little. California was better off in the Clinton Administration because we had a Californian organizing things in the White House, unlike Bush. "We have to campaign as a party by running in every state and being a national party. That is Hillary's commitment." Really?

..."More than 1 million of our citizens are facing mortgage foreclosures and a lot of them have never missed a payment... not a single one of these people were told that the mortgage companies were going to turn their mortgages into stock and bid them up or down... Compton, California had the highest rate of foreclosures last year... people only ask 'Can I make the monthly payment.' You should all care about this if you're not a homeowner, because every foreclosure costs Americans money. If we foreclose on a million citizens at a quarter of a million dollars apiece, we're going to be swamped. We need a moratorium, a five-year freeze on foreclosures."

..."If this country can stop Bear Stearns from failure, we can stop a million people from losing their homes... we have learned in this Administration that trickle-down economics is a failure. Most Americans think they're in a recession, and they ARE, but the country isn't in a technical sense. The PEOPLE have had negative economic growth but the businesses haven't." This is a very good policy speech.

..."90% of the benefits of this economic age have gone to the top 10%. We want a country of shared opportunities and shared prosperity. They threw tax cuts at millionaires... like me. When we moved into the White House, we were the poorest family ever to move in. When we got out, I was fortunate and made a lot of money, mostly because you bought my books. All of a sudden, Republicans loved me and gave me tax cuts. It was wrong."

..."I support Hillary because I think she has the best plan to save our economy and support the country for the future. A lot of people look at me during these speeches and think 'He has to say that or he wouldn't be able to go home at night.' And that's probably true. But knowing what I know in my travels and work around the world, I would be here now if we hadn't been married because she's the best candidate I've supported in 40 years." I think her policies will offer more prosperity than my Administration did.

"We have to create more jobs. And the only way to do that in the 21st century is to make a serious commitment to green energy... we need a President who understands that wind and solar energy can electrify America."

"We need to move right away to a 100mpg vehicle." Mentions the X Prize. "We need to take the research arm out of politics and make sure we're funding the research we need. If we can beat the world to the moon, we should be able to beat the world to a car battery."

"There is a reason the American Nurses Association endorsed Hillary, because there is only one plan that fully covers everybody. This is the only wealthy country in the world with the uninsured. We have big corporations joining with labor unions for universal health care." Talks about health care administration and paperwork, recission, pre-existing conditions. Explains Hillary's health care plan. Health care companies spend millions to stop insuring people, and we will make that illegal.

There's a little bit of shouting going on from parts of the room. But it's very localized.

Now talking about changing NCLB, which is well-received in the room. Now he adds about Pell Grants and student loan reform.

NOTHING about foreign policy so far. Ticking off the boxes. Transactional politics. It's pretty wonkish and there aren't a whole lot of applause lines. I think it's well received but the crowd is tuning out just a bit.

... Here we go, "I strongly believe that Hillary will be the strongest commander-in-chief and I'll tell you why. First she'll be the diplomat in chief. The world is mad about more than Iraq. We should be part of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty and Kyoto and the Geneva Conventions. We should say "America is back in the cooperation and diplomacy business... military force only as a last resort... we have to begin immediately getting the troops home from Iraq and getting out of the current conflict... we owe it to the translators and the drivers to come to America, why the Bush Administration is against that is beyond me. She would leave a small special forces group where there is no fighting in case Al Qaeda gets out of hand. No permanent bases, but to stay there as a small stabilizing force." That's not acceptable to me.

"We have almost broken the American military. This is unsustainable, and we have done what we were hired to do. If we do what Sen. McCain says, and stay 100 years, then in 99 years we'll be waiting for the Iraqis to figure out how to split the oil money."

"There is a struggle going on in Afghanistan, and we never gave that country the resources they needed."

"We cannot confuse an unpopular war with the people who served in it and our obligation to them. We have 200,000 homeless vets on the streets. We need a GI Bill for the 21st century." Mentions John Murtha's support."

"I'm going to say one last thing." A Bronx cheer in the crowd. This is a long speech.

He wraps up with who's going to build the best future for America.

He closes with Hillary's advocacy for 9/11 rescue workers who breathed all that crap at Ground Zero. "We need as a President someone who knows what it's like to be ME." I'm surprised she never played this up more.

Debra Bowen Floor Speech

She's a rock star. She's going to receive the "Profile in Courage" award from Ted Kennedy this year. We really couldn't have a better evangelist for the right to vote and election integrity than Debra Bowen.

What I like about Debra is that she's focused like a laser on her core issue, and can explain it in a very lucid way. She has the ability to change the conversation about election reform. And I'm glad she's admitted the mistakes about LA County and the double bubble system and how she can learn from those and other mistakes.

