I wish a real Democratic candidate had said this, but the quote above is from West Wing, Matthew Santos' sppech before the Democratic Convention.
With Caucuses coming up this Tuesday, I will be supporting these candidates at the caucuses and the conventions in March, April, and June (should I get that far).
These candidates embody what I believe we need to keep our nation strong.
They share my hopes, dreams, and values.
They help to inspire me to continue to stand up and keep fighting as a "Blue man" living in a "Red District".
President: Barack Obama
The last 8 years of the Bush Administration have put the squeeze on working and middle class Americans. It was 4 years ago when I first witnessed the power of Obama. Watching the Democratic National Convention, I witnessed his rousing speech.
More than anything, its a message of hope. His campaign will bring more young people to the Democratic Party. I'm ready for change! I am ready for Barack Obama to be our President.
US Senate: Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer
His grassroots campaign snatched me up. I've now seen him at 4 separate DFL events throughout the area, never having someone else represent him, but actually showing up and holding a conversation with the people.
His events are a conversation. As a professor, it would be easy for him to speak down to us as though we are students but Jack's relaxed style breaks down barriers. His vast knowledge on the important issues of the day solidified my support.
He does not merely speak of a problem. He talks about how Senator Nelson-Pallmeyer would fix it. How he would advocate for us in Washington.
Congress, 6th CD: Bob Olson
I have not always been a Bob Olson guy. I was leaning Bob Hill early on. I support candidates of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Olson's one of those guys.
I tend to be more attracted to fire and brimstone liberals, progressives who can jump, yell, chant and rile up a crowd. Following the Olson campaign for several months now, I have truly found that strong and impactful progressives do not need those qualities to be successful.
Olson is grounded in his strong progressive principles. He has the backbone to advocate for us in Washington.
His campaign organization is attractive to me as well. Having ran a race on progressive issues in a not so progressive district, I understand the difficulties of these races. Having Congressional campaigns that pull more resources out of these tough areas makes it tougher on the local races.
Olson's outreach into these areas and their support has been amazing. He's truly party building.
I will caucus for these 3 candidates as far as I can. They are true progressives who push a strong message of change.
I'm ready for some real change around here.
Are you?
2 comments:
You've made the correct choice regarding Obama; I am still open on the Senate, but leaning Franken; and anybody but Congresswoman Bachmann (but she's not in my district.)
I am an independent, so I base my votes on the issues, not the party, not the religion, not the race, not the gender, just the issues.
In the Democrat field there are two clear differences between Obama and Clinton. Foreign Policy and Health Care.
First the President is the decider ... so he decides foreign policy ... Congress impacts domestic programs.
So, if you look at Health Care, Congress is going to have to agree to whatever program is created. Obama's approach of not requiring everyone to buy insurance will be more acceptable to Republicans. Also, he said in last week's California debate that his policy meetings would be open ... even available on be broadcast on C-SPAN ... a little different from the First Lady's approach. Ideally, I would like to see universal health care provided through the government paid via a national sales tax. That may be impossible with the power of the insurance and medical industries, but Obama's approach may be a good first step that could be accomplished in 2009.
Now to the real difference. Look at the Goldwater-Girl ... her votes have supported Bush's policies of agressive confrontation which one gets when one is from the Armed Services Committee. Obama is talking about talking ... it's called Foreign Relations. The basic question is how much do you want to pay for gas ... $4 if its Cheney-lite Clinton, $3 if its Bush-Smart McCain or $2 for Open-minded Obama. Clinton is definitely hawkish ... not only on Iraq and Iran but even Cuba. Read more at my blog.
Regarding the Senate race, Coleman has disappointed me endlessly on the Foreign Relations Committee. I have many commentaries on my blog.
The biggest problem that I have with all three DFLers is there lack of legislative experience. We need people who can work across the aisle and to my knowledge none of them have that.
Franken's biggest problem is his tendency to open with comedy ... but after you get through that and hear him talk about the issues, you realize that he is extremely knowledgable. I have heard him twice on MPR including yesterday's debate. He seems to be more focused on what can be accomplished. JNP has in my opinion an unrealistic approach to resolving the Iraq situtation. Franken seems to be inclined to acknowledging that troops will be need there for awhile, while JNP seems to want troops out immediately. We may not like the civil war that Rumsfeld created, but all the Presidential candidates essentially will leave troops there.
Cerisi's attack on Franken's war stance was ridiculous.
That stated, Franken has the toughest challenge getting voters to accept him, so electibility is an issue.
The surprising thing is that all three candidates agreed to the DFL endorsement system ... so the delegates to the state convention decide the nominee ... not the masses.
Barack Obama is certainly the face of much needed change. The other presidential candidates are more of the same and that is something we certainly can't afford.
Post a Comment