MyDD :: Platforming It.

Platforming It.

by canadian gal, Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:05:52 PM EST

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and Clintonistas for Obama)

Earlier this week a draft of the 54-page 2008 Democratic National Committee's platform was sent to its committee members. Since the 80's, the real writing of the platform has been done by the campaign of the presumptive nominee. Certainly the document reads more like a stump speech from the Obama campaign than cutting edge reform. This is not surprising.

An Obama aide, Karen Kornbluh, has been designated by the Democratic National Committee as the "Principal Author" of the document. Kornbluh is on leave from Obama's Senate office, where she serves as policy director.

Indeed the platform contains a section on fatherhood, a definition of patriotism, a section detailing Obama's economic stimulus plan, a call for more service, through an expanded AmeriCorps and Peace Corps, and several mentions of hope. The draft's preamble uses the wording "It is time for a change."

The document did however include nods to both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards.

Edwards:
A pledge to elevate poverty eradication as a policy goal. "Working together," the platform states, "we can cut poverty in half within ten years."

Clinton:
Health care

In return for the guarantee, activists dropped a tougher platform amendment seeking a government-run, single-payer system and another amendment explicitly holding out Clinton's plan as the one to follow.

The party now declares itself "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care."

Under any system in play, most people would still put out money for health insurance as they do now, but they would get help when needed.

Despite loud rumblings to amend, there were no changes made to the caucus system. However an extensive section on women's rights was included that uses highly anticipated language many yearned to hear.

We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all.

The Democratic National Convention will vote on it in Denver later this month.

Tags: democratic party platform 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 31 Comments :: Post a Comment

major tips.... (2.00 / 10)

for hearing what i wanted!!!!

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:06:59 PM EST

As always, CG... (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for talking about the big issues that the corporate media refuses to cover. It's sad that they won't even talk about what we Democrats stand for... The same @sshats that parrot the GOP talking point about us "standing for nothing".

But anyways, this looks like a good platform... I'm glad we Hillary Clinton Democrats stood up & made real change for the better. :-)

We shall overcome!

by atdleft on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:49:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Platforming It. (2.00 / 4)

Thank you for this diary!! The caucus system really must be changed........

by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:13:24 PM EST

Re: Platforming It. (none / 0)

Agreed!!! And the health insurance plank isn't enough.

by ellend818 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great news, CG! n/t (2.00 / 5)

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:14:07 PM EST

Re: Platforming It. (1.80 / 5)

I'm sure some will find fault with this. Thanks for the heads up canada!

Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!

by spacemanspiff on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:17:45 PM EST

Re: Platforming It. (2.00 / 4)

CG - Phantom rec'd!

;-)

by snark adam excuse on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:38:03 PM EST

Great diary! (2.00 / 4)

Thanks for keeping us up-to-date!

Another Clintonista against John McCain

by psychodrew on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:38:41 PM EST

The practical effect... (2.00 / 3)

...of eliminating the caucuses would be to reduce the opportunity of second-tier candidates to compete for the nomination and increase the influence of superdelegates/part leaders and the media.

I would argue that's NOT in the best interests of the party.

There should be some kind of hybrid system that doesn't impose a media/name ID litmus test on the field.

by Casuist on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 02:10:17 AM EST

Re: The practical effect... (2.00 / 2)

You can achieve the same goal simply by continuing to let small states have a key role in the process. It's not the caucus system that makes Iowa accessible to candidates without name recognition, it's the fact that it's a relatively small state where you can employ retail politics. That said, I sure hope we can find a way to rotate the early states rather than letting IA and NH dominate the process every year.

My opinion is that first off, it's probably true that the platform isn't the place for debate about rules-type stuff; and second, I think any push for major primary reform should be postponed so that there's adequate time to study the issue and so it's not perceived as mere sore-loserism. There are certainly very, very serious problems with the caucus system, though.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:09:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The practical effect... (2.00 / 1)

Caucuses and primaries measure different things. Primaries measure the breadth of a candidate's support, caucuses measure the depth of that support and the enthusiasm of the supporters.

Since you need both wide support AND enthusiastic support in order to win an election, it's important to have both. Personally, I'd advocate for more states to do what Texas does (more or less) and hold both a primary AND a caucus, with the majority of delegates allocated by the primary, but a significant minority coming from the caucus.

