Heidi Li's Potpourri

We have to keep it simple so that the DNC gets it

Politics, and politicians, are all about power. This is true of politicians I prefer and politicians I do not prefer. So the only way to make politicians accountable is to make them fear that they will lose power. Right now, the DNC, the national Democratic Party PAC, is riding high - their preferred candidate wangled the Party's nomination and won the election. (You can learn more about Dr. Dean's latest public pronouncements at this post on The Confluence). This confidence will spill over into the new year as we build up to the inauguration.

There is one immediate way we can prove to the DNC that as Democrats (or former Democrats) we will not be taken for granted by the Party's leadership. We can make a clear, simple statement in terms that the DNC understands: money. The DNC ran up 15 million dollars in debt. Senator Clinton has about eight million dollars in debt. If we get rid of Senator Clinton's debt immediately while the DNC works to eliminate its, the DNC will most definitely take note.

I know that many people are conflicted about donating to Senator Clinton because she campaigned vigorously for Senator Obama or because she may take a position in his administration. But the reason to donate NOW to retire the remaining debt from Senator Clinton's primary is NOT to help Senator Clinton: it is because if that 8 million is retired in a flash, the DNC will immediately realize that they cannot be complacent about what you can be sure they are already thinking about: how to retain power in the next midterm elections and how to get Senator Obama reelected to a second term.

Senator Clinton will make her own decisions, as she always has, about what political steps to take next. And she will take those steps that she thinks will increase her power. She's a politician, and unlike some politicians, has not claimed to be a saint. I for one do not look for sainthood in politicians - that would be a category mistake.

Senator Clinton has to, and will, take responsibility for enhancing her political power. WE have to take responsibility for letting the DNC know that not only are they are not getting our money because times are lean; they are not getting our money because we want to use it to demonstrate, in terms of hard cold cash, that if our choice is to help the DNC or to help the candidate whose supporters the DNC treated with disrespect and disdain, we are helping that candidate. And when we pull it off - when our contributions leave Senator Clinton's primary campaign debt free, we will be able to celebrate not Senator Clinton's power, but our own.

All money donated here at HillaryClinton.com goes to pay down Senator Clinton's primary debt and not for any other purpose. You will not get a T-shirt for your money but you will get a sense of self-respect, and the knowledge that you are working in tandem with others who will be moving ahead toward the goals of keeping political parties more accountable to ALL those whose votes they seek.

A contribution to retire Senator Clinton's debt is a statement to yourself, to others, and to the DNC.

Let's pull off a real upset

Want to create a real November surprise?

Here's my suggestion. Let's get Senator Clinton's primary debt retired but quick - long before the DNC can ditch that 15 million dollar debt David Plouffe is hawking T-shirts for.

The point of doing this is not so much to empower Senator Clinton - ultimately she will have to do that herself, and I confess to sharing some of columnist Bonnie Erbe's puzzlement about Senator Clinton's efforts in that direction.

The point of retiring Senator Clinton's debt is to let the DNC know that many of us Democrats (and former Democrats) do not condone the various tactics the DNC used this election cycle to undermine the franchise of all Americans by consistently interfering with Senator Clinton's right to pursue her Party's nomination no more or less encumbered by the Party than any other candidate.

If we want to get that message across to the DNC, the single best way I can think of to do it is not only to refuse to contribute to the debt the DNC ran up but to relieve the debt of the candidate to whom it did not give a fair shake.

Senator Clinton has about 8 million in debt (after forgiving the 13 million dollars in personal money she lent her campaign) and, yes, 5 million of that is owed to Marc Penn's firm and, yes, I think Penn's firm could have done a better job.

But: part of why Penn's firm has not received a payment since July is because President-elect Obama's fundraising team does not want to see any money raised by them go to Penn, who advocated for tough attacks on Senator Obama during the primary season. According to the Washington Post, "[S]everal fundraisers for Obama said there was a strong conviction inside the Obama camp that they did not want their efforts to benefit Penn, who was Clinton's chief strategist and advocated for the toughest attacks on Obama, according to published reports, during tense internal Clinton campaign debates on strategy."

This seems rather petty considering Senator Clinton's dedication to seeing Senator Obama win the general election.

But there's nothing I can do about other people's pettiness. There is something we can all do to tell the DNC it has lost the automatic loyalty of millions of voters. I know that the folks at the DNC think this is not a problem, as they believe they have replaced those voters with those who turned out to elect Senator Obama. Only time will tell if the freshly minted Democrats are as steadfast as the ones the DNC was willing to kick to the curb.

