a raven attacking an eagle The Raven's Blog. May the better bird win.
Google


WWW The Raven's Blog

What actually happened at the convention
June 11

That's a bit of a provocative heading (at least I hope so --- you're still reading, right), but basically, I have my own take on why Al Franken won the DFL (Minnesota Democrats) endorsement on the first ballot.

First, for those of you not familiar with how the DFL endorses (it's different in each state), a candidate has to get a supermajority of 60% of voting delegates to become the officially endorsed candidate. That means those candidates get some party help in the primary, like being able to use the party logo and appear at party-organized events. Anybody can run in the primary, but the party endorsement has been a strong predictor of the primary result so far this decade.

I was at the state convention last weekend as a non-voting delegate, so I observed Franken's first ballot win, which was generally considered a surprise, not that he won but that it took only one ballot. My impression, based on conversations, press reports, and of course my own thought process and understanding of Minnesota politics, was that Franken's support going in was broad and shaky. His rival for the endorsement, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, is largely unknown outside DFL activists and maybe even outside the Twin Cities, but he showed himself to be a strong candidate. He's a stronger public speaker than Franken, has staunchly liberal positions including unwavering support for single-payer, and has been able to recruit many loyal and active volunteers. He also hasn't had any bad press, which of course is why Franken's support was shaky. Nelson-Pallmeyer's one weakness was that he hasn't been the target of opposition research (so far as I know --- conceivably as Franken got in trouble, the GOP started investigating him).

My take was that unless Nelson-Pallmeyer thoroughly bombed in the speech and Q&A, his performance didn't really matter. It mattered whether Franken was the seemingly demoralized and worn out candidate who appeared at the congressional district conventions, or the one who picked up such a large following through the first year of the campaign. The last couple months before the convention had been full of bad news for Franken for reason I'm sure I don't need to go into for anyone who has followed the race at all, and there was concern that he had done a poor job of responding. He had responded well to the attacks by the GOP for the first year after he declared, but now he was a GOP punching bag, and confidence had ebbed right at a crucial time. So the endorsement quite possibly hinged on which version of Franken showed up.

The short of it is Franken appeared to have his mojo back. Maybe deciding how to address the Playboy controversy, and giving the full apology rather than spinning or giving one of those "if someone was offended" half-apologies, got the monkey off his back. Whatever, he held his own at the podium. Nelson-Pallmeyer didn't go after him on the Playboy story or other controversial statements, but did point up that he had made the race competitive on a fraction of the funding. Franken handled that well, pointing out that he hadn't spent all the money he raised, but had relied on appearing at every DFL event and meeting voters all over the state in his own grassroots campaign. He has 100,000 individual contributors and doesn't rely on lobbyists for corporate special interests, unlike Coleman. Many of his lines sounded familiar to those who have heard him during the campaign or his radio show, like his statement that the only special interest money he can be accused of taking is "big comedy", and Harold Ramis or Tom Hanks won't be asking for special regulations and earmarks, unlike big coal, big tobacco, etc.

The main question of course was whether he would handle the Playboy controversy, and I thought he did, as apparently did the majority of delegates. Nonetheless many delegates were torn, as I would have been had I had a vote, because Nelson-Pallmeyer showed himself a reasonable claimant to the mantle of Paul Wellstone, being a professor at a small college with a history of activism, and running a grassroots campaign on little money. He earned another shot as a candidate. In fact, He was very similar to Wellstone except for the bad luck of running in a year when another strong candidate wanted the nomination and could run a grassroots campaign, whereas Wellstone ran when better known potential candidates opted against taking on a seemingly unbeatable GOP incumbent. He also gained respect for the graceful way he conceded, taking the podium to move that Franken be elected by acclimation before the results of the first ballot were known. In fact, the results weren't announced, and I knew only because I was sitting next to a delegate who was told by a teller she knew.

In a story that can be my personal brush with celebrity, I saw Franken at the unity party that evening, which was actually the first I've had to speak to him. I told him it was a shame either of them had to lose, which he agreed with having come to respect his opponent, and he mentioned he didn't know why Nelson-Pallmeyer suddenly conceded. I told him I heard he got 62%. Only later did it occur to me that it was slightly absurd that he found this out not through an official channel, but from me, some guy who happened to overhear someone else getting an inside scoop. I didn't really think about it until I mentioned this to another delegate in another conversation, and he found it hilarious. In some ways, it's still Will Rogers' party.

