Lakeland native Kay Hagan wins Senate seat held by Elizabeth Dole

Photo by Ellen Ozier, Reuters

Democrat Kay Hagan defeated incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina's bitterly contested Senate race Tuesday, unseating one of the best known figures in the U.S. Senate.

In her victory speech, Hagan called her win "a testament to how hungry people are for a change." (Fredreka Schouten, USA Today)

More . . . .

Lakeland crowd helps snag NC U.S. Senate seat

Democrats make gains in NC amid startling changes

Campaign website: Kay Hagan for U.S. Senate

Wikipedia: Kay Hagan

When the going gets tough . . .

Republicans occasionally expose the hate that, when things are going their way, they keep hidden behind the sheets:

Top Tampa GOP Figure Circulates Joke About Killing Obama

McCain Campaign compares Obama to Hitler

Marianna teacher "told students what 'CHANGE' stood for"

Altered Obama photo in GOP club newsletter sparks outrage

A rage no one should be stoking

Update, Oct.18:

ORLANDO -- Echoing the angry rhetoric from the party's conservative base, Florida's top Republicans on Saturday warned that Barack Obama's "Marxist" plans would "kill" the economy. [....]

Paul Senft, a national committee member from Polk County, said, "There are those who come to this country to get away from socialism," he said before referring to Obama's tax and health care plans. "It's Marxist. It's communist. But let's just call it socialism."
-
Fla. GOP Assails Obama's Proposals

Bee stings and Dem bats

When the rules division of the Democratic Party used baseball bats to attack the bees in their bonnets - the Florida and Michigan primaries - good sense flew out the kitchen window. In swinging the bats with a single-minded determination to squash anything that challenged the system that suited them, the housekeepers failed to consider the logical consequences of overkill. Now the dishes are broken but the bees are buzzing.

The damage done is yet to be measured, and the pooh-bahs show little imagination in dealing with the mess they created. They can't decide whether to wring their bats or swing their hands. Chances are, by the time they resolve the issue, another opportunity to win the presidency and build the party could be a fading hope.

What's done cannot be undone. An unfair process cannot be faired-up with hastily contrived do-overs designed to favor one candidate over another. Yet the party elite are determined to do something, anything, to relieve the media-fanned heat that is being belched into the atmosphere by supporters of Clinton and McCain. Those two candidates alone - not any other candidate and not the voters - stand to gain from a prolonged primary battle among Democrats. Clinton is even more unlikely to win the nomination without Florida or Michigan, and McCain almost certainly cannot win the general election unless he faces a divided Democratic Party.

So, the power brokers will wipe the sweat from their upper lips, double down on previous mistakes and roll the dice - all the while pretending to be problem solvers and small-d democrats.

Whatever actions are taken to resolve the delegate conflict - or, more likely, to inflate it - the agreement should include at least one element of fairness that would be cheered by many Democrats:

Exclude all members of the DNC Rules Committee, along with the super delegates from Florida and Michigan, from meaningful participation in the party convention. Allowing members of the Rules Committee to retain their positions is rewarding their arrogance and incompetence. In politics, as in medicine, the guiding principle should be, "First, do no harm," a lesson they have yet to learn.

Will the delegate issue be resolved fairly? Sure. On the day Hillary leaves the race and endorses the man who "has one speech in 2002," the man who "happens to be very lucky to be who he is," a black man with a "concept."

Will members of the DNC accept any responsibility for their poor decisions? You bet. When the bats of power are pried from their cold, bee-stung hands.

March 4: Exit day one for Hillary

Even if Hillary Clinton were to win the Democratic nomination (which she won't), she wouldn't win the general election. Going into the campaign last year, she had every advantage, yet she demonstrated a lack of organizational skills and leadership abilities needed to win even half of the votes of those who held her in highest regard, Democratic voters. That being the case, she will never close the deal with independents and Republicans.

If Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, had won more votes in twice as many states, including 10-straight primaries by substantial margins, Democratic muckamucks would be calling for Obama to exit the stage. It's time for somebody to give that message to the Clintons. It's time for Hillary to begin working to unite the Democratic Party - but that's another act she seems incapable of performing. To the contrary, she gives every appearance of hanging onto false hope until the bitter end. As Bill said in South Carolina, "Run every race as if it's your last because if you don't, it could be."


The Clinton strategy through March 4 ... subject to change without notice

• Bill set the stage for March 4 by telling audiences last week, in his best Bubba drawl, "If you help Hillary win Texas and Ohio, most likely she'll be the nominee." That was another of his fabrications to manipulate expectations. Slim wins in either or both states would not put Hillary ahead in the delegate count, and barring a "Huckabee miracle," would do little to put her in the driver's seat to Denver.


• Hillary had trouble choosing her face for the Texas debate but, borrowing a few John Edwards lines, she donned the warm fuzzies persona long enough to make her accusations two days later seem like genuine outrage at wounds inflicted by a two-faced opponent.