Bowen makes a great point about how she has not taken a position on the election and how she should never have a role in the campaign of any election where she has to certify the results.

"I would like to see in my lifetime an automatic registration system and everyone able to cast a ballot in the manner than is most convenient for them." A very warm reception for Debra.

Liveblogging Convention Sunday

OK, so apparently the two battles for endorsements will happen first, before anything else. Mark Leno is greeting members at the door as they walk into the hall. You're going to have a low-information electorate here doing the voting on these endorsements: I don't know if someone in Fresno has ever heard of Mark Leno or Carole Migden. So the speeches they'll give should be interesting. The same with AD 40 (Blumenfield-Waldman-Healey). Bill Clinton's speech will apparently take place after the endorsement fight. I'll update....

My sense of what's happening on the floor is that people are very turned off by this endorsement process as a whole and will be voting against endorsing Democrats over other Democrats. We'll see if the Progressive caucus has enough juice to pull off that message, along with the Leno supporters on the floor, versus the establishment.

Regarding the Clinton speech, the first several rows of the convention floor are all superdelegates, you if you want to read the tea leaves, look to them. I expect Clinton to be well-received, but he's had foot-in-mouth disease on the campaign trail, so we'll see...

According to hekebolos Ted Kennedy might be making a surprise appearance in support of Barack Obama. I cannot speak to its truth.

...the Hillary visibility extras are massing on the floor. Incidentally, I heard that Phil Donahue's movie, which screened here last night, is uncompromising on Hillary's war vote, and during the time when she talks about it in the film she was booed. The reaction from the audience here to the Big Dog should be interesting.

Right now the volunteers of the year for all the various regions are being announced. And now we have the credentials report. There are 2,018 registered for the convention, which could be important for quorum purposes.

...Christine Pelosi is talking about the party platform. Marriage equality is in there, which is awesome, as well as the party's commitment to a safe and orderly withdrawal from Iraq and single payer healthcare. That's a good platform. And it passed without any incident. Fantastic.

...Inola Henry on the Resolutions Committee reports that the party endorses a no vote on 98 and yes on 99 for the June election, and endorses the recall of Jeff Denham in SD-12. That's great. Prop. 98 would end rent control throughout the state, and it must be stopped. Art Torres says "that's the easiest resolutions report we've ever had."

...SF DA Kamala Harris is about to speak on behalf of Sen. Obama. There's a good amount of Obama visibility. Harris is talking about how her speech up against Bill Clinton is "what this campaign has been about... the audacity of what seems impossible." She continues, "As we celebrate the fact that we are the most diverse, most vibrant and most inclusive party in America, we know that this November we will elect a Democrat as the next President of the United States." DA Harris talks about her family's history in the civil rights movement and how "this is a place that offers us a chance to rise again," and her improbable rise in public service as the first female black district attorney in the state of California. Now she goes into a version of Obama's stump speech. "The next President must be more than simply an improvement on the incumbent... we'll need more than plans... we'll need what former President John Quincy Adams called 'leadership.'" Apparently John Quincy Adams is the only American who's ever used the word "leadership."

...Harris mentions how Obama will appoint judges that will bring balance back to our courts and protect a woman's right to choose. That doesn't usually show up in stump speeches, but it should. Now she's on to talking about ending a culture of fear. She's doing well in the room... also talking about being smart on crime. "We will no longer have to accept the false choice between being tough on crime and vigilant in the protection of justice."

...Harris "Change has only ever come out of crisis." Interesting finishing thought. A lot of Obama supporters are here. There's an Obama chant happening now. Could this be a hostile audience for Bill Clinton?

Day 3 Thoughts

I've been focusing on talking to as many challengers and elected officials as possible. And I get two almost contradictory opinions. The presidential primary is great because it brings new energy and attention to the party and new voters into the process; and yet at the same time, the downballot candidates find it difficult to raise money, secure staff and get attention, because it's all being forced upwards. This is particularly a problem in California, where we think we run the country, sad to say, and where we get hung up on national issues. We have to come back home and take advantage of these opportunities we have at the local level.

The encouraging factor is that we have won the budget conversation in the state legislature, and when I say we, I mean those of us who wanted a posture that finally said no to a cuts-only approach, that focused on the 2/3 requirement and the need to either overturn that legislatively or win at the ballot box. I had the opportunity to have dinner last night with a large group including Asm. Ted Lieu (AD-53), the chair of the Rules Committee, and he was able to designate those targeted seats where we can flip districts (AD-80, AD-78, AD-15) and talk about the oil extraction tax and the yacht loophole in a very direct way. This is the year we take back the conversation over the budget and call the Yacht Party out for their obstructionism. That is very exciting.