If you have not contributed $2300 already to Senator Clinton's primary campaign, you can contribute now to retire her primary debt. Believe me, I know money is tight for most Americans right now. But if you've got even five dollars, you can help tell the Democratic Party that you will not be taken for granted. What we can tell the DNC now, within days if enough people step up, is that we prefer to help a politician who displayed loyalty and grace than a political PAC (which is what both the DNC and the RNC are) that displayed neither.

There is not much we can do now to demand reform within the DNC. But we can make a statement in terms all politicians understand by retiring Senator Clinton's debt immediately without giving a care to the DNC's. This is just one step toward showing the DNC that a new voting bloc is forming. But if we take that step decisively we will prove both to the politicians and ourselves that this voting bloc has arrived.

Again, if you did not previously donate $2300 to Senator Clinton's primary run, you are eligible to donate to retire the debt from that effort. All funds raised over here at HillaryClinton.com go to retire the debt and not to any other purpose.

The games go on...

The strangest thing about David Pflouffe's begging for the DNC is that he writes as though there is some sort of difference between President-elect Obama and his campaign and the DNC. Note that Plouffe is actually writing from the DNC (David Plouffe, BarackObama.com <[email protected]>) but speaking as though Senator-Elect Obama is appealing for help for the DNC.

Way back in June, before the Democratic Party had a nominee, the DNC turned itself over to the Obama campaign. So if the DNC is now in debt, that is both the Obama campaign's responsibility and the responsibility of  those in the DNC who thought it was a good idea to merge the Obama campaign with the Party even before Senator Obama was the Party's nominee.

But wait, this gets more comical:

From Yahoo News, some excerpts (emphases mine)

DNC chair faces $15M debt...
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 12, 6:06 pm ET

CHICAGO – The Democratic Party faces a smooth transition as President-elect Barack Obama essentially chooses the next national chairman whose initial task will be retiring a $15 million debt.

Current Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean plans to step down when his four-year term expires in January; he had long vowed to serve only one term. ...

Traditionally, the president selects the national chairman of his own party, and Obama is expected to do so by picking from among his most loyal supporters.

Mentioned as possible candidates are Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, but they also may be under consideration for Obama administration positions. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said Wednesday he's not interested in the DNC job.

It's also possible Obama could select one of his closest political operatives as President Bush did after his 2004 re-election when he installed his former campaign manager Ken Mehlman as chairman.

Obama's team sent a fundraising appeal to backers on Wednesday seeking help in retiring the DNC's debt. The DNC debt includes a $10 million line of credit that the DNC took out in October to help the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as more House and Senate races became competitive.

The last time the DNC showed a postelection debt was 2002, when it reported being $1.3 million in the red. If Obama, who raised more than $640 million, emerges with money in the bank, he could transfer any sum from his campaign account to the DNC.

....

With Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the new DNC chairman will be responsible for reinforcing the White House message, preparing for the 2010 midterm elections and raising money.

So, let's see here. Even before President-elect Obama knows whether he has the a surplus from the $640 million his campaign raised - a surplus that could be used to pay down some or all of the DNC's debt - his senior adviser is writing to us from the DNC asking us to pony up $15 million.

This really is a case of Peter begging others to pay Peter so that Peter will never even have to think about paying for expenses that benefited him.

I am the first to admit that from the perspective of the Democratic Presidential candidate who believes she or he will win, that she or he would prefer a Democratic majority in Congress. Thus, I certainly understand why the Obama-DNC team ran up the debt, since as races tightened apparently Senator Obama was unable to assist candidates directly by making campaign appearances with them or if he did apparently those appearances did not translate into sufficient contributions to those races. Well, the alternative strategy worked, although it drove the DNC into 11 times the debt it was in the last time it was in post-election debt. I even understand why Senator Obama isn't dipping into his campaign coffers to pay the DNC debt - that would mean a dent in those coffers should he choose to run for reelection and since he cannnot know now whether he will be as successful at raising money for himself later, he would rather not risk his own money.

But all this boils down to is that it is better for Barack Obama if Barack Obama can pass off the DNC's debt to willing T-shirt buyers.

Meanwhile I wonder: what about the wonderful, highly touted fundraising talents of Howard Dean? He's stepping down ...and leaving the DNC 15 million dollars in the red. One can only hope that his reward for this fine job will not be an important post in the new administration.