• In Ohio, Hillary hit the stage with an orchestrated attack, minus the celestial choir - "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" - then spent the weekend mocking his supporters for their failure to see Obama as a political charlatan. As she demonstrated, Rove's playbook means confusing inattentive voters by being the first to accuse your opponent of doing what you're already guilty of doing.


• In Tuesday's Ohio debate, Hillary will skip the niceties. When the going gets tough, the tough head for the mud pit.


• Until polls (or the actual vote on March 4) prove whether or not the Cleveland maneuver has succeeded with voters, Hillary's supporters and the chattering class will cheer her attacks, something they've been wanting all along. They will marvel at how she's finally found her voice (again, at age 60), she's finally being herself (her true self this time), she's finally found a better way to compete, so never, ever count her out.


• If being Thatcheresque works in the slightest, i. e., the debate audience doesn't boo her off the stage, and Hillary follows up with a win or near-win in either Texas or Ohio next week, the Clinton machine will award her "the greatest comeback in the history of politics" (thank you, James Carville). That will be presented as reason enough to fight all the way to the convention floor or "till the last dog dies," whichever comes first.

Some strategy. After long months on the campaign trail, the establishment candidate is still losing ground. She has failed to grow into the national leader that party elites had expected. Contrary to her slogan, she's not ready to run a campaign on "day one," much less a government.

Hillary Clinton should do the right thing for herself, her party and the country: clean up her act this week in preparation for a graceful exit on March 4.

Democrats cannot unring the bell

"In the big picture of what really matters in the country, this is a very small blip. This is a fight among politicians." - Howard Dean, Oct. 10, 2007, Miami Herald

That statement by the DNC chairman symbolized the political wisdom of Democratic Party insiders and the liberal blogosphere back in the good old days of 2007, when Democrats were giddy at their prospects of wresting the White House from Republican hands. Florida lawmakers had jumped the gun by scheduling an early primary election, making the Florida voter an easy whipping boy for party bosses who showed no restraint with the big sticks and crack of whips. Little forethought was given to the unforeseen consequences of the party's draconian punishment. (Ignorance is rampant in Dems' firing circle)

Warnings of a possible party schism and calls for conciliation were roundly attacked - even by some Florida insiders. Not to worry, they insisted, our votes will too count; Florida delegates will be seated without a fight in Denver; we must support the failed party system as it exists today and fix it at some undetermined time in the future; this "very small blip" will soon be forgotten. Simple suggestions for a compromise, like cutting Florida's delegate count in half and encouraging candidates to campaign here, a la the Republican Party, were ruled out of order. The prevailing attitude was that Flori-duh can't be allowed to screw up another election for the rest of the country. Trust us, we know what we're doing.

So the political experts of the DNC got what they wanted. No leadership surfaced and none was sought to resolve the conflict. January 29 came and went.

Some party insiders who supported Florida's punishment, and that of Michigan, which had suffered a fate similar to Florida's, changed their minds on disenfranchising voters after primaries were held and their candidate "won." Following the February 5 primaries and the collapse of "the inevitable," party bigwigs at long last began to recognize the size of the blips they had created and exacerbated by their undue dependence on superdelegates and an overzealous enforcement of rules. Suddenly, rescue balloons were launched into the rarified atmosphere of the party elite, each caught in a crosswind of competing factions.

What's done is done, the bell is rung, and Democrats have fewer options now than a month ago. The direction they take will likely determine not only the party nominee but the party's fate in November.

Here are four of the paths open to Democrats in upcoming weeks:

(1) If, among pledged delegates, Obama takes a strong lead that Clinton cannot overtake, the majority of superdelegates will flow to him. At that point, something will be done to unite the party and return Florida and Michigan to a state of grace. This is my preference.

(2) If Clinton takes a strong lead among pledged delegates without the help of Florida and Michigan, the superdelegates will move in her direction, and delegates from both states will be seated. So far, however, her comeback efforts are falling short.

(3) If Clinton takes a lead that depends on superdelegates and regular delegates she claims from Florida and Michigan, Obama could be pressured to accept the VP position. Because that scenario would split the party irreparably, Democrats should restrain themselves from heading down that road. Obama, after playing by the rules and gaining the most pledged delegates, could not then be expected to play second fiddle for the sake of party unity. Under those deadlocked conditions, the party would be better served by uniting - as a last resort - around a man who won the popular vote for president eight years ago, Al Gore. Obama could more easily be persuaded to serve with Gore than with Clinton - and Hillary could accomplish more as Leader of the Senate or a Supreme Court justice than she could as VP for either Obama or Gore.