Obviously there are the endorsement fights. Outside of the Leno-Migden battle royale, let me just quickly talk about AD-40, which is near where I live: Bob Blumenfield is an associate of Rep. Howard Berman, who kind of runs Valley politics. He reportedly told Lloyd Levine that he had to support Blumenfield to get his endorsement in Levine's State Senate race (in my district of SD-23, against Fran Pavley). Stuart Waldman, who is also running in AD-40, was working for Levine at the time. So Levine fired Waldman and threw his support to Blumenfield. So it's all crappy machine politics of the most odious kind, and it's not limited to Sacramento. Our new leadership in the Senate and Assembly offers some opportunities to change that to an extent, but this is still how California is run for the most part. You're already seeing here the beginning of the 2009 State Party Chair race and the 2010 Governor's race.

That's transactional politics, and it bores me. I'm interested in a transformational politics that changes the conversation and inspires those who don't attend a convention. Getting single payer in the platform is an example. Talking about the 2/3 majority and splitting Prop. 13 is an example. Talking about the budget in a compassionate way, as a document that reflects our priorities, is an example. The rest is bluster.

As I said, we've talked to a number of candidates, and we'll have audio (and video) up in the next few days with Charlie Brown (CA-04), Russ Warner (CA-26), Bill Durston (CA-03) and Debbie Cook (CA-46), who we're interviewing this morning. But I wanted to give the line of the night that I overheard, in a conversation between Russ Warner and Rep. Diane Watson. She was talking about David Dreier's shameful conduct as chair of the Rules Committee under the DeLay machine, where he blocked nearly all Democratic amendments and ran the committee with an iron fist. Watson talked about an anti-terrorism bill the Republicans wanted to pass, and she said to a Republican colleague, "You guys can't tell me from Maxine Waters, how are you going to tell what Middle Easterner is a terrorist?" Classic.

Blogging the CDP Convention: Day 1

So here I am at the CDP Convention. Unfortunately they didn't have WiFi in any of the caucus rooms yesterday, so I wasn't able to update. But there is wireless in the convention hall, so things should go better today.

What is exciting to me is that convention delegates here are passionately attending to the concerns of this state. You would expect a political convention in this charged time for the Democratic Party to have at least some focus on the Hillary-Barack pie fight. However, I was pleased that many of the speakers at the Progressive Caucus, when they weren't talking about superdelegates, were keying in on the $16 billion dollar budget deficit and the ridiculous 2/3 requirement that keeps lawmakers from being able to do their job. Susie Shannon, who heads up the poverty committee, argued that the state not balance its budget on the backs of the poor and the needy, as is de rigeur. Karen Bass put this at the top of the list when she addressed the Progressive Caucus, too. This state is in trouble, and we need the energy and effort of these attendees to be harnessed and focused on that. For too long the needs of the state have been abandoned by people who could be working to ameliorate it. I'm seeing a real change in the air.

In addition, the fact that the platform committee accepted a single payer healthcare plank is ENORMOUS news. I can't say this for certainty, but does any other Democratic platform in the country include single payer? This sets a goal for California progressives to shoot at, and now any meaningful healthcare reform is just a way station to that ultimate goal. With the right governor in 2010, we may even see a single payer system signed into law, although of course what happens at the federal level will inform our choices here. But this gives some momentum nationally for a comprehensive solution to the healthcare crisis.

I hope to catch up with some of our challengers who have a chance to take out Republicans at the state and federal level in November. So far I've chatted with Bill Durston (CA-03), Mary Pallant (CA-24), Nick Leibham (CA-50), Charlie Brown (CA-04), Hannah-Beth Jackson (SD-19), Greg Pettis (AD-80) and Manuel Perez (AD-80). I continue to be very impressed with Manuel Perez; he is a transformational and not a transactional candidate, someone who doesn't just check the boxes of the single-issue groups and vote the right way, but really changes the conversation and fights for progressive change.

There are a bunch of speakers in today's morning session, but the interesting stuff happens off the convention floor. We'll keep bringing it to you.

I Can Horse-Race Too

Let me briefly give you my impressions of how the candidates performed at the CDP Convention. I'm going to rank the candidates in order of accomplishment. Let me say first that there wasn't the massive change in the dynamic at this convention, the way there was in 2003 with Howard Dean's "What I Want To Know" speech. Ultimately the weekend did not change the race fundamentally. And because of the lack of regional changes in state polling, I think that California's new presence in the primary election is still outsized. Nevertheless, I suspect this is how it may go around the country, so here goes:

1. Edwards. And this was the only speech that I missed, the only candidate I didn't see the entire convention. But this is a good recap of his speech and its effects on the delegates. There were less people in attendance on Sunday than Saturday, but those who were there got the most specifics, the most progressive policies, and the most truth. He's willing to cross the third rail by admitting that he may have to hike taxes and not focus so insistently on the deficit.