You have GOT to be kidding me....

A friend of mine who decided to continue accepting emails from the DNC and the Obama campaign just forwarded one she received today from David Pflouffe writing from The Democratic Party with  the subject line: "Before anything else". I have to admit, I was intrigued. With the economic woes the country is facing, the wars, the state of the natural environment (all the things people keep telling me matter more than President-elect Obama doing everything he can to redress the problem of underrepresentation of women in American politics; putting Senator Clinton in a position where she can use her talents for the good of the entire country; or speaking up about the anti-gay measures passed in California and Florida), I really thought it might be interesting to see what David Pflouffe wants Democrats to think about or do "Before anything else".

See for yourself:

Before anything else
David Plouffe, BarackObama.com <[email protected]>     Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: S

Our friends at the Democratic National Committee laid it all on the line to bring change this year.

We've been reviewing the books, and the DNC went into considerable debt to secure victory for Barack and Joe. It took unprecedented resources to staff up all 50 states, train field organizers, and build the technology to reach as many swing voters as possible.

It worked.

But it also left the DNC in debt. So before we do anything else, we need to help pay for this winning strategy.

Make a donation of $30 or more now and you'll get a limited edition 2008 Victory T-shirt.

Help the DNC and get a 2008 Victory T-shirt

The DNC's 50-state field strategy was crucial to our campaign's success, as well as victories for Democrats up and down the ballot. Their organizing infrastructure allowed us to compete -- and win -- in states that seemed insurmountable just four years ago.

They took out substantial loans to make it happen. The DNC didn't hold back, and now, neither can we.

You were there for this campaign when we needed to reach out to more voters and compete in more states. Now we're relying on grassroots supporters like you to come through for this movement once again.

We'll get to work transforming this country. But first, we need to take care of the DNC.

Please make a donation of $30 or more today and receive your Obama Victory T-shirt:

https://donate.barackobama.com/victoryshirt

Thank you for everything,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Please donate

     

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003

Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes

What is missing from this picture?

Apparently, women's rights and interests just are not part of the "official" progressive agenda. I am so sorry to be writing this because the Center For American Progres (CAP) is an institution I have supported, by promoting it and by contributing to it. I have great respect for John Podesta who heads CAP and is now serving as President-elect Obama's transition team adviser. CAP has been touted as the source of an agenda for the incoming president and I'm sure it would like to play that role. Over at CAP's website, one finds this, front and foremost:

Suggestions for President-Elect Obama's To-Do List

The Economy...

National Security...

Health Care...

The Climate Crisis...

See any mention of women's rights? Representation of women in government? Empowering women?

While I cannot say I am surprised by this, I can say I am outraged. I can also say that I think "official" progressive voices are acting incredibly stupidly. I think they are blinkered and blindered and have no idea how many Americans will not join their enthusiasm for the President-Elect so long as he and they continue to be silent on the double-standards that continue to render women second class citizens in our own country let alone around the world.

I also know, unfortunately, that in the short term, as "official" progressives bask in the Democratic victory there is almost nothing that can be done to get an Obama administration to take women's issues, rights, and empowerment seriously (let alone gay rights or the rights of D.C. residents to be represented in Congress. We knew that an Obama victory would be taken as license to ignore women's voices; that it would not matter how many women or women's organizations sold their souls (in my opinion) to put a Democrat in the White House. We knew this because we watched an entire primary and general election campaign unfold in which Senator Obama made no commitment to women's empowerment and never once spoke out against the misogyny that ran rampant through this election cycle.

I am ever more convinced that Americans who care about the problem of misogyny and sexism are going to have to use the same methods - resistance, demonstration, noncooperation - that forced white Americans to heed the moral unacceptability of racism and bigotry to get male Americans to heed the moral unacceptability of sexism and racism.

That this level of struggle is required is a tragedy. It is particularly tragic because Senator Obama and the "official" progressive crowd had a golden opportunity to spare us all. This year a progressive woman candidate, who also happens to have stood up repeatedly for women's rights, a woman who has the respect of millions of Americans could have been asked to play a prominent role in Obama administration or in the incoming Senate session. Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. But rather than ask her to play a prominent role, Senator Obama's surrogates have in fact told Senator Clinton that she is out of order for seeking a leadership role on an issue that DOES make the "official" list of progressive causes: health care. (Apparently, it is just too, too presumptious for somebody who won more votes to become the Democratic Party's candidate than any other person in the history of the Democratic Party to expect to be empowered to act in the name of a cause in which she has major expertise. Odd, because it was not considered presumptious by his fellow senators for Senator Obama to run for president as the junior Senator from Illinois with less than 200 days of experience in that position. Oh wait, not odd - Senator Obama is a man, so he was just being a brilliant politician.)