(4) And, if all the best efforts fail to return Florida and Michigan to the fold, we may as well have some fun - perhaps the last fun we'll have before Commander in Chief McCain's first term ends in 2013. My suggestion is that the party convention clear the slate by rejecting every designated delegate and superdelegate from Florida and Michigan, then select and seat an entirely new set of delegates - all unpledged to either candidate, and all selected by sortition:

Sortition, also known as allotment, is a fair method of selection by some form of lottery such as drawing coloured pebbles from a bag. It is used particularly to allot decision makers. In Ancient Athenian Democracy sortition was the primary method for appointing officials, a system that was thought to be one of the principal characteristics of democracy. It is today commonly used to select jurors in Anglo-Saxon based legal systems. - Wikipedia

Considering the Democratic Party's current state of mismanagement, could delegates chosen at random do worse?

'Dazed and Confused' Hillary is shocked again

When Sen. "Ready to Lead on Day One" signed the pledge to boycott Florida's 2008 presidential preference primary, she apparaently had no clue that no convention delegates would be awarded to Democratic candidates based on the Florida vote.

Similarly, when she authorized George Bush to invade Iraq, Hillary had no clue that W. intended to invade Iraq.

Is there a pattern here?

She reminds me of the bingo player who fails to recognize her date's new Camry in the Toyota commercial: "Oh, now I see it. Nice state!"

• Audio: Led Zeppelin, "Dazed and Confused"
• Clinton's Davie celebration divides Democrats
• Do Democrats know how to win?
• Florida's Democratic delegate mess
• H.J. Res. 114 authorizes force against Iraq
• Clinton tries new approach on Iraq vote

Obama looks to America's future

My vote in the Florida presidential preference primary will go to Sen. Barack Obama. In every presidential election from George McGovern in 1972 to John Kerry in 2004, I have voted for Democrats over Republicans - but no vote of mine has ever reflected as much conviction and optimism as the one I am casting for Sen. Obama Tuesday, January 29. (I voted by absentee ballot several days ago.)

Nearly a year ago, February 19, 2007, I ranked the major contenders’ chances of becoming the 2008 Democratic Party’s nominee for president:
1- Gore, 2- Obama, 3- Clinton, 4- Edwards, 5- Richardson, 6-Dodd.

Except for the absence of Al Gore in the race, my perceptions and expectations have changed little in the past year. Admittedly, politics is not Gore's strong suit, as I recognized at the time. (Take Lieberman. Please.) But if we could get inside the 2000 standard-bearer's head and heart, we might find that he shunned the 2008 race because of his intimate knowledge of the Clintons’ political survival skills. It has become obvious in recent weeks of the campaign that Bill and Hillary would have done to Gore what they have done to Obama. Perhaps in remaining clear of the fray, Gore put the country and his party ahead of personal ambition and the bloodletting that would have split Democrats and handed the White House to a Bush clone, regardless of who won the Democratic nomination.

The "ready on day one" candidate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, has demonstrated a level of cynicism that should preclude her from ever seeing day one of a Hillary presidency. Her husband defined the "Clinton doctrine" last week: Run every race as if it's your last because if you don't, it could be your last. Translation: Win today at any cost, then worry tomorrow about staunching the wounds.

I have supported and defended Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1992, despite my disagreements with them on many policy issues. After viewing the first couple of presidential debates, I was leaning strongly toward Hillary because of her demonstrated knowledge of the issues, although I still questioned her judgment on the most critical issue of our time – the Iraq War. In the past three weeks, however, she has lost whatever support I had for her, and I see no chance of her ever regaining it.

When the Iowa caucuses made Hillary's nomination less than inevitable, the Clintons pulled out the old reliable playbook of fear, division and intimidation. South Carolina rejected that strategy, but the stage has been set for future primaries where voters have not witnessed the tactics close up, and where name recognition and the economy of the 1990’s give her a distinct advantage, deserved or not. The Clintons will dismiss their own underhanded tactics as hardball politics, yesterday’s news, media eruptions or manipulation by the Obama campaign. They will attempt to bring the competition down to their level. As Hillary quipped following a heated exchange at the last debate, “We’re just warming up.” Coming from a woman who spent the past 33 years sparring with Bill Clinton, that’s a warning to take seriously. But ready to be president on day one? No.

Sen. John Edwards has added an edge to his stump speech and honed his message, yet he has not become a serious contender. If he wants to see a Democrat in the White House, and I believe that he does, he should at some point make a deal with Obama to deny the nomination to Clinton. He could accomplish more as Attorney General, or another office of his choice, than he could as a gadfly without a portfolio. If by chance Edwards himself becomes the party nominee, I would support him again, as I did in 2004. This year, however, I am supporting another candidate.

Sen. Barack Obama is my choice for president because he possesses the skills and abilities to unite the country in ways that no other candidate can. He is by no means a perfect man - and he makes no claim that he will know everything on day one - but he demonstrates an expansive grasp of the issues, the good sense to bring people together for a common purpose, and the judgment to make wise decisions on matters of monumental significance, like going to war. As no other leader has done since the 1960’s, Barack Obama engenders hope for a brighter future. I trust him when he speaks, and I believe in his potential to achieve great things for this country. That’s all I can ask.

