Picking Our Candidates

  • Posted by Eric
  • February 24, 2006

I haven’t commented on the ODP Executive Committee endorsements, but you can imagine my thoughts on the issue. Much like the charade that was the installation of the new ODP Chair, this process gave me little to feel great about. Can you imagine this process if Hackett were still in? No wonder they needed to clear the way - that woulda been brutal!

Here’s the thing, I can see the thinking of the ODP here: they want to have a solid slate in order to start the work of a unified effort to oust the culture of corruption and get some Dems elected. My belief is that you let us Dems choose. Primaries are a time to refine the message and put candidates out there and see which ones resonate and motivate the electorate. Dem success is going to hinge on Dems coming out. Dems will come out when they get excited about a candidate. I don’t think this slate is that exciting at all.

When there are several good canidates running - as we have this year - primaries can create great energy within supporters of all camps. The prevention of primaries via forcing out candidates and “screening” tends to suppress such excitement. If a voter’s favorite candidate is forced or screened out, their energy is sapped and that potentially spills over into the GE. If there is a primary, the camp that loses is more easily motivated to get behind the winner. The ODP thus far has been pretty effective at the buzzkill.

In terms of Subodh Chandra, it really begs the question: why not give a dual endorsement seeing how the Screening Committee (a body I still have questions about) was very close in their votes? Was it the name? Was it the race? Was it being an outsider?

Right now I see a slate of candidates, while all good in different ways, still represent a club of insiders - call them the Our Turn Club. I can’t imagine what listening to Chandra and Hackett would be like at the same event, but at least we still have one. I hope Subodh figures out a way to get around the endorsement issue and wins a chance to become the next AG. I think he deserves it. Funny name and all.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
February 24th, 2006
7 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Elections
State Politics

Other Posts
Hackett Fallout: Not Just Bloggers
Nick Singh Withdraws from OH12 Race

Say Something!

Because we value your thoughtful opinions, you are encouraged to add a comment to this post. Don't be offended if your comment is edited for clarity or to keep out questionable material. Comments may even be deleted at the discretion of the Plundercrew. You signal your agreement to this by clicking 'Submit Comment' below. Everyone who comments here is responsible for them.

Plunderchat:

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
Renee in Ohio
Posted on:
February 24, 2006 at 11:21 am

“I hope Subodh figures out a way to get around the endorsement issue and wins a chance to become the next AG. I think he deserves it. Funny name and all.”

I’m with ya on that one. That’s why I stole your Chandra button for Howard-Empowered. Hope you don’t mind.

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Paul
Posted on:
February 24, 2006 at 11:38 am

We all need to ensure that Subodh Chandra gets the help he needs.

My opinion is that it was the outsider status that he’s dealing with. ODP hates outsiders.

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
Eric
Posted on:
February 24, 2006 at 11:41 am

Renee, no worries. The campaign sent the graphics, I just resized them. ;-)

Comment Number:
4
Written by:
Chris
Posted on:
February 24, 2006 at 2:39 pm

Eric, not to beat a dead horse, but . . .

The steering committee was not “very close in their votes.” Dann received 20 votes from the screening committee and 2 in opposition. Chandra received 11 votes from the committee and 12 in opposition. Dann received 9 more votes in support of his recommendation, Subodh received 10 more votes in opposition to his.

Feel how you want about the two candidates, but the screening comittee votes were not “very close.”

Comment Number:
5
Written by:
Eric
Posted on:
February 24, 2006 at 2:49 pm

OK, maybe I’m confused. Clear me up. I thought the vote of the SCREENING committee was 12-11 in favor of Dann. Is the Executive Committee vote not different?

Comment Number:
6
Written by:
Eric
Posted on:
February 24, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Nevermind, figured it out. The PD let me down with the characterization that Subodh lost 12-11. That means something totally different to me than what it really was. Thanks Chris!

For my readers:

The screening committee voted 20-2 in favor of Dann and 11-12 in favor of Subodh…which the PeeDee turned into “Subodh lost 12-11″. Sheesh.

Comment Number:
7
Written by:
Gerry
Posted on:
February 24, 2006 at 11:04 pm

Come on. How can you give this sceeening commitee any credibility? They were party insiders and Dann partisans. People like C.J. Prentiss “volunteered” for duty on it. She’s the senate minority leader, Dann’s colleague, and had ALREADY ENDORSED DANN. Young Dems chair Jonathan Varner also a Dann crony and partisan was on it. Even the commitee chair, Jim Friedman, is a longtime Dann friend and supporter.

How is that a fair process that we should give any weight? They weren’t looking for the best candidate for all of us. They were looking to coronate their crony and stop a more qualified candidate from daring to crash the party. They made Chandra out to be a Bad Guy for discussing with them in private all of Dann’s ethical problems that the Republicans will use to destroy him and the rest of the ticket. But they didn’t care enough to protect us from him.

And that’s why we will lose unless Chandra stays in and fights and we organize the netroots to fund his ability to reach more people.

Any takers?