Senator Clinton says her only goal is to be the best Senator from New York she can be and to do what she can to aid Senator Obama's administration. Good for Senator Clinton. She has set goals that she will attain easily - she will be, as she has been, great for the people of New York; and she's proven that she can be of tremendous assistance to Senator Obama, helping him win voters he would otherwise have been likely to lose.

Now, the rest of us will have to set some goals, without the sure knowledge that we can achieve them, without yet even a sure path to how to achieve them. My list:

• Resolved: to continue to refuse to accept that we must live with a politics awash in private money;
• Resolved: to hold the media accountable and demand that they provide full information regardless of the editorial tilt of owners, editors, or reporters.
  
• Resolved: to continue to refuse to accept so-called progressive or liberal leaders who do not make the issues of sexism and misogyny front and central in the fight for a more just America;
• Resolved: to demand reform of the Democratic Party and particularly its leadership, or, in the alternative, work to form a rival to the current DNC if reform is unattainable;
• Resolved: to make sure that the pipeline to elected political leadership is flooded with talented women, so many that eventually no major party will be able to refuse support for a woman at the top of the ticket;
• Resolved: to use the skills and connections forged this season, including the fundraising skills, to support the aforementioned goals.

For a good read on related ideas go here, and here.

I mean it: we need another Hubert Humphrey

Nobody achieves all of his or her goals; nobody is perfect. But read below the excerpts from the U.S. Senate biography, and you will understand why I think our party needs a present-day Hubert Humphrey. I have no idea if there is anybody currently in office who can step up to the task - but, look, Humphrey got his start as a mayor - so you never know where we will find the next politician who combines the right mix of conscience, political savvy, and contrarianism to be the force that Humphrey was.

As Democrats and former Democrats struggle to find a way forward, Humphrey offers an example of a leader whose long career spanned troubled and less troubled periods for the country; a leader who did not attain his all of his highest ambitions but accomplished a great deal of his admirable agenda; a leader who stood up for justice and ended up seeing our government catch up to his stands. If I could I would send every Democrat now scrambling for a position in the new administration a copy of Humphrey's biography, because while he was indeed a deeply ambitious politician he was first a deeply devoted public servant, demonstrating that one can be both.

Hubert H. Humphrey, 38th Vice President (1965-1969) (emphases added)

I did not become vice president with Lyndon Johnson to cause him trouble.
—Hubert H. Humphrey, 1965

As vice president during 1968—arguably the United States' most politically turbulent post-World War II year—Hubert Humphrey faced an excruciating test of statesmanship. During a time of war in Southeast Asia when the stakes for this nation were great, Humphrey confronted an agonizing choice: whether to remain loyal to his president or to the dictates of his conscience. His failure to reconcile these powerful claims cost him the presidency. Yet few men, placed in his position, could have walked so agonizing a tightrope over so polarized a nation.

Near the end of his long career, an Associated Press poll of one thousand congressional administrative assistants cited Hubert Humphrey as the most effective senator of the preceding fifty years. A biographer pronounced him "the premier lawmaker of his generation." Widely recognized during his career as the leading progressive in American public life, the Minnesota senator was often ahead of public opinion—which eventually caught up with him. When it did, he was able to become one of Congress' most constructive legislators and a "trail blazer for civil rights and social justice." His story is one of rich accomplishment and shattering frustration.

...

A Prairie Progressive

The origins of the Minnesotan's "zealous righteousness" can be found in his home state's tradition of agrarian reformism that tenaciously promoted "the disinherited" underdogs at the expense of "the interests." Humphrey personally was a warm, sincere, even "corny" populist, an old-time prairie progressive politically descended from the likes of William Jennings Bryan, George Norris, and Robert La Follette, Sr.