Ignorance is rampant in Dems' firing circle

Howard Dean, DNC Chairman:

"Do I wish this fight weren't happening? Yes," he said during a fundraising trip to Tallahassee. "In the big picture of what really matters in the country, this is a very small blip. This is a fight among politicians." - Oct. 10, 2007, Miami Herald

What a profoundly ignorant statement by a man whose claim to fame is his own failed primary campaign of 2004. Good show while it lasted, but without it, few people outside Vermont would know his name today. Even with the Iraq issue on his side, he managed to lose his ass in the great state of Iowa - the same state he's now willing to sacrifice a national election to appease.

Howard Dean, who knows less about Florida politics than he knows about a donkey's bray, calls what he's doing to Florida voters "a very small blip," and "a fight among politicians."

"One way or another, when the votes really count, Floridians' votes are going to count," Dean said. - Oct. 10, TBO.com

It all depends on the meaning of "when," the meaning of "votes," the meaning of "count" and the meaning of "one way or another," doesn't it, Howard?

How patronizing, even repulsive, your comments appear to the people who do "count." Here's your new word for the day: "voters." Why don't you take your arrogance somewhere else. Iowa. South Carolina. Wherever. And raise your money there, if you can.


And the betrayals keep flying . . .


Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House:

"The reality is if you want to know if Florida is going to be seated, ask the Democratic nominee as soon as one emerges." - Oct. 9, 2007, The Buzz

Great discernment by a leader who, with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, can't change much of anything because her hands are tied by another "very small blip" - that nasty Republican minority.

According to Nancy, only after Florida delegates no longer count can they be counted. So what if November 2008 is too late to convince a few thousand extremely angry Democrats to support the candidate they were denied a role in selecting. A seat in Denver, once it no longer matters, may be good enough for 210 Florida delegates, but it will do little to change thousands of voters' minds.


Donna Brazile, DNC rules committee member:

"Perhaps by 2012 both major parties will commit to reforming the nominating process to give as many people as much of a voice as possible. We're long overdue for a rational system to elect a president of the United States." - Sept. 1, 2007, "Why we stood up to Florida," Washington Post

"Perhaps," indeed. So long as it's not this year, right? I know, I know: rules are rules. Such a long time since 2000, isn't it, Donna? Just not long enough yet, perhaps.


Jon M. Ausman, Florida member of the DNC:

"When elected officials blatantly blame the DNC for enforcing its rules and ignore the complicity of Florida Democratic elected officials in creating this situation they are not serving the Democrats of Florida well. They may get headlines, they may get support, but they are being demagogues rather than leaders." - Aug. 27, 2007, Jon and Donna Ausman, letter to Florida Dems

Good move, Jon. Insult the voters and the Democratic officeholders who managed to "get support" - that is, elected - in a Republican-leaning state. They "get headlines." They are the "demagogues." And they might cost you your seat at the table if they work for Florida voters rather than your personal interests.


Sharon Stroschein, DNC committee member, South Dakota:

"The last thing we want is Democrats not all coming together to elect our Democratic president, so this is not a pleasant thing, but someone has to crack the whip." - St. Pete Times

So now, even party insiders from faraway South Dakota know more about Florida than the elected officials here do. "Perhaps" Sharon has been so successful in filling South Dakota elective offices with Democrats she knows exactly what Florida needs - a little whip action.

Come on, Sharon, admit that the crack of the whip is not all that unpleasant to you.


Carol Fowler, DNC rules committee and chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party:

"It's hard for us to control the states and keep individual state legislatures from going off and doing things, so we needed some sticks. I'm sorry to be the one to say, Florida is not the center of the universe." - The Buzz

Carol.

Please allow me to recommend a little book. It's by Dale Carnegie, and it's very inexpensive.

Seven days in '08 could sink Democrats' hopes

Democratic candidates for president, along with Howard Dean and members of the Democratic National Committee, may think they are battling Florida Democratic officials.

They are not. They are battling four million Democratic voters in Florida -- and a Republican Party delighted by the Democrats' attack on their own party members.

_____

January 29, 2008: The date for Florida's presidential primary. It was established by the state legislature and signed by Gov. Charlie Crist. Republicans controlled both houses that passed the bill, although many Democratic legislators voted for the elections reform package that included a paper trail for ballots, something that most fair-minded voters strongly supported.

February 5, 2008 (one week later): "Super Duper" Tuesday. About two dozen states will hold primaries. Florida could have scheduled its primary for February 5 without penalty.

DNC sanctions imposed for the 7-day infraction: The loss of all 210 delegates who would have represented Florida's primary voters at the Democratic nominating convention in Denver next summer.

In an attempt to enforce party rules with draconian measures, the national party turned a seven-day issue created by Republicans in Florida into a losing strategy for Democrats nationally.


