Eli and Joan are a couple of bored internet millionares who seem to get a kick from hobnobbing with the political set. Their scant few successes only show that this nation is thirsting for progressive leadership. They allowed their website forum to be beset by trolls and right wing flamers and did nothing to rectify the situation. I doubt if there are more than a handful of dedicated activists paying much attention to them. A real shame as they had an opportunity to really make a difference but allowed their momentum to dissipate. The Democratic Party has shown an interest only in electing those within its club and refuse to even allow primaries to play out and allow the will of the people to decide. I give you Paul Hackett in Ohio as a prime example. Not to disparage Sherod Brown but there was a significant groundswell of support for Hackett in that State and Zogby polls showed him doing very, very well against DeWine. Until the leadership of the party, including Reid and Shumer, told donors not to give to Hacketts campaign and, seeing the handwriting on the wall, he withdrew. An Iraqi war veteran, a well spoken and outspoken progressive and he was cast aside like an old shoe. I really truly believe that you waste your time with the Democrats.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Feb 23, 2006 at 5:27:41 PM

  (0+)

As a representative of Progressives Democrats of America I take exception to some of the points you've made. Organizational decision making is a tricky and sometimes frustrating process, and quite often no one comes away from it completely satisfied. The official endorsement of a candidate cannot be rammed through without any regard for the effect it will have on that organization. The tactics employed by the DNC which you decry tend to push an endorsement from the top down regardless of how constituent groups really feel. Instead of being sensitive to the needs of all, the wielding of such power overlooks how delicate the balance of power is in a truly democratic (small "d") organization. It does little good criticizing the efforts of activists and organizers trying to make a difference and struggling to pull together individuals who don't always agree on every issue or every tactic unless you can offer constructive advice on how to overcome such organizational difficulties. It's fine to talk about what should be, but you can only make that assessment fairly when you are deeply involved in the process yourself. If you have done any organizing you should be aware that coalitions are fragile, especially those which cede most of the decision-making authority to their constituent groups to allow for the autonomy of those groups. For an organization that is at the earliest stage of the building process, this is especially true. Some might expect great things from PDA -- things which PDA has the potential to achieve when it has reached a critical mass of membership and support. But to believe that this endorsement process is a make or break element of the success or failure of a particular candidate or an organization when there are so many other factors -- and when the organization in question is limited in terms of the influence it can muster -- seems to me highly unrealistic. While I can understand your frustration, I think it would be wiser to offer constructive solutions. For instance, what should be the criteria for an endorsement? Unanimity? Two-thirds majority? Bare majority? And should all member organizations/chapters be compelled to follow through and support only the candidate endorsed through this process? There are some who say that the only way an endorsement has "teeth" is if all the chapters get on board and work for the officially endorsed candidate, abandoning their own favorite. I don't like that approach myself. In fact, I tend to think little of the endorsement process when it focuses on candidates rather than issues. I would prefer to support candidates who support progressive issues and shun those who don't. I could go on and on about my belief that candidate-based organizing is flawed and rarely yields long-lasting and effective coalitions. I joined PDA because of the issues, not the candidates they support. If this doesn't make sense or it seems impractical, I'd like to point out that there is little evidence that a candidate-based approach has been all that effective in promoting our progressive agenda over the long run. Show me a candidate who is committed to building a progressive movement beyond the day he/she is defeated and I'll show you a very rare individual indeed. And if you do find one and he/she has the right progressive credentials, I will gladly volunteer to help that person. In the end, though, what is an endorsement worth if the organization doing the endorsing lacks sufficient membership? And how do we build membership? This is something that takes time. PDA came together in the summer of 2004. It operates on a shoestring budget. The Pennsylvania organizers for PDA have only been working to recruit and form chapters for roughly a year. Because our structure is grass roots and loosely assembled, we have had to deal with the challenge of effectively networking and communicating. We are volunteers, not paid "professionals". If we fail to measure up to the standards of those who sit on the sidelines and complain about how nothing ever seems to get done, we can only invite our critics to join with us and help make our organization stronger and more responsive. For the record I think the big push for Bob Casey as our senatorial candidate is a woefully bad choice and I'm not afraid to say so. But that's a personal view, not one which my organization can back at this time for one very important reason: we do not have a clear-cut process for arriving at that position. Our organization is new and lacks a framework for making and presenting such a decision to the public. You might call us weaklings and wimps, but we are trying to create a democracy, not a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise. That may be impractical or a sign of weakness, but I would remind you that those looking for strong discipline and a narrow focus need to look no further than the RNC -- or the DNC. Real democracy is much messier and less satisfying for those who want immediate change, but it has the potential to bring a more lasting and far-reaching, fairer kind of change than forced agendas. If you think you can do a better job creating an effective progressive organization or network, I'd be pleased to join and lend what support I can, but I warn you, it's a lot harder than it looks. If you think you can pull together an organization on the force of your will -- or your words -- alone and make that organization actually mean something other than a lot of bluster and bull, I think you need to look a little more closely at how politics actually works. What we need is an effective way to bring together voters who will back up our strong words. We need to get people involved in the actual process of political decision-making, and that means working locally and statewide, interacting with local, county and state committees and building an effective voting bloc. Anything short of that is a waste of time and energy. It's not as glamorous as batting around the big issues, but it's an essential part of the effort to transform society. Right now the mainstream Dems hold the cards, regardless of what we say, but this can change if we make a concerted effort. Mainstream media works against us, so I'm glad we do have alternative media outlets such as this to state our case. Alternative media is a great way to pump up the team and preach to the choir, but it isn't reaching enough people to shift the landscape on its own. It can be effective, however, in steering progressives towards real action and therefore has a potentially vital role in this process. But we need to work together rather than against each other. We need to find ways to make our partnership more effective by applying our energy where it counts -- to the infrastructure of the movement. Isolated voices calling for justice are sometimes heeded, but many united voices can't be ignored. Roger Balson Pennsylvania State Chapter Co-coordinator Progressive Democrats of America