Born in South Dakota in 1911, Humphrey learned his ideology first hand in the persistent agricultural depression of the Midwest during the 1920s and 1930s. He and his family were victims, like so many others, of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression that had evicted them from their home and business. Humphrey's poor, rural upbringing stirred both him and his pharmacist father to become politically conscious, ardent New Dealers. Thus Humphrey was "permanently marked by the Depression," which in turn stimulated him to study and teach college political science in the employ of the New Deal's Works Progress Administration. After Humphrey became an administrator in that agency, the Minnesota Democratic party recognized his oratorical talents and, in their search for "new blood," tapped him as candidate for mayor of Minneapolis. Although he lost his first race in 1943, he succeeded in 1945. This post would prove to be Humphrey's sole executive experience until the time of his vice-presidency. He made the most of it, successfully impressing his reformist principles on organized crime by stretching his mayoral powers to their limit on the strength of his personality and his ability to control the city's various factions.

Hubert Humphrey's mayoral success and visibility propelled him directly into the Senate for a career that would encompass five terms. He was first elected in 1948 after gaining national attention at the Democratic National Convention with his historic plea for civil rights legislation. Although no strong constituency existed for this issue in Minnesota, the position was in line with Humphrey's championing of others among his state's underdogs, including farmers, labor, and small business. In hammering his civil rights plank into the platform, Humphrey helped to bring the breakaway progressive supporters of Henry Wallace back into the Democratic fold, while simultaneously prompting the Dixiecrats to walk out of the convention hall and the party.

In the Senate

Humphrey's headline-grabbing civil rights speech appealed to Minneapolis' liberal community, and his stand in favor of the Marshall Plan and against the Taft-Hartley labor-management relations law attracted the support of farmers and labor. As a result, Minnesota elected a Democrat to the Senate for the first time since 1901. In his first feisty days in the Senate, Humphrey immediately moved to the cutting edge of liberalism by introducing dozens of bills in support of programs to increase aid to schools, expand the Labor Department, rescind corporate tax loopholes, and establish a health insurance program that was eventually enacted a decade and a half later as Medicare. In addition, Humphrey spoke as a freshman senator on hundreds of topics with the ardor of a moralizing reformer. Accustomed to discussing candidly and openly policy matters that disturbed him, the junior senator quickly ran afoul of the Senate's conservative establishment. He found that many senators snubbed him for his support of the Democratic party's 1948 civil rights plank ....

Yet Humphrey, under the guidance of Democratic leader Lyndon Johnson, soon moderated his ways, if not his goals. As New York Times congressional correspondent William S. White observed in his classic study of the early 1950s Senate, Humphrey's

slow ascent to grace was [due to] the clear, but far from simple, fact that he had in him so many latently Senatorial qualities. Not long had he been around before it became evident that, notwithstanding his regrettable past, he had a tactile sense of the moods and the habits and the mind of the place.

By the mid-1950s, Humphrey had moved into the ranks of the Senate's "Inner Club."

....

Out of defeat, the irrepressible Minnesotan snatched senatorial victory by becoming the choice of departing Majority Leader and Vice President-elect Lyndon Johnson for Senate majority whip. Humphrey used his new post to become a driving force in the Senate. Johnson had promoted Humphrey for this leadership position as a reward for his cooperation in the Senate and to solidify a relationship for the benefit of the Kennedy administration. Newly elected Majority Leader Mike Mansfield noted Humphrey's "vibrant personality and phenomenal energy." These traits, coupled with a new-found pragmatism, gained him appointment to the Appropriations Committee and a solid record of legislative accomplishment. Humphrey went on to become a major congressional supporter of a number of New Frontier programs, many of which had been originally outlined in his own bills in the 1950s. Chief among these were the Job Corps, the Peace Corps, an extension of the Food for Peace program, and "a score of progressive measures" pertaining to health, education, and welfare.

Humphrey's role in pressing for the landmark 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union ranks as one of his greatest triumphs. A supporter of disarmament since the 1950s, he helped persuade President Eisenhower to follow the Soviets into a voluntary testing moratorium. Humphrey was a follower of George Kennan's geo-strategic analysis, which counselled a moderate course designed selectively and nonprovocatively to contain Soviet probes into areas vital to the United States. This middle way between provocation and disarmament also encouraged pragmatic negotiations, and Humphrey continued to prod President John F. Kennedy into the more permanent test ban treaty and the establishment of a U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. At the treaty-signing ceremony, President Kennedy recognized Humphrey's years of often lonely efforts, commenting, "Hubert, this is your treaty—and it had better work."