Seven thoughts for Primary Madness Week, Jan. 29 - Feb. 5

• Florida voters did not set the primary date.
  
• Democratic party officials, with no power to impose sanctions upon the Republican legislature, are exacting undue punishment upon Florida Democrats. The attitude, as reflected in official pronouncements (even in the "progressive" blogosphere), seems to be, Hey, who cares what the whiners in Florida think? It's one state among many with "primary envy." We're right, they're wrong; we'll change the rules some day ... maybe ... if we want to. Democratic "demagogues" elected to office in Florida didn't fight hard enough against the early primary. Besides, "Flori-duh" lost us the presidential election in 2000 ... blah, blah, blah; blah, blah, blah.
• Leading Democratic candidates, failing to see beyond their own noses, quickly agreed to boycott the Florida primary.
• The Republican Party will consider a lesser punishment to Florida for breaking their primary calendar, and those responsible for the early primary may not be punished by their party at all (Medals of Freedom, perhaps?). Republican candidates will continue to campaign gleefully in Florida while Democrats appear even more hypocritical by exploiting fund-raising loopholes in their boycott pledge and by sending surrogates to the state.
• Note to DNC headquarters: Florida is a swing state because it is so evenly divided. Small matters (like the butterfly ballot or a third-party candidate) can tip the balance.
• Other important elections at the state and local levels will be affected by voters' attitudes toward the Democratic Party's handling of its self-imposed "primary madness week."
  
• Only seven days - January 29 to February 5 - stand between likely victory and an entirely possible defeat for Democrats. Will Democrats need Florida? Probably. Are they willing to sacrifice everything for one single week of making a point on party rules? Apparently.
  

Who benefits from the Democrats' internecine warfare?

Republicans will use the ill-advised pledge of Democratic candidates to boycott Florida voters as a huge weapon to beat Democrats over the head. Florida is not a state the Democrats can afford to take for granted, especially in a year when Bush has handed us a golden opportunity to swing the state into a more progressive voting pattern.

Adherence to rules for the sake of preserving some misbegotten principle draws attention from the issues that should drive the campaign. It’s like fighting over the words “betray us”: it may not be fair but it’s the reality of politics and media coverage. For some party officials and activists (especially those from outside Florida) to simply cover their eyes and ears - while offering the same old saw on what Florida voters “should do” or “should ignore,” and suggesting that "the primaries will be forgotten by November 2008" - will not influence a single voter to go out and vote for Democrats.


Democrats should focus on winning

Forget who’s right and who's wrong. Beating Republicans is "right;" anything less is "wrong," in my opinion. So modify the damn rules, remove or reduce the inappropriate penalties to Florida voters, and/or change the primary dates for the four "first states." Everyone admits the rules are antiquated and must be changed, anyway, and the changes are needed now, not some future election cycle.

Democrats, please do not let a seven-day gap between Jan. 29 and Feb. 5 become an inpassable bridge of inflexibility, failure and recrimination:

• It's time to ignore the outrage of party "activists" who fear losing their folding chairs, straw hats and party kazoos in Denver more than they fear losing the election.
• It’s time for people like Jon Ausman and Donna Brazille to stop using terms like “demagogues,” "arrogance" and “primary envy” to describe Democrats in Florida who managed to win elections in a deeply divided state.
• It’s time to consider how Floridians are reacting to the monumental snub. Their negative first reactions have the potential of becoming even wider and stronger during the primary season and election campaign - and Republicans know a gift when they see one.
  
• It’s past time for major Democratic candidates to rethink their pledge to appease a handful of party apparatchiks in the DNC and the four states that "wag" the donkey. Republican candidates are already visiting Florida at a record pace, and one can only imagine the media hype come January, when Republicans will be crisscrossing Florida and reminding voters on a daily basis that their Democratic counterparts are somewhere in Iowa building snowmen.

Politics is the art of compromise

All it takes to resolve the problem - and to win the election - is for Democrats to forget how we got here and develop a strategy for winning. Move on. That means revisiting the admittedly outdated rules and the punishment imposed upon Florida voters - and to do it now, not after the third election in a row is lost. Consider 2008, not 2012 or some year in the vague future, as "the year of change.”

To say that we'll all just have to work harder to put a smiley face on the party's mess is whistling past the graveyard. Wavering voters in Florida will depart the Democratic Party in droves next year unless the party gives them a feeling of empowerment. We need something and someone to vote for, rather than against (and George W. Bush will not be in the race, in case party officials have not noticed).

The party faithful in Florida will likely support the Democratic nominee regardless of how the nomination is won, but I am not willing to bet on any candidate's ability to regain support between March and November that is frittered away between October and February. I had thought there was no way that Democrats could lose the 2008 presidential election. Every day the Florida primary issue remains unresolved creates more concern, however.

Is there no leader capable of bridging the gap between Jan. 29 and Feb. 5? It's only seven days, after all.