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund programs such as universal health care.

Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes on “excess profits,” including those made by oil companies.

Edwards said it was more important to level with voters than to worry about the political consequences of advocating higher taxes.

“It’s just the truth,” Edwards said during a news conference following his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. “It’s the only way to fund the things that need to be done.”

I think people appreciate honesty after the past 6 years. And they appreciate someone unafraid enough to take a real stand. And I know I appreciate his call to send the President the same emergency supplemental bill over and over again until teh President gets it. He's internalized the entire critique I've been making about how the President is the one defunding the troops by vetoing the bill. Edwards is of course great on health care and poverty as well. Edwards bringing up grassroots supporters to stand behind him on stage, as opposed to Obama and Clinton having electeds there, is symbolically very significant as well. And he privately met with supporters as well, where he affirmed his strong support for clean money. What's not to like? Not much, as so many people on the floor told me that they were converted by his speech.

2. Obama. This is his wheelhouse, giving a high-profile speech and getting a chance to show off his rhetorical talents. He performed to expectations there, even though much of it would have been familiar to anyone who's heard him speak before. Obama was the only one who didn't give a press conference after his speech, which is interesting. And any caucus where he appeared was locked down and closed off. I'm also a little nervous by the fact that his biggest supporter in the state is Steve Westly. I don't mind Westly so much, but I don't want to see his campaign team anywhere near Obama. Sen. Gloria Romero, another supporter, is great, however.

Obama was strong on the war and doesn't have to explain his vote, so as I said before, if 2008 is about Iraq, he has a major leg up. And he offers a new vision of hope to so many young people, many of whom showed up to see him speak and were a major presence inside and outside the convention center.

3. Richardson. I thought he did extremely well in the hall, actually far better than he did in our blogger meeting, where he looked down a lot and failed to really connect. It seemed like he was practicing his speech for us, reeling off a litany of resume stuff and policy proposals. But in the hall, he was more conversational and funny, like when he told the story of telling his mom he was running for President and she said "President of what?" And he hit high notes with his positions on Iraq and immigration. That said, his gaffe in the press room, saying that Whizzer White couldn't have voted on Roe v. Wade because "wasn't he in the 60s? Roe was in the 80s, right," will be a major hurdle in this party. But in the room, people didn't know that.

4. Clinton. I've given my thoughts on her speech, and they stand. Like I said, I think she has more delegate support than everyone believes, but Iraq remains a stumbling block, possibly fatal. And her stance on immigration, that the undocumented should be taken out of the shadows so they can be tracked and watched as potential terrorist subjects, stuck a really bad chord.

5. Kucinich. Had major support in the room. The sing-songy-ness of his speech just was so whacked out; I saw him speak in 2003 and he now seems like a parody of that guy. But he absolutely had the attention of the hard-core progressive crowd, particularly when he focused on his call to impeach the Vice President. However, these are the type of people who tend to scream and yell but don't quite organize as much as other activists.

6. Dodd. Chris Dodd is a serious, experienced, thoughtful lawmaker and I love him. He made a lot of time for us bloggers and he gave a very nice speech. Not that many people saw it, and those that saw it clapped politely. It's unfortunate; he's a good guy who would make a great President.

7. Gravel. He didn't speak on the floor, but at the Chairman's Welcome Reception on Friday night (which had salt-water taffy when I got there and not much else). I ran into a fellow delegate during his speech, a former political science professor and contemporary of Gravel's. He said to me, "I didn't know this guy was still around!"

Enough said.

Incomplete. joe Biden. Didn't show up. Too busy in South Carolina trying to convince them that Delaware was a slave state and that makes him a real-deal Southerner. His booth was pathetic.

Hey, At Least We Had a Satan-Free Convention

I know there was a lot of bad blood coming out of how the CDP Convention wrapped up, but consider this: that controversy was over how we passed one resolution on Iraq and not another. It's not like it was about something like this:

Don Larsen, chairman of legislative District 65 for the Utah County Republican Party, had submitted a resolution warning that Satan’s minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.

In a speech at the convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants “hate American people” and “are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won’t do.”

Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to “destroy Christian America” and replace it with “a godless new world order — and that is not extremism, that is fact,” Larsen said. […]

Republican officials then allowed speakers to defend and refute the resolution. One speaker, who was identified as “Joe,” said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil. Another, who declined to give her name to the Daily Herald, said illegal immigrants should not be allowed because “they are not going to become Republicans….”

No matter what the intra-party squabbles are, let's understand that the real whackadoos are in that other party. We can resolve differences between ourselves as reasonable people. We don't think Satan is an undocumented immigrant.