The principal items on Humphrey's longstanding domestic legislative agenda failed to advance significantly until the so-called "Great Society" period that followed Kennedy's death. The first, and perhaps biggest, breakthrough came with passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which he managed in a Senate obstructed by southern filibusterers. In working for that legislation, Humphrey skilfully combined his talent as a soft-spoken, behind-the-scenes negotiator with a rhetorical hard sell focused on the media. Humphrey's subsequent record of legislative achievement was remarkable. With his support, federal aid to farmers and rural areas increased, as did the new food stamp program and foreign-aid food exports that benefited the farms. Congress authorized scholarships, scientific research grants, aid to schools, rehabilitation of dropouts, and vocational guidance. Legislation promoted public power projects, mass transportation, public housing, and greater unemployment benefits.

While the Minnesota senator could claim credit for helping to create millions of jobs, he also reaped the scorn of critics fearful of deficit spending. Humphrey replied that "a balanced budget is a futile dream," which could not be attained anyway until "the world is in balance." Dismissing those "Scrooges" who harbored a "bookkeeper's mentality," Humphrey, a self-proclaimed "jolly Santa," reiterated his priority, people's "needs and desires."

...

Perhaps the key to Humphrey's indefatigable essence was that he placed personal political ambition below his support of a larger agenda. The innumerable bills that he introduced and shepherded through Congress demonstrate that, with Humphrey, the people and their issues came first.

Another drum beat - What the next President can do to empower women

Recently, I wrote that it would be both refreshing and advisable to hear President-Elect Obama commit to bringing the number of women on the Supreme Court in line with the percentage of women in the general population, meaning five women on the High Court, asap.

In addition the President can affect the composition of the federal judiciary at all levels. Although eight years of George W. Bush appointments has stacked the lower federal courts with conservative appointments, mostly youngish men, the next President could pledge now to consider appointing qualified women before adding any further qualified men until the composition of the federal judiciary as whole reflects the proportion of women in the country. A rather cursory web search reveals that women comprise only about 28 per cent of the federal judiciary (District Courts, Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court); women comprise just over 50% of the U.S. population as a whole.

Who will be the current Democratic Party's Hubert Humphrey?

Hubert H. Humphrey

1948 Democratic National Convention Address

In 1948 Hubert Humphrey stopped the tradition in the Democratic Party whereby the Democrats ignored Jim Crow in order to keep in coalition with the Southern States and thereby win elections. Humphrey's speech on behalf fractured the Democratic Party - it had nothing to do with unity and everything to do with justice.

Today's Democratic Party is giddy on the heels of winning the Presidency. But what the Democratic Party needs is a modern-day Hubert Humphrey: somebody who will risk losing political power in the name of justice. We need a modern-day Hubert Humphrey who will use his or her existing political stature to hold the Democratic Party accountable for recognizing women's rights and GBLT rights.

The current President-Elect, Barack Obama, is consistently described as risk-averse and cautious by his supporters.

So now we need a politician who is not risk-averse and cautious, who is brave enough to stand up to his or her own Party and tell it that it can and must do better than it has, and it must start improving immediately. Just as Humphrey voiced controversial ideas to the very successful Democratic Party of FDR, we need a Democrat who will voice controversial ideas to the new Democratic administration.
Humphrey's address appears below (emphases added). You can listen to the speech here.

Mr. Chairman, fellow Democrats, fellow Americans:

I realize that in speaking in behalf of the minority report on civil rights as presented by Congressman DeMiller of Wisconsin that I'm dealing with a charged issue -- with an issue which has been confused by emotionalism on all sides of the fence. I realize that there are here today friends and colleagues of mine, many of them, who feel just as deeply and keenly as I do about this issue and who are yet in complete disagreement with me.

My respect and admiration for these men and their views was great when I came to this convention. It is now far greater because of the sincerity, the courtesy, and the forthrightness with which many of them have argued in our prolonged discussions in the platform committee.

Because of this very great respect -- and because of my profound belief that we have a challenging task to do here -- because good conscience, decent morality, demands it -- I feel I must rise at this time to support a report -- the minority report -- a report that spells out our democracy, a report that the people of this country can and will understand, and a report that they will enthusiastically acclaim on the great issue of civil rights.

Now let me say this at the outset that this proposal is made for no single region. Our proposal is made for no single class, for no single racial or religious group in mind. All of the regions of this country, all of the states have shared in our precious heritage of American freedom. All the states and all the regions have seen at least some of the infringements of that freedom -- all people -- get this -- all people, white and black, all groups, all racial groups have been the victims at time[s] in this nation of -- let me say -- vicious discrimination.