The problem with the system right now, in my view, isn't the existence of caucuses, but the fact that some states have ONLY caucuses (so people who could only vote in primaries in those states are left out) and other states have ONLY primaries (so that there's no measure at all of the enthusiasm of supporters in those states).

by sab39 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:51:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The practical effect... (2.00 / 3)

Well, I disagree with the concept of measuring "depth of support" if it means making it harder for the elderly, shift workers, soldiers overseas, etc to participate in the election. The caucus system screws those who can't take off an entire afternoon or evening to participate in the process, it destroys the notion of a secret ballot and forces people to expose themselves to pressure or adverse consequences based on their vote. These are serious problems.

I don't agree that having both a primary and a caucus, effectively counting the people who can participate in a caucus twice and everyone else once, solves any of those problems. While I respect your opinion, my view is that the Texas method - letting primary voters who can spare an evening come back a few hours later and vote a second time in the exact same election - is just about the stupidest idea for an election I have ever heard. Most Texans seemed vaguely embarrassed that they ended up with such a nonsensical bastardized concept.

Depth of support is already measured in a number of ways. First of all, the people who come out to vote in a primary tend to be more politically involved just by the nature of the process, as opposed to the low-information voters who only know about the general election. Committed supporters are the ones who donate money and volunteer their time, and obviously you can't win without either of those things. As you said yourself, you need enthusiastic support to win an election - and that includes a primary election. So I disagree that "enthusiastic supporters" need to be given an extra vote in order to measure them yet again, not when it results in dilution or nullification of the votes of others.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The practical effect... (none / 0)

Well, I completely agree with you that it's wrong to make it harder for those groups of people to participate in the primary process - which is why I am advocating that states that currently hold caucuses should have a primary as well, in order to ensure that those people CAN participate.

But the goal of the primary process is to produce the strongest candidate for the General, no? Where "strongest" is defined as the best embodiment of the views of the Democratic electorate, AND most electable against the Republican candidate. Both of those things are important; a candidate lacking either one is worse than useless, no matter how good they are on the other.

You're right that enthusiastic supporters are the ones who donate and volunteer their time. And you're right too that money and time are important to win the primary as well as the general election. But the thing about the primary election is that a candidate with name recognition can have a huge head start among low information voters, so in a case like this year where one side had universal name recognition and the other had none, you have one candidate who could quite easily win a primary even without donations or volunteers, while the other candidate needs an extra abundance of both just to break even. In that kind of situation, the primary gives no indication of the relative enthusiasm level at all.

I guess the difference in our opinions lies in the fact that you see the caucuses as somehow "diluting" the vote of those who participate in the primaries; I don't. I'm not thrilled with the idea of superdelegates, but I don't see them as diluting anything, either. A certain percentage of the delegates at the convention are superdelegates, a certain percentage are allocated by primaries, and a certain percentage are allocated by caucuses. (If I had my way it would be a clear 2/3 from primaries and 1/3 from caucuses, all distributed evenly across all the states, with no superdelegates - that would in fact lead to the primaries counting for a GREATER proportion than they do today, far from "diluting" anything).

The primary voters don't get any less of a say just because the most enthusiastic, dedicated voters - the same ones likely to provide financial support and volunteer hours necessary to win the general - can influence the selection of a separate block of delegates too.

by sab39 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The practical effect... (2.00 / 2)

I don't think you've addressed the point that a lot of the people who can't participate in caucuses fail to do so not because of a lack of "enthusiasm," but because they're elderly, shift workers, on duty in Iraq, etc.

I believe there is an understandable impulse among political activists to construct arguments that the votes of people who are more politically active should somehow count more. I think we should try to resist that impulse. Particularly where it's the case that enthusiasm will show up in money and volunteer time anyway, there's really no compelling reason to give people an extra vote just because they happen to have a few more hours of spare time.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:41:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In theory, that is correct,, certainly. (none / 0)

The caucuses are a pain in the ass, no question. I had to take off work and lose a couple of hundred dollars on a Saturday here in Washington State.
In practice, however, the caucuses selected the better candidate in overwhelming numbers, therefore they should stay, at least based on this year's results. The involved voters should always know better.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:52:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In theory, that is correct,, certainly. (2.00 / 1)

Well, I'm certainly not going to take that bait, heh.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well, that's an argument... (none / 0)

...for absentee voting or a system at the caucuses where one may show up, file a preference form, and then leave. Some caucuses make such allowances and such a change to those systems would account for the entirely-legitimate objection that people not be denied participation due to their means.

