On Obama, and the DLC, Supporting Sen. Michael Bennett

[Krashkopf]

With all due respect, I wish that President Obama, and all of the other Washington establishment Democrats, would their keep their noses, and their big money, out of our local Colorado Democratic Primary!

The LAST thing we need in Washington is ANOTHER BLUE DOG, Corporatist, Democrat like Micheal Bennett in the Senate.

We have a youn, very strong, very popular, politician in Colorado - former Speaker of the State House, Andrew Romanoff - who has thrown his hat into the ring, and I, for one, resent the hell out of it that the national party is trying to squash the primary campaign days after Romanoff announced that he was running.

PROGRESSIVES for ROMANOFF!

[NYC Democrat]

1. relax dude the President almost always endorses the incumbent its just the way it is.

[Krashkopf]

3. An incumbent who has been ELECTED . . . I can see that, sort of . . .

But, Bennett, is a "blank slate" at best, and "corporatist kiss-up" at worst. He is an "incumbent" because he got ONE vote last time . . . the vote of the Governor who appointed him.

Democratic Coloradoans are entitled to a REAL choice as to who our Senator should be.

My guess is, that without his big eastern money behind him, Bennett would get destroyed in a head to head primary match up with Romanoff.

[Hawkeye-X]

5. I will work my ass off for Romanoff, matching dollar for dollar, and then more fundraising!

I'll do ANYTHING to put Romanoff in!

Hawkeye-X

[Froward69]

19. Second!!!

[donheld]

36. Third

[paulk]

6. an "incumbent" who was appointed, not elected?

the situation in CO is a bit different than "just the way it is" - Obama has no business sticking his nose in this, especially since it's been only days since Romanoff announced he would run for the seat.

Romanoff is very well known in the state, having been the Speaker of the House before being term limited out. Many people here thought he was the obvious choice to replace Salazar...Bennet had never even held elected office before being gifted with a US Senate seat.

[Lord Helmet]

23. same with his support for Gillibrand -- the appointees should have a primary challenge

[Captain Hilts]

2. Now you know how New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians feel. nt

[quiller4]

26. All my family in upstate New York are happy with Gillibrand

[Captain Hilts]

37. That's not the point. The WH and DNC have tried to prevent a competitive primary. nt

[Hawkeye-X]

4. Amen to that.

Like I said, Bennet will be primaried out, and we'll put what we wanted in the first place - Andrew Romanoff!

I supported him, he was my state Representative and did a great job, and kept us all informed of all the Capitol activities.

I have given money to him before, and I will do it again this year!

[BlooInBloo]

7. Did either of the two campaign for Obama?

Because that's how patronage typically works. Works that way for Clinton, too, by the way.

[Krashkopf]

8. Romanoff stumped for Obama

I remember seeing him at one of the early house parties

[BlooInBloo]

9. Thanks. What does Bennett have that Obama wants, then?

[paulk]

11. hard to know

the choice by Ritter of Bennet was a complete mystery to all Coloradans...

Bennet was the superintendent of the Denver Public Schools - he had DC connections, supposedly...

East coast money? The speculation on the pick was all over the place.

The endorsement by Obama right after Romanoff (who is very popular here), points to some kind of insider connection, but who knows what it is?

It is going to piss a lot of people in CO off, though.

google "why did ritter choose bennet?"

here's one -

Interesting reactions to this decision abound. Most state Democrats seem willing to give Ritter and Bennet the benefit of the doubt, although a few were surprisingly critical. Here's one:

Susan Barnes-Gelt, a former Denver City Councilwoman, questioned how many people a Denver-centric educator with no experience in campaigning would appeal to in a statewide race.
She also wondered why Ritter would choose him over Romanoff when the outgoing House speaker had the legislative support that Ritter needs to pass his agenda.

"Here's yet another example of Bill Ritter making a strange choice that reflects nothing but the fact that he has not been listening to an overwhelming number of Coloradans," she said.