_____

Update, Oct. 7, 2007--The St. Pete Times reviews how we got here:

• Florida faces a primary problem

A better title would be, "The Democratic Party faces a general election problem."

Florida Dems take the only defensible option

TALLAHASSEE | The Florida Democratic Party will stick with a Jan. 29 presidential primary even if it means losing all its nominating convention delegates, a party source said Saturday.

The Democratic National Committee gave the state party until Sept. 29 to come up with an alternative delegate selection plan to stay within party rules, such as caucuses or a vote-by-mail primary, but party leadership has rejected that idea. - AP - Sep 22, 7:34 PM EDT

Three cheers for the Florida Democratic Party! By taking a stand against the losing strategy and inflexibility of the DNC, Florida Democrats may yet salvage some hope for a Democratic victory in 2008.

An invitation to Democratic candidates for president: Please come to Lakeland

Dear Democratic Candidate,

Please visit me in Lakeland, Florida, conveniently located along the I-4 corridor - "the swing part of the swing state." Coming here won't cost you much money (once you're actually in the state), but the effect on your campaign could be substantial. We won't even call it a campaign stop. We'll call it friends sharing ideas while sitting around the kitchen table.

No gun shows, no snow plows, no hay to bale or cows to milk, and no exchange of money - just good, old-fashioned Southern hospitality is all I offer. I'll welcome you to my home, show you how real Floridians live and tell you how we think. I should know: I am a 7th-generation Floridian on both sides of the family.

I have great interest in your plans for the country - and your plans for winning in 2008. And, you can look me in the eye while hearing my point of view. I assure you that my opinions are as simple - and heartfelt - as those you will hear in Iowa, New Hampshire, or any other state.

So, please accept my invitation to visit Lakeland soon. It's a trip you could be celebrating long after all the votes are counted.

Cordially,
A Florida Democrat

[See Thompson to campaign in Lakeland]

Do Democrats know how to win?

In their pledge to boycott Florida voters (but not their money), the leading Democratic candidates for president made a short-sighted political judgment.

Unless the candidates themselves - and the so-far inflexible Democratic National Committee - act quickly to undo the damage already done to the party in Florida, Democrats will have little chance of winning the state in 2008.

Forget all the arguments about loopholes in "the pledge," caucuses, party conventions and who's at fault for the party's internecine warfare. Florida voters - who had absolutely no role in selecting a primary date - will not and should not react positively to anyone, anywhere, at any time telling them how they should respond to being told their vote - any vote - will not be honored.

For those within our own party who refer to the voters of Florida as "whiners" who tried and failed to break party rules, don't judge us until your own vote is rendered meaningless, whether by incompetence, theft, the Supreme Court or your own party.

Whether it is cast in January or November, our vote is sacred. If Democrats do not unite around that simple truth, party insiders can continue the power struggle and the blame game that has already begun - straight through another unbearable defeat for Democrats fourteen months from now.

Democrats keep burning their bridges

In recent days, leaders of the Democratic Party made the decision to back the party bus over Florida voters before they set out on their four-state tour to glory.

It seems the same road crew that thought all they had to do in 2004 was to rev their engines in Iowa and New Hampshire, then cruise into the White House, is again celebrating a victory, even before the green flag is dropped - and they plan to win the race without passing through Florida.

Adios, 50-state strategy.

In a strange twist of logic, Florida became irrelevant to the participatory process of selecting a presidential nominee when the state established its primary election for January 29, 2008 - one whole week earlier than national party rules suggested. Outrage exploded within the Democratic National Committee because Florida Democrats, a minority in the Republican-dominated state legislature, "didn't fight hard enough" against the earlier date. Enforcers back at company headquarters, duty bound to teach the renegades a harsh lesson, waved the black flag for rogue behavior: instant disqualification.

The chosen methods of enhanced punishment were not only to deny Florida's right to send even one delegate to the national nominating convention, but to whack voters again by pressuring presidential candidates into boycotting the state entirely. Except for their money, Democrats in Florida would cease to exist until their votes were needed in November 2008.

It took the Democratic Party to turn the Sunshine State into No Man's Land - not even a nice place to visit in January, except for a quick stopover to refresh the tan and replenish the bank account.


Today presidential candidates Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Obama and Richardson, raising doubts of their leadership skills and political acumen to lead the country, burned their bridges to Florida and locked themselves in a party bus careening out of control.

Incredibly, a group of politicians who want to lead the free world was easily manipulated by party apparatchiks into a decision that could stop every one of them from becoming president. For, as strange as this may seem to them today, the Democratic nominee may - just may - need Florida's electoral votes to win the 2008 general election. And these candidates, of their own volition and in profound ignorance of the Florida voter, signed away their right to campaign here. Unbelievable.

On the bright side, they can count on the "politically-savvy" voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to provide a high-octane boost in the final lap of the race next year. That's the logic of their argument, anyhow.