The masterly statement of our keynote speaker, the distinguished United States Senator from Kentucky, Alben Barkley, made that point with great force. Speaking of the founder of our Party, Thomas Jefferson, he said this, and I quote from Alben Barkley:

He did not proclaim that all the white, or the black, or the red, or the yellow men are equal; that all Christian or Jewish men are equal; that all Protestant and Catholic men are equal; that all rich and poor men are equal; that all good and bad men are equal. What he declared was that all men are equal; and the equality which he proclaimed was the equality in the right to enjoy the blessings of free government in which they may participate and to which they have given their support.

Now these words of Senator Barkley’s are appropriate to this convention -- appropriate to this convention of the oldest, the most truly progressive political party in America. From the time of Thomas Jefferson, the time when that immortal American doctrine of individual rights, under just and fairly administered laws, the Democratic Party has tried hard to secure expanding freedoms for all citizens. Oh, yes, I know, other political parties may have talked more about civil rights, but the Democratic party has surely done more about civil rights.

We have made progress -- we've made great progress in every part of this country. We’ve made great progress in the South; we’ve made it in the West, in the North, and in the East. But we must now focus the direction of that progress towards the -- towards the realization of a full program of civil rights to all. This convention must set out more specifically the direction in which our Party efforts are to go.

We can be proud that we can be guided by the courageous trail blazing of two great Democratic Presidents. We can be proud of the fact that our great and beloved immortal leader Franklin Roosevelt gave us guidance. And we be proud of the fact -- we can be proud of the fact that Harry Truman has had the courage to give to the people of America the new emancipation proclamation.

It seems to me -- It seems to me that the Democratic Party needs to to make definite pledges of the kinds suggested in the minority report, to maintain the trust and the confidence placed in it by the people of all races and all sections of this country. Sure, we’re here as Democrats. But my good friends, we’re here as Americans; we’re here as the believers in the principal and the ideology of democracy, and I firmly believe that as men concerned with our country’s future, we must specify in our platform the guarantees which we have mentioned in the minority report.

Yes, this is far more than a Party matter. Every citizen in this country has a stake in the emergence of the United States as a leader in the free world. That world is being challenged by the world of slavery. For us to play our part effectively, we must be in a morally sound position.

We can’t use a double standard -- There’s no room for double standards in American politics -- for measuring our own and other people’s policies. Our demands for democratic practices in other lands will be no more effective than the guarantee of those practices in our own country.

Friends, delegates, I do not believe that there can be any compromise on the guarantees of the civil rights which we have mentioned in the minority report. In spite of my desire for unanimous agreement on the entire platform, in spite of my desire to see everybody here in honest and unanimous agreement, there are some matters which I think must be stated clearly and without qualification. There can be no hedging -- the newspaper headlines are wrong. There will be no hedging, and there will be no watering down -- if you please -- of the instruments and the principals of the civil-rights program.

My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. People -- human beings -- this is the issue of the 20th century. People of all kinds -- all sorts of people -- and these people are looking to America for leadership, and they’re looking to America for precept and example.

My good friends, my fellow Democrats, I ask you for a calm consideration of our historic opportunity. Let us do forget the evil passions and the blindness of the past. In these times of world economic, political, and spiritual -- above all spiritual crisis, we cannot and we must not turn from the path so plainly before us. That path has already lead us through many valleys of the shadow of death. And now is the time to recall those who were left on that path of American freedom.

For all of us here, for the millions who have sent us, for the whole two billion members of the human family, our land is now, more than ever before, the last best hope on earth. And I know that we can, and I know that we shall began [sic] here the fuller and richer realization of that hope, that promise of a land where all men are truly free and equal, and each man uses his freedom and equality wisely well.

My good friends, I ask my Party, I ask the Democratic Party, to march down the high road of progressive democracy. I ask this convention to say in unmistakable terms that we proudly hail, and we courageously support, our President and leader Harry Truman in his great fight for civil rights in America!

Note to readers

I began Heidi Li's Potpourri as an alternative to cluttering friends' email in-boxes with my thoughts and observations about the 2007-08 Democratic primary season and my support for Senator Clinton's bid for the Party's nomination. Gradually, I have expanded the scope of the writing here to go beyond Senator Clinton's candidacy and to consider progressivism and its present demands.