Another interesting reaction came from Wally Stealy in Pueblo:


"We're in total shock," Stealey said. "We don't think he can win the next election. We think he is the wealthy man's candidate."

Meanwhile, Politico interviewed me about the Bennet pick. You can read it here. I sound like an idiot, and I don't think that's entirely my fault.

http://enikrising.blogspot.com/2009/01/bennet-angle.html

Really, the whole thing has been really puzzling...

[BlooInBloo]

12. Weird. At least with Specter, you knew what it was Obama wanted....

I'll still happily donate to Specter's primary opponent, of course - even though I completely respect Obama.

He can choose who he supports, and I can choose who I support.

[Lord Helmet]

24. That's reasonable and I agree.

I understand why he is supporting the so-called incumbents (the ones that were appointed) but I think they all should have a primary challenge (i.e., Gillibrand, Burris, etc.).

With Specter, for me it's payback for his single bullet theory. Decades late but better late than never.

[ProSense]

28. Funny how that works, huh? n/t

[paulk]

35. actually, I disagree

Any President's endorsement carries a lot more weight than yours or mine...

It's way too early in the process for Obama to be handing out endorsements - what he (and the party apparatus, apparently) are trying to do here is prevent a primary fight, a fight, in Colorado's case, that has been coming since the appointment took place.

It's misguided, IMO, and I guarantee I'm not the only Coloradan who resents this.

[otohara]

13. Rumor Is Obama Was Very Impressed

with Bennett. So I think hiz honor the Governor picked the guy who Obama wanted. But before he did that, he solicited impute from staff and democrats. Overwhelmingly people wanted Romanoff and Ritter said ... too bad.

[BlooInBloo]

14. (shrug) Maybe that's it - Obama just likes him - lol!

I guess not *everything* has to be necessarily about political patronage.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. A vote in the Senate

[paulk]

18. the weak kneed party leadership

both here in CO and in DC, seem to think that the only way to hold on to power is to move so far toward the middle that today's Democratic Party is basically Nixon's Republican Party.

Colorado is steadily moving to the left, from red to blue - and as anyone involved in sports knows, to keep your lead, you can't play not to lose, you have to play to win. Supporting the center/right Bennet is playing not to lose.

Romanoff is a vote in the Senate, also. If Udall can win here, so can Romanoff.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Incumbents will always have the national party behind them, that's how it works

Instead of getting pissed that Romanoff is going to be an underdog, accept it and work to get him elected.

[Krashkopf]

15. I will . . .

and I am a party Precinct Captain.

[olegramps]

16. I support your position on Romanoff.

I was totally dumbfounded when Bennett was selected by Ritter to replace Salazar. He had no political experience and was recruited from the East to be the superintendent of the Denver Public School System. It was a real disappointment to me that someone whose only credentials were that he had connections to the powerful Eastern moneyed class was appointed rather than a Democratic Coloradan who has faithfully supported the party. This interference by President Obama will not be taken lightly especially in view of the fact that Ritter has been a disappointment for many Colorado Democrats when he sided with big business against labor. The fact of the matter is Ritter is losing support here and the state could be in jeopardy of turning Blue. Rather you want to admit it or not, support for Democrats that was inspired by Obama, who was viewed a person who would bring about significant and much needed changes is waning. Perhaps our exuberance was unrealistic. However, it is not the support of the party faithful who will slog on that is critical, it is the support of the Independents that we appear to be losing if we have any hope for real changes. What I ask is what in the hell has Bennett ever done for Coloradans? His track record in the Senate is less than inspiring. We don't need another go along to get along Blue Dog.

[Froward69]

20. since his apointment

Bennet has proven he is easily swayed by big bucks...

He voted NAY to the bankruptcy bill citing it as "cramdown"!!! Had it passed it immediately would have staved off foreclosures of middle class families across the nation.

eventually loosing those votes