In explaining their decision, some stressed their support of "real people, not Washington insiders," and explained that snubbing Florida voters is "in the best interests of our party and our nation." (NYT). Spare us the further insult! For just one minute, could one of these politicians stop and ask himself, or herself, how many voters are disgusted by such patronizing pablum?

Some activist Democrats in Florida have concluded that this is politics as usual and the voters either aren't paying attention, don't care now or won't care by next year when election day rolls around. We should ignore the party, win the election (with one arm tied behind our backs) and then concern ourselves with party reform and unity after we've gained the White House.

That could be wishful thinking. If Democrats expect to make gains in Florida next year, along with winning the fall election, national leaders may want to rethink the narrow, outmoded strategy they have adopted. The game will not be won by offending the voters of a swing state in which a handful of votes will determine the winner.

Democrats need a leader to step forward, sooner rather than later, with a clear message: Stop burning bridges to your own party members. You may need them on your return trip to the State of Reality.

Smackdown of Florida Democrats is no solution

Jon M. Ausman, Florida Member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), wrote:

"When elected officials blatantly blame the DNC for enforcing its rules and ignore the complicity of Florida Democratic elected officials in creating this situation they are not serving the Democrats of Florida well. They may get headlines, they may get support, but they are being demagogues rather than leaders.

"It is time for leadership. We represent the Democrats of Florida and since our legislative Democratic elected officials have failed us, we need to make sure that their votes, in caucuses, count."

No, Mr. Ausman, you did not, and do not, represent me. Glaringly, your letter asks not for opinions or suggestions, but for Democrats in Florida to follow your own "leadership," as opposed to the leadership of elected "demagogues."

I am not an elected official, a politician, or someone who aspires to be either: I am a voter in Florida. How the DNC/RBC got us into this internecine slugfest - or what portion of the blame can be attributed to various groups and factions - is not my problem. Remember, I'm just the forgotten Florida voter. But I have observed a few things:

• The Florida smackdown is an ill-advised strategy for the party - assuming your goal is the election of more Democratic candidates (except for the "demagogues" who disagree with you, of course).


• A handful of manipulated caucuses in Iowa - or in Florida, as you suggest - are no substitute for the democratic primary process that Florida, or a group of states on a rotational basis, would provide in selecting the best candidate to win the presidency and unite a badly divided country.


• Tell me again how the "winnowing process" in Iowa and New Hampshire worked terrifically well in 2004. My memory is short on that smashing success.


• When did Nevada and South Carolina become more significant than Florida - or any other state - in the election process? Adding those two states to the early primary mix appears to be, at best, a token nod to needed change.


• If the DNC is determined to punish someone for the mess it has created and mismanaged, I have a suggestion: Censure the state that enacted its own special "law" requiring that its primary vote be held at least two weeks prior to that of the other 49 states.


• The DNC is no more bound by New Hampshire law than by Florida law, or Michigan law, or any other state's laws. Will the DNC, in all its wisdom, perpetuate the tail wagging the dog because that works best for party insiders?


• Yes, "rules are rules" - and we know who created the rules.


• Real democracy abhors edicts from on high.


• In politics, the way things were is never the way things will be.

Please reconsider the course you are taking. Thank you.

DNC to Florida voters: Drop dead

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic National Committee voted today to strip Florida of all its presidential convention delegates, threatening to leave the state without a vote for the party's 2008 nominee unless it delays the date of its presidential primary election. - LA Times

I have a message for the DNC: Ignore my vote in the primary and you risk losing it in the general election.

It's that simple.

If your goal is to win elections, party division is a dumb strategy. Punishing Florida voters for the state's primary date - a date not set by voters - is not only a dangerous game played by backward-looking party insiders, it reflects a misreading of today's political realities.

Despite the DNC's heavy-handed efforts at maintaining the status quo, the winner of Florida's primary will be propelled into a strong position to capture the party's nomination. Recognizing that, any candidate with a prayer of winning Florida will ignore DNC ultimatums and will continue to campaign and raise money in Florida. So much for the DNC power play.

[Sept. 1 update: Further compounding a grievous political error, the party's major candidates promptly capitulated to the wishes of the DNC, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina - a monumental error of judgment.]

Face it, the party's inability to see past Iowa and New Hampshire didn't work in 2004 and it won't work any better in 2008. Whether or not the DNC knows ass from elbow, though, the party's eventual nominee will need to unite the party through the inclusion of all delegates - including Florida delegates - if the damage is to be ameliorated.

Blaming Florida Democrats (or even Florida Republicans) for upsetting the DNC applecart will not attract a single voter to the party's candidates. If committee members cannot see that, you can never formulate a solution to the primary conundrum. Clinging desperately to rules that you created to preserve your own imaginary power is a certain path to your irrelevancy - a struggle perhaps similar to corporate media's failed attempts to hold back the internet tide.