Another thing to consider: one of the resolutions that the CDP passed yesterday was in support of high-speed rail, which we learned yesterday that the governor may be trying to defund and effectively stop. One of the resolutions we DIDN'T pass was in support of Clean Money, which actually is moving through the legislative process, with a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. So resolutions pale in comparison to what's really happening in Sacramento. Just a little perspective.

The D-Day Interview: Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson certainly has the qualifications to be President: a Western-state governor, former Congressman, UN Ambassador, Secretary of Energy. He's a superior diplomat, having negotiated with the likes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il, as well as in Darfur. But his positions on issues, particularly by accepting a Republican frame on taxes always being bad, and by saying his model Supreme Court Justice would be the anti-Roe, anti-Miranda Whizzer White, have caused him some problems in the netroots. It was under this backdrop that I and my friends at Calitics sat down with Gov. Richardson for a 15-minute interview before his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. The Governor talked about the US Attorney scandal, a Western strategy for Democrats, energy, health care, Iraq and more. And yes, I used my question to try and pin him down on taxes. Here's a rough rundown of the Q&A.

Q: Talk about the US Attorneys scandal, particularly the firing of David Iglesias from your state of New Mexico.

A: I finally called for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. I gave him a chance to explain himself to the Senate first, but he didn't say that he wouldn't politicize the DoJ. The Attorney General should not be a crony, and he should not take instructions on political issues. I would appoint an AG with law enforcement experience, and also with civil liberties experience; perhaps a distinguished judge. As for Iglesias, I support ethics investigations into Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson. This story is resonating in New Mexico, and I think they'll have a tough time getting re-elected.

Q: Talk about Democratic efforts to win back the West, and why we have a chance.

A: The West is veering Democratic; we used to have 7 Republican governors in the region, now 5 out of 7 Democrats. What has helped? The rise of environmentalism. Sportsmen and hunters are disgusted with the "drill anything" energy policy of the Bush Administration. Smart growth and land use policy (you don't hear about this a lot from a Presidential candidate). Obviously immigration policy and the influx of new Americans has liberalized the West to an extent. There's a tradition of individualism and libertarianism in the West, and the Republican Party has increasingly walked away from those priorities.

Richardson then segued into his energy policies. New Mexico abides by the Kyoto protocols, the only state to do so. He would call for renewable energy standards as mandates and not goals. This can be done through cap-and-trade policies and through tax credits for renewable energy and R&D. "I'm an economic growth Democrat," he said, and he distanced himself from the "politics of redistribution" that he thinks represents the past. He would call for tax cuts for corporations that pay above a prevailing wage. He would implement a 3-year tax abatement for hi-tech companies.

Clearly, Richardson wants to set himself apart from the "tax and spend liberal" image. But I think that's an unnecessary frame. I'm going to go to hekebolos' transcript of my question to the Governor on that subject:

DDay: taxes. We had a PPIC poll in California that said that at least 65% said they would pay higher taxes if it meant they could get healthcare. I want to know how you respond to liberal Democrats who think that the rhetoric about taxation needs to change, about how America is worth paying for and taxes are the price you pay for a free society, instead of the rhetoric about taxes that the Republicans have been successful with.

Richardson: I think that kind of thinking has gotten us in trouble. I would replace the Bush tax cuts with cuts for the middle class and companies that create more jobs. I believe in tax cuts for the country to become green, and I'm for an Apollo program to reduce our dependence on foreign oils There's a huge job market for America in this. And I would ask Americans to sacrifice. I have a fuel-efficient vehicle. I'd double fuel efficiency in ten years. I've got the strongest policy on climate change. There needs to be aggressive mandates. I'd have a cap-and-trade system. On health care I believe you can have a universal plan and I think it can be financed through the existing inefficiencies in the system. 34% goes into bureaucracy and no electronic records. Then I'd do existing reforms, like allow every American to purchase a Congressional healthcare plan. Second, the war in Iraq. I'd shift lots of that to healthcare. I'd also have what Massachussetts and Cali are starting to do-everyone pays their fair share on healthcare, and those that can't, you give them a little subsidy and incentive. Not a tax cut, just hold down insurance costs. More personal responsibility. Taxing the rich to pay for everything won't help.

DDay: would you repeal the AMT?

Richardson: yes, I would fix that.

He made sure to say that "that kind of thinking" gets Democrats in trouble first. As I pointed out in my question, I think the great tax revolt is over. People are willing to fund government in exchange for a government that works. Richardson is, to me, fighting the last war on this.

