It is being said here that Braun received money in exchange for an endorsement of Howard Dean, or in exchange for campaigning for him. It has been insinuated that the she did his dirty work in the Iowa debates in exchange for wealth and personal aggrandisement. These are erroneous charges.
There is little point in trying to defend Braun's fitness to be president, and I would rather be writing my own obit than arguing Braun's virtues with people who have an axe to grind. But several posters I respect appear to have been misinformed, or are suspecting the worst of her. That's not right.
In the first place, the compensation Braun will be receiving is not in addition to her traveling expenses, as initially reported
in the Sun-Times for instance. Nedra Pickler, of AP, has reported that that fact is not correct.
The campaign said Friday that it has budgeted about $20,000 a month to cover Braun's expenses and offered to hire one of her campaign staffers as a traveling aide, according to Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi.
Braun is not being added to the Dean campaign payroll and there was no arrangement to pay her campaign debt of more than $200,000.
from the guardian
If this concerns you deeply, I would urge you to search the
fec for the records of Carol Moseley Braun and Howard Dean (and any other candidate while you're at it). Although it would have been legal for Carol to pay herself a salary out of the campaign budget, she never did. The only money she paid herself was to re-imburse herself for traveling expenses that came out of her own pocket. The news stories about her driving her own car (or a rental) and pumping her own gas are too numerous for there to be any doubts that she was taking matters into her own hands. It's a perfectly reasonable expense for any campaign to pay.
People have questioned the timing of her withdrawal and endorsement of Howard Dean. The timing of her withdrawal is easy enough to understand. She had failed to get on many state ballots. The campaign had no money. She was not doing well in the polls. Her work in New Hampshire may have been too little too late. She didn't have the money or the campaign organization to compete effectively. Even Al Sharpton, who is pretty broke, was able to buy radio ads in DC. The free media exposure, such as it was (she always ranked last in any measure of media visibility), had just about come to an end. She had another round of staff turnovers, and with that came more changes in strategy. Debts were mounting. She was even polling badly in her home state of Illinois.
She stayed in long enough to get her message aired, and to claim some measure of progress, perhaps especially to the feminist groups who endorsed her. The NOW endorsement was a tremendous boost for her, and, I think, the cause of empowering women, but it was not enough for her to remain a viable candidate. Some of you will remember that a few NOW members objected to the endorsement because they would rather support Howard Dean, as would the woman identified in
this story from the Portsmouth Herald. The point I'm making isn't that she was wrong not to endorse Braun, but that the national endorsement was not in and of itself giving the campaign the kind of support that is required to win elections. Had there been other large, well-organized constituencies clamouring for Braun, had the campaign organization been better funded, then perhaps NOW could have provided enough of a boost to see her through to Boston. Alas.
In short, it was becoming difficult for her to present herself as a serious contender. I've seen here in the last few days some references to her performance on the Daily Show (fear is the mind killer, ha ha). That same night, she also appeared on the Tavis Smiley show, and made the argument that she was in it to win. A lot of what she said in response to the question of her viability or seriousness was rote--reporters had been asking that question since February of 2003, and they never ever ever let up. On that night, Tavis confronted her with the quote from her campaign manager, Patricia Ireland, to the effect that Braun can't possibly get enough delegates to win. Braun was put in the awkward position of having to explain what Ireland really meant, that she wouldn't be able to win outright, but would have to depend on a brokered convention. And yet, with no traction in the polls and a dearth of funds to get her message heard, that scenario was becoming increasingly improbable. By the minute.
I hope that you all can see that she stayed in it as long as she could productively advance her causes, which she has a long record of caring about deeply, passionately, and selflessly. I have every confidence that she views her endorsement of Howard Dean, and joining his campaign effort, as the best way she can further her causes and be of service to the Party. Of course she would have rather been elected president, seen her ideas for the country's future catch fire and be put into practice, but c'est la vie. There can only be one nominee, and it can't be Carol Moseley Braun.
Finally, as for her performance in the Iowa debates, and especially the Black and Brown Presidential Forum, I'm not sure exactly what to make of it, but there's little reason to assume the worst about her.
Braun did, it seems, misrepresent John Edwards' overall voting record. Before assuming that she did so maliciously, look at the
presentation from Congressional Quarterly, and ask yourself if it couldn't have been an honest mistake.
I don't know exactly why she singled out Edwards for criticism during her campaign--competition for votes in South Carolina would be one reasonable explanation--but she did. Her criticisms of certain votes he's taken go back six months at least, and she had often used him as an example of somebody who polled worse than she did but received twice the media exposure and was never asked to remove himself from the debates. So perhaps she was envious of his recent successes, or stressed out by them, or deeply troubled by some key positions he had taken, or just had a sense of him being hypocritical. I don't know, but any of those factors seem plausible.
As for the friction with Sharpton, I think that she believes pretty much what she said, that the way he talks about race isn't helpful. She may also feel that he's been disrespectful of her and dismissive of what she's accomplished by working from within the Democratic Party. Add to that competition for endorsements and media attention, some nasty attacks put out by the Sharpton campaigners early on in the race, and you have all the ingredients you need for a moment of anger.
Well, these are just speculations. I can't know Braun's true motivations any better than you or anybody else can. Please, though, as you're arguing these points, and wondering what to think, rely on decent sources of information, exercize your judgement and also your capacity for empathy.
My general rule of thumb is that if you don't have to assume the worst about a person to understand their behavior in a given situation, then don't. You'll be better for it.
Thank you.
gB
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