Anyway, though this was the first state convention I attended not counting listening on radio, my impression is that the party got past the divisiveness of both the senate and presidential races. Not 100%, judging by the Nelson-Pallmeyer supporter who called in to Franken on Midday on Monday, but more-so than normal.

Forgive the lack of links to video of the convention speeches, but I'm surprised at not finding any anywhere. If someone knows where video is to be found, please tell me. I mentioned both senate candidates being impressive, but Sen Amy Klobuchar gave a particularly well-received speech too. We also heard from Howard Dean, Mark Ritchie, Tim Walz, James Oberstar, and Steve Sarvi.

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who successfully prosecuted Nazis at Nuremberg for the crime of aggressive war, thereby establishing the precedent that starting a war is, in and of itself, a war crime.

"A refusal to look back inevitably means moving forward in blindness."
Philip Alston, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, on the resistance of the Obama administration to investigating human rights abuses by the Bush administration.

"Why is it that strong women are so often called bullies and ballbreakers, while strong, opinionated men are often called, simply, Justice Scalia."
Salon editor Joan Walsh, on the bigoted attacks on Sonia Sotomayor already on the day of her announcement.

"In Minnesota, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has made military ballot protection a key priority of his Department. The result is that twice as many military ballots are actually cast, and half as many are rejected, as the national average in 2006."
The National Defense Committee, in an article on their web site praising Minnesota's efforts to encourage absentee voting by military personnel stationed overseas.

"We're seeing massive resistance to the cramdown proposal. That's a proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to reschedule a mortgage on a primary residence. They're fighting this thing tooth and nail. Now the fact is, the people fighting it are the last people who should get the ear of anyone. And it goes to show me they haven't really learned any lessons. A lot of these folks--large banks, Wall Street firms--they have the attitude that "Heads I win, tails you lose." No matter what happens, we always get ours."
Rep. Keith Ellison, on how the bailed out banks are fighting against bankruptcy reform.

''Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis,. Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place.''
The late --- and correct --- Paul Wellstone, expressing opposition to repealing the law that prevented financial corporations from entering other types of financial business, like preventing commercial banks from becoming investment banks. This repeal was a large part of making the (collapsing) conglomerates possible.

"The facts revealed reflect the way the U.S. government has consistently tried to cover up the truth of Binyam Mohamed's torture. He was being told he would never leave Guantánamo Bay unless he promised never to discuss his torture, and never sue either the Americans or the British to force disclosure of his mistreatment."
Reprieve Director Clive Stafford Smith, speaking about a British court's ruling that the Bush administration tried to get Mohamed to plead guilty to something, anything, and keep quiet about his treatment as a condition of release.

"We spend hours and hours and hours arguing over $10 million amendments on the floor of the Senate, but there has been no discussion about who has been receiving this $3 trillion."
Sen. Bernie Sanders. I-VT, on the mostly unreported spending by the Federal Reserve to prop up the big financial corporations.

"The AIG scandal is significant and has resonated so powerfully because it is a microscope that enables the public to see what and who has wreaked the destruction that threatens their security and future and, most important of all, to realize that these practices haven't ended and the perpetrators haven't been punished. The opposite is true: those who caused the crisis continue to exert control over what happens and continue to have huge amounts of public money transferred in order to enrich them."
Glenn Greenwald, explaining why the AIG bonus scandal is both symbolic and important.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
Attorney General John Ashcroft, during a principals meeting about torture methods.

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales." Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, who surveyed scientific research from 1965-1979 and showed that contrary to what climate change deniers keep asserting, there was no consensus on global cooling. That means the point that climate scientists must be wrong now because they were wrong then is itself based on a false assumption.

"We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts."
statement on the web site of University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, responding to an assertion by global warming denier George Will that they said sea ice area is the same as 1979.

"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known. But ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin, whose 200th birthday is coming up on February 12.

"The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events. That's just what creationists say can't happen."
evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, commenting on an experiment that was able to observe a mutation that changed one species into another.



Home       About       Contact       Archives       Quotes       A Strand of the Celtic Fringe       Sparkyferguson.net

This letter has been read by the acting president and approved as within his definition of national security.