The next question was about how so many in this country are falling behind economically and how they can be helped. As a side note, Richardson called for a passenger bill of rights, when he talked about a story from a recent plane flight, where a woman said to him, "I'm middle class, and I feel like the rich are taking from me, and the poor are taking from me, and I've got nothing." To me, this is the typical fallacy of "everyone's doing better than I am," but clearly there's a middle-class squeeze going on in the country. Here's the rest of Richardson's answer:

A: I believe in tax equity and tax fairness. The key to everything is education; I propose a minimum wage of $40K/year for teachers, I would extend the school day and the school year, institute universal pre-school and full-day kindergarten. How do you pay for all this, and health care, and energy, and cut taxes? I want a Balanced Budget Amendment and a line-item veto so I can eliminate pork and earmarks. I would deal with corporate welfare, and stop tax breaks for putting jobs overseas. I would mandate PAYGO rules, so you have to come up with revenue offsets for any spending. I would restructure the Bush tax cuts to reorder priorities.

Q: CA is not getting its fair share returned to us from the taxes we pay out.

A: Certainly true in homeland security. California gets the same amount of money as Wyoming. That's wrong; there are more targets here.

Q: What should be done by the Congress on Iraq after the expected veto?

A: Once the veto happens, I would propose legislation to de-authorize the war. It would start a fight with the War Powers Act that would go all the way to the Supreme Court, but we have to go big. There is no electoral downside to this. I would get out this calendar year, but with diplomacy. And I would have no residual troops in Iraq; maybe in the region but not in Iraq. (What about contractors, I asked. "Out!" he said.)

His answer on Iraq was tremendous, and it propelled him to a good reception at the convention. He was also the only candidate to talk specifically about immigration in his speech, and him saying "Tear down the wall" between the US and Mexico was an important thing to say. As a Hispanic, he had a connection on that issue, speaking in Spanish and repeating "Si se puede." But I just think his frame on taxes is flat-wrong and unrealistic. We should be calling for shared sacrifice at some point, to end this fallacy that we can be selfish as a virtue.

Also, most of his team in California is the Jane Harman team. Take that any way you want.

Finally, I want to contrast this blog post with Karen Tumulty's "why aren't you doing better, Bill" horse-race piece. And you wonder why people are looking beyond the traditional media.

CDP Convention: On Net Neutrality

Julia Rosen gives an excellent backgrounder on how the net neutrality resolution was shanghai'd:

Several weeks ago the Party leadership and upper level staff had a conference call lasting several hours to discuss the proposed resolutions. They have these calls prior to every convention. At that meeting they discuss who is on either side of the issue, what the party has at stake and decide what to do about them. They have several choices. The ones they want to have heard are allowed to proceed. All others are either denied due to technicalities, or referred to other committees.

In this case they knew that AT&T, a major party donor and sponsor of the convention, opposed the deal. Since Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker, 1st Vice-Chair of the Party sits on the Executive Board of CWA #9400 they knew about CWA's issues with net neutrality. They also knew that Jim Gordon, Chair of the Labor Caucus, is also with CWA. Thus, they could be assured that the concerns of the organization would be addressed when the resolution is heard at a later date. In addition, one must be a member of a union and a dues paying member of the Labor Caucus to be heard at their meetings. Those supporting net neutrality would be unlikely to have someone to carry this for them at any meeting.

The only way a net neutrality resolution will ever have a chance of being endorsed by the California Democratic Party is to have CWA on board. The focus would have to be on how packets get treated and not deal at all with the issue of big companies like Google helping pay for building out the next generation of high speed in the country. Otherwise the Party leaders will deny us at every turn. Now it is possible to navigate the system and pass a net neutrality resolution, but it will take a lot of effort to make it happen.

The bloggers in California are not big enough and powerful enough to do this alone. We have the respect of the CDP, but not the leverage. We need to cultivate partners that can tap into the activist communities and mobilize people so that we can get an inside-outside strategy the way that progressives did on the impeachment issue. Fortunately, I was told that PDA is going to spend the next year "scaring our membership to death" about net neutrality. "Without net neutrality, we can't organize," I was told. So I think the opportunity is there to coordinate on the issue and get the partners we need. There are good people who want to move forward and take up this fight. I know what Governor Richardson said to us in our private meeting with him (more on that later). "Don't let the telcos swallow you up, because they'll take you out." If you explain this issue to people, it hits them where they live. I'm confident we can duplicate the inside-outside strategy. But it will take an incredible effort.

CDP Convention: The Sour Taste

I thought I'd give a little bit more detail about what happened at the end of the convention, which ended with a quorum call and an abrupt close to business.

Let me first say that I do not have this inflated sense about the importance of CDP resolutions. They reflect the spirit and the passion of the activist community of delegates, but they are not pieces of legislation that can be enforced. They are a nice endorsement for certain issues, and the delegates can feel like they have done something. But they are not binding. It has to amuse me, in a cynical way, that this entire brouhaha is over a nonbinding resolution on Iraq, brought to you by many of the same people who decried the Congress' nonbinding resolution on Iraq.