In contrast to small primaries, caucuses do foster the "depth" of support people are mentioning below... and a sort of local political organization that can be very valuable to the party. For some states the expense of the election is also a meaningful problem. If the party is going to insist upon an election format, will it be obliged to make up some of the difference in funding?

If all states were to hold primaries, that would feed into the false "popular vote" meme. So long as some states hold open primaries and others hold closed primaries the pledged delegate system will be necessary to normalize the results. I don't necessarily changing all states to one or the other system would be a good option.

Again, I'm all for making some tweaks to the caucuses to make them more inclusive, but the demand for doing away with them IS, at present, "sore-loserism," and would be a negative change for the party for the purpose of selecting the best nominee.

by Casuist on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This has always bothered me. (2.00 / 2)

Why don't the Democrats send out mailers that show their platform? I get tons of mail from candidates and from the DNC but I never get one that simply lays out the Democratic platform.

A lot of misconceptions about what we're all about would be thwarted if we would just put out ads and generally publicize our platform. I have a Kucinich pocket constitution, I'd love to have a pocket version of the Democratic platform too.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 03:16:59 AM EST

great point. (2.00 / 1)

why talk about governance when you can talk about if elizaabeth edwards knew about the affair?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:36:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has always bothered me. (2.00 / 1)

i'm really shocked by this comment. most democrats are aware where they can find a copy of the platform, if they are interested. the last one can be found here [PDF]. it's 43 pages.

personally, i applaud the dnc for never having printed out the platform as you suggested. no one ever reads it anyway, and it would be a tremendous waste of resources to mail something that large that no one will ever read to its contributors and activists. like i said, most democrats know where they can find the platform if they want to read it. let's spend dnc funds on things that are effective rather than things that won't change anything...

"I can't change things overnight, but I think I can get us on the right track." -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has always bothered me. (2.00 / 1)

Because if you're vague and confine yourself to slamming your gooper opponent, you give them fewer specific policies to criticize. At any rate, the fine words of the Democratic party platform tend to disperse in the cold wind of political reality like unto dandelions gone to seed. Just ask Bill Clinton.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:57:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has always bothered me. (2.00 / 2)

ReillyDiefenbach - have you ever authored a comment here at mydd that did not disparage the clintons? even if it off topic, like say in this diary you finda way to sneak it in. the reason i ask - is that i have never seen one.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 04:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Platforming It. (2.00 / 2)

GFORD--you are back! Haven't seen you in a while.

Nice platform. AGreed should publicize its contents better.

by wasder on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST

Re: Platforming It. (2.00 / 1)

Good diary.
You're in Toronto, aren't you, CG? Did the explosion affect you last night?

by bottl4 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:50:52 AM EST

thanks... (none / 0)

yes i am - its pretty close to my house and my parents felt their house shake. we havent left the house yet today, but apparently traffic is a bit of a nightmare because 2 of the bigger highways are closed.

pretty scary - they are evacuating the area. thanks for asking bottl!

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:56:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Platforming It. (2.00 / 1)

It was weird not knowing what was going on but hearing all the bangs. Crazy stuff. At least they've confirmed the air quality is fine and they're not worried about that.

by bottl4 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST

Re: Platforming It. (none / 0)

are you also in TO?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:31:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Platforming It. (2.00 / 1)

Yup. I was going to go to Yorkdale mall today, guess not anymore.

by bottl4 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:47:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Platforming It. (2.00 / 1)

eek - yorkdale on a sunday, not pretty anyway. ;)

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: health care (2.00 / 1)

talk about watered down to zip.

quarantee that everybody have affordable health care? give me a break. that is so subjective it's ridiculous: health care is in the eye of the beholder.

the only way to guarantee everybody have health care is to mandate it. as EE said "A health care plan without a mandate is only half a plan."

Obama's plans are zip; the least progressive and skimpy plans ever put forward by a Democrat.

by moevaughn on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:01:12 PM EST

Re: skimpy (none / 0)

correction:

replace the word skimpy with skimpiest

by moevaughn on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.