To my delight and surprise, I have ended up with a fairly large number of regular readers, most of whom I know only through this channel.

I began this Potpourri, assuming that it would end in the summer and then that it would end after the election.  I plan to continue the site. But now I must put it on a different pace, to attend to matters that I had assumed would begin receiving my full attention months ago. If you subscribe to the blog, you'll automatically know when there are new posts. If you are a person who has been checking in regularly, I hope you will still stop by from time to time.

The most important thing: slowing the pace of writing here is NOT to be taken as acceptance of the current state of affairs in this country's politics. Indeed quite the opposite: the lessons I have learned from this election season have made me realize that my own efforts toward a more just politics will, like so many other people's, have to continue indefinitely. We are in a marathon, not a sprint.

As we all keep running, I look forward to sharing my thoughts with others who chose to visit Heidi Li's Potpourri, even if content is added to it more gradually than has been the case to date.

Women in the new administration? None so far. But the Democratic Senate could be a powerful antidote...

So far, none have been announced. It appears that President-Elect Obama that Representative Rahm Emanuel will be the new President's Chief of Staff. The public face of the administration will also be a man, it appears, as Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs is the reported pick for press secretary.

Apparently, President-Elect Obama is not sensitive to the fact that announcing or leaking the names of appointments before any women are included in the top ranks - IF any women are to be included - is further alienating to Democrats who already believe him insensitive (at best) to equal political representation for women.

To my mind, this makes it all important that the Democratic Senators vote Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to the position of Senate Majority Leader assuming she is willing to take the position. Senator Clinton's fellow Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, currently second in line in to Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Senate leadership, would ordinarily be considered a natural successor to Reid. Both of these gentlemen should agree to step aside; we know that if they do not and Senator Clinton makes it known she would take the position, let alone that she might actually want it, she will be accused of overstepping. This is an annoying fact, but since it is a fact Reid and Schumer should deal with it and make way for nationally recognized Democrat to lead the Senate in 2009.

For some time now I have been urging voters and Democratic Senators to get involved in this cause. From the website dedicated to it:

Statement of Purpose

The Senate Republican and Democratic floor leaders are elected by the members of their party in the Senate at the beginning of each Congress. Depending on which party is in power, one serves as majority leader and the other as minority leader. The leaders serve as spokespersons for their parties' positions on issues. The majority leader schedules the daily legislative program and fashions the unanimous consent agreements that govern the time for debate.

….

The majority leader has the right to be called upon first if several senators are seeking recognition by the presiding officer, which enables him to offer motions or amendments before any other senator. Although party floor leadership posts carry great responsibility, they provide few specific powers. Instead, floor leaders have largely had to depend on their individual skill, intelligence, and personality. Majority leaders seek to balance the needs of senators of both parties to express their views fully on a bill with the pressures to move the bill as quickly as possible toward enactment. These conflicting demands have required majority leaders to develop skills in compromise, accommodation, and diplomacy. Lyndon Johnson, who held the post in the 1950s, once said that the greatest power of the majority leader was "the power of persuasion."

The majority leader usually works closely with the minority leader so that, as Senator Bob Dole explained, "we never surprise each other on the floor." The party leaders meet frequently with the president and with the leaders of the House of Representatives. The majority leader also greets foreign dignitaries visiting the Capitol.

From the U.S. Senate’s official website.

(Emphases added.)

The power of the Senate Majority turns largely on the talents of the Majority Leader who must be a person with great ideas and extremely political savvy.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton fits the bill perfectly. Her ideas and policy positions have won a clear mandate from the voters of America. She has demonstrated repeatedly an ability to work across the aisle to attain major legislative accomplishments; but she has also demonstrated that she will not simply cave to expediency (e.g. her vote on the FISA bill, her ongoing fight to ensure reproductive rights for all). As for meeting with foreign dignitaries, Senator Clinton is known and respected around the world. If her peers elect her as majority leader, this will send the message to all those abroad that she is just as respected here at home.

To become the Senate Majority Leader in 2009, Senator Clinton must win election to that position by being voted into it by her fellow Democratic Senators, a vote that usually occurs in early January.

You can direct others to this website by giving them this URL: www.hrcforsenatemajorityleader09.com

There are instructions at that website for how to become a signatory. I urge you to contact your own Senators if they are Democrats and urge them to get behind this effort.