That said, I do think it's a serious issue from the standpoint of small-d democracy and the ability for the will of the delegation to be expressed, as well as what it bodes for the real structural reforms that are needed in the party.

The facts of the situation are this. There were 13 resolutions voted on at the convention on the final day. This was the very last business done on the floor, and this is fairly typical in an off-year (endorsements, I believe, sometimes come after the resolutions). We've gone over how the resolutions committee did a lot of the work on resolutions before anyone ever got to the convention, making rulings on the 104 resolutions submitted, and in some cases tabling, referring, or directing resolutions as out of order. Eventually the 104 were whittled down to the 13 that went to the floor, the result of many meetings and compromises.

Now, the progressive grassroots, led by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America), really focused their attention on an impeachment resolution. They would maybe say otherwise, but it is undeniable. They worked their tails off and mobilized dozens of supporters to carry banners, flyers, signs, to sit in every committee meeting. They whipped their people up into a frenzy over it. Added to this outside strategy was an inside strategy, using former members of the Resolutions Committee as a liaison to hammer out compromise language that could get the resolution to the floor. They succeeded on their main goal; an "investigations toward impeachment" resolution passed. This was really something of a small miracle, and the result of hard work and serious grassroots action.

But there was a price. All of the energy put into the impeachment resolution took away from many of the other priorities of the Progressive Slate, priorities on which I ran - single-payer health care, clean money, election protection, net neutrality. None of these made it out of committee. Privately, some high-profile PDA members were very angry about this series of events. They considered it wrong to ditch these other important proposals to put all the eggs in the impeachment basket. I would add the 58-county strategy and the Audit Committee proposals to that, which were remanded to a task force for study, despite the fact that a significant number of signatures were collected to bring it to the floor (it couldn't because of that new rule about resolutions which are referred or tabled not allowed to go through that process). Chairman Torres appointed some of the main leaders in creating the Audit Committee proposal to the task force, and seemed sincere in his vow to abide by the wish to look at how the CDP funds races. Stay tuned on that.

Resolutions on Iraq fell somewhere in the middle. The Chairman of the Party and Senate leader Perata had a vested interest in getting the delegates to endorse their language on the Out of Iraq initiative, scheduled to move through the legislative process and onto the February ballot. Here's the key text:

BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party wholeheartedly supports the following statement: "The people of California, in support of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, urge President Bush to end the US occupation of Iraq and immediately begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of all United States combat forces; and further urge President Bush and the United States Congress to provide the necessary diplomatic and non-military assistance to promote peace and stability in Iraq and the Middle East; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party urges other states to follow suit unifying our country in its absolute desire to see an immediate end to the Iraq War and sending the strongest possible message to President Bush and the Republican presidential candidates.

Perata wants to take the resolution to other states as well. And certainly there's a benefit in forcing state Republicans and the Governor to have to take a position on Iraq before 2008 (if the state party uses those votes). But the point is that the party leaders had a vested interest in keeping the Perata resolution clean, without amendments.

But four amendments were offered on the floor. Any delegate can pull the resolution and move to amend, and those amendments are then voted on in turn. It happened with a few of the other resolutions (all the amendments failed, I believe). On this one, two amendments added more specific language; one to cut off funding totally for the occupation of Iraq, and another to de-authorize the legislation that took the country to war. A third amendment changed "Republican presidential candidates" to "all Presidential candidates," and a fourth tried to insert language abut Iran. The fourth one was immediately ruled out of order and not germane.

On the others, the progressive grassroots and the Party leaders forged a compromise that, if it had succeeded, would have had everyone going home with a smile on their face. The Perata bill would go forward without amendment; but then the two substantive amendments, on cutting funding and de-authorization, would become separate resolutions that could be debated and voted on immediately thereafter. Chairman Torres had to suspend the normal rules regarding resolutions to make this happen, and it showed an effort to offer the best of both worlds. Sen. Perata gets his bill endorsed by the Party, and the progressives get their resolutions the full force of passage. A cheer went up in the crowd when this happened. A lot of goodwill was gained in that moment. PDA and their allies would have gone home meeting their goals on Iraq and impeachment, which would not have been expected.

And then, in a moment, it was gone.

Karen Wingard, a regional director from Southern California, in association with Ted Smith, a member of the Resolutions Committee, called for quorum. The rest here:

Someone called for a quorum on the presumption that there wouldn't be a quorum, so no more debate could be conducted and business would be over. When the quorum call was made, they immediately started counting--I barely had time to run from the blogger table back to my region--much less anyone from the hallway.