I will not vote for a Republican in 2008. Saturday's DNC decision, however, weakens my faith in the Democrats' ability to lead the country out of Republican hell. If party leaders allow this DNC decision to stand, the party will suffer the consequences at the polls, and deservedly so.

Do not tell me today that party discipline trumps my vote, then pretend tomorrow that you represent my interests. And when you lose the support of party regulars like me, we all lose.

Presidents' Day presidential predictions: Democrats

Yesterday I rated the Republican field of presidential wannabes. Today I'll look at Democrats.

Democrats Ranked by Nomination Probability

1. Al Gore
2. Barack Obama
3. Hillary Clinton
4. John Edwards
5. Bill Richardson
6. Christopher Dodd
7. Wesley Clark
8. Joe Biden
Others: Tom Vilsack, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, et al

Hillary Clinton is peeved by questions about her 2002 Iraq vote: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Clinton told an audience in Dover, N. H. (NYT, Feb. 18, 2007)

That answer includes a reminder she might want to avoid giving us. To write off a group of voters at this point in the campaign seems unthoughtful or overconfident at best. I woulda, coulda, been a Hillary supporter, but ... suddenly she's tougher on me than she was on Bush/Cheney when it would have counted. Her current rhetoric opposing Bush's belligerence toward Iran flows easily. Yet the senator apparently thinks it's just as important to show firmness toward her own party's members who were right in 2002. Frightened to death (again) of the name-calling gang that she - not we - enabled, she's making a bad mistake worse.

I hate to see a person with so much ability lock herself in a triangulation corner, but that was her choice when she not only signed Bush's blank check but gave him the keys to the vault. I don't expect an apology (but I can't speak for the families who paid the ultimate price). If Clinton remains unable to admit her mistake - even after seeing the consequences that many had predicted would ensue from her fateful decision - what does that say about her judgment then, or now? Has she learned nothing?

Barack Obama makes a good speech. The question is, where does he go from there? Although he was correct in voicing opposition to the Iraq invasion, that's one issue of many and in itself not enough to win an election. We have a year to see how he looks in his new "national figure" getup. So far, he's looking good, but can he overtake Hillary?

John Edwards has endured one national race already, but needs to break out in the early primaries if he is to compete nationally. Like Clinton, Edwards trusted Bush's Iraq policy but has at least acknowledged the error. For a man running a populist campaign for the second time in four years, he continues to show discomfort with gay and lesbian issues. That may not hurt him with the majority of voters, but his hesitation to embrace those among us still awaiting full citizenship raises questions about the depth of his understanding of the very principle upon which his candidacy is based: an even shake for all Americans. Perhaps he will get there yet.

Wesley Clark seems late to the game, again. Perhaps he will make it onto someone's ticket as VP. Christopher Dodd is earnest and organized and knows real movie stars. Joe Biden is articulate and clean and ... did I mention articulate? Vilsack and Gravel are tossups for ambassador to a third world country. Kucinich is right on lots of issues, but there's little reason to believe he can improve much on his previous run.

Let's assume for discussion that Clinton, Obama and Edwards divvy up most of the early support. Does the selection process then become a media-driven beauty contest, with the issues secondary, or will voters give the other candidates a closer look?

If they do, Bill Richardson has an impressive resume to consider: U. S. congressman, U. N. ambassador, Energy secretary and New Mexico governor. He is a skilled negotiator and has an Hispanic heritage. Like the others, Richardson has weaknesses, but voters may like his low-key demeanor. After eight years of craziness, people should be ready for a president who appears stable, rational and reasonable.

With so many qualified candidates, how does non-candidate Al Gore make the list? It is entirely possible that no one in the race will have built a commanding lead by fall - and we will be tired of everybody's campaign. That might open an enticing door for Al to walk through - especially if polls at the time give him an edge over other Democrats when each is matched against potential Republican nominees.

Following the 2000 election, I never wanted to see Gore run for office again. But, even with his sometimes irritating style, his god-awful choice of Leiberman as a running mate, and his lack of emphasis on the Clinton-Gore record, Gore did after all win the popular vote. His realistic view of the world is needed now more than ever. I can think of no one better qualified - and I can think of no ticket on the Republican side that beats a Gore-Obama, a Gore-Richardson, or a Gore-"anybody" team in 2008.

To say, as some do, that everyone in the presidential race has as much or more experience than George Bush had in 2000 may be true, but it misses the point. Bush's level of prior experience, his ideological mindset and his psychological makeup are hardly appropriate measures for his successor. "Better" leaves the bar too low. We must elect the best - and that means nominating the best each party has to offer.

Molly Ivins sends a message to Washington Democrats

And by golly, Miss Molly, you speak for me!

A few choice excerpts:

Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake?

• The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out.
• The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it.
• The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage.
• The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich.
• The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
• The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.
• The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax.

That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

Read the entire column here . . . .

• Not.Backing.Hillary.