by Roger Balson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Feb 24, 2006 at 11:01:50 AM

  (0+)

This country is in dire need of Progressives right now, not just in Pennsylvania. I feel let down by the Democratic party, and while they are infighting, a Republican cabal is running this country. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and all the other war criminals will tell us how to feel, act, and behave. We must all march to their drummer. It is time for the sheeple to awaken and take back their country. There are a few Dem's that I can agree with most of the time (Feingold especially) but he can't do it alone. The Congresspeople cave to big business, and want to maintain their status. Unless there is change, there doesn't appear to be a chance for the America that we knew. Globalization is here, if we want it or not. After all, don't we have to help complete Bush's "vision"?

by lickspittle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Friday, Feb 24, 2006 at 7:25:41 PM

  (0+)

I don’t think PDA deserves Rob Kall’s vituperation, but it does need to rethink its sudden new policy on endorsements. I’ve attended two PDA conferences in Washington and was happy that our local group in southeastern Pennsylvania, Chester County Democratic Coalition (2CDC), became a PDA chapter. 2CDC believes in bottoms-up organization, and that building consciousness and networks is more important than rushing to endorse candidates. This is just as speakers at the PDA conferences in 1/05 and 9/05 urged. As of 2/06, 2CDC has not decided how to endorse candidates, because we want to put in place a procedure that will ensure that all present and future members of the group feel part of a meaningful process and can live with any endorsement decisions that we do take. Progressives need a democratic process, right? Where Rob writes that “one group says that every local group in PA must endorse a candidate before they will get behind a progressive candidate,” he presumably refers to an item in PDA’s WEEKLY FIELD UPDATE 1 /2 8 /06 entitled “PDA Has Established New ISSUE AND CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY!”: 13. When multiple Chapters within the geographic region covered by the potential endorsement cannot agree on a candidate to endorse, no PDA endorsement shall be made. I personally disagree with that policy. I think local groups should endorse whomever they choose in their own name by their own valid process and PDA should do the same by some sort of poll of chapters. I like a 60% endorsement level, because I think the other 40% can respect it. Requiring all PDA groups to agree on an endorsement is, as Rob says, a recipe for gridlock. I also disagree with many other elements of PDA’s 1/28/06 “update,” such as the efforts to impose top-down procedures on local chapters and to open up local groups to any out-of-area people who wish to come in and vote on an endorsement. I don’t hold these misjudgments against PDA as an organization, but I imagine that a few people at their headquarters had a bright idea that turns out not to be so bright. I hope they will recant. But meanwhile, this discussion should be conducted on the level of principle and how best to build the movement. Just as PDA has taught, we are building for the 2020’s, not just for the next election. All this said, of course, a lot of progressives surely won’t be voting for Casey in May or (if he’s on the ballot) November.

by Nathaniel Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Feb 25, 2006 at 8:07:41 AM

  (0+)