A lot of people are upset about this--there are people who are saying they expect parliamentary crap like this to be pulled by the Republican party, not by Democrats.

A quorum is 1155, and there are only 623 delegates. No more business can be conducted. The convention is over and we can only hear reports.

All of the goodwill of the previous several minutes was lost. People predisposed to believe the worst about the Party leadership was given the excuse they needed to believe it.

But this didn't appear to be an inside job. Chairman Torres and the leadership wouldn't have negotiated such a compromise in the first place knowing that it would be sabotaged, would he? It made things so much worse, I cannot imagine why he would think to do that. And people we talked to afterwards said that the Chairman was genuinely shocked by the turn of events. Once quorum is called, counting must go on; he cannot overturn a bylaw, only a rule. So the die was cast.

Anyone can make a quorum call. The reasons for it can only be speculative on my part. Calitics calls on those who pursued this divisive strategy to subvert small-d democracy and silence the will of the remaining delegates to come forward and explain exactly why they felt the need to do so.

The other thing that must be discussed here is that the underlying structure of the convention lends itself for this kind of thing to happen. Resolutions are done last, and in this example, this was the last resolution discussed. There were less reasons for delegates to stay as the day wore on. If the resolutions are supposed to reflect the spirit of all the delegates, it seems to me that the Party could make a good-faith effort to not make them an afterthought by putting them dead last.

Like I said, resolutions aren't bound with the force of law. But they mean something on at least a spiritual level to a great many activists and people who bring so much energy and effort to the Party. Furthermore, the suspicion that there isn't enough transparency in how the Party does business is already there. This "sour taste" allowed many progressives to believe everything they already wanted to believe. We have an opportune moment in America, where new activists are interested and excited by the prospect of real progressive change, and are getting involved for the very first time. The CDP needs to respect and honor that.

Our next steps in the progressive movement are to continue to work within the system, PRIORITIZE AND UNIFY, connect and communicate and grow, polish up on our Roberts Rules of Order, win more AD elections and County Committee slots, elect candidates that will appoint progressives, sit on the task force that can ensure a 58-county strategy and financial transparency, and make sure that those who would rather stifle debate than lead are held accountable.

Update on Net Neutrality

Net neutrality, as a resolution for this convention, is in effect dead. The resolution has been referred to the Labor Caucus, and that ruling will stand.

Now there is some good news. Brad Parker, a member of PDA and a staunch supporter of Net Neutrality, is on the Labor Caucus. He has spoken to people on that caucus and people on the Resolutions Committee, and he believes that he can get a strong resolution to the floor by the next convention. So it's a waiting game.

What has not been resolved is the idea that you can refer a resolution to a caucus, which as I said is unprecedented. Parker intends to take it up in the Resolutions Committee happening right now, and if not there then in the Rules Committee. The shenanigans pulled here were unconscionable.

About the impeachment resolution: there is no doubt in my mind that the new substitute language will become one of the top 10 resolutions brought to the floor tomorrow. The Resolutions Committee members would not be able to leave that room if they didn't place it in the top 10.

No word on getting the Audit Committee to a floor vote, I'll check on that.

And the Calitics staff did an exclusive interview with Sen. Christopher Dodd, we should have something on that (with pics) soon.

Notes from the Convention Floor: Obama, Dodd

The bottom line is this: if Iraq is the only issue in 2008, and it's extremely likely that it will be, then Barack Obama will win the nomination. He is unassailable on the issue, and his rhetoric on it is pitch-perfect. Even though I've seen the "greatest hits" version of his stump speech a couple times before, the Iraq stuff was new, and it was powerful. I agree with hekebelos that "This (election) isn't about the 'same old politics.' We can change the way Washington works, but for hell's sake, this isn't just about how Washington works. It's about reversing evil ideologies."

I was curious to see how the whole Obama idea of "a new kind of politics" would play in a political convention. But people loved it. There is a certain cynicism with the system, and anyone willing to call it out is going to be appreciated. I agree that most of the examples he gives about the smallness of politics are essentially the platform of the Republican Party. He should not be afraid to be a proud Democrat that talks about the change that the party can bring.

But then there are these quotes, which I absolutely loved:

"People who love their country can change it."

"Change always happens from the bottom up."

Obama passed the test for this convention, and his stance on Iraq will serve him well. If there was a straw poll, I think he'd win.

(Confidentially, the presence of John Edwards is embarrassingly low at this event. He's dropping the ball)

Chris Dodd is a nice man, and he thundered in his speech. The media shut off their cameras and moved on. Kinda lame. He gives a good speech, and he is authoritative on talking about foreign policy and domestic issues. I liked the part about him explaining why he joined the Peace Corps, "Because my President told me to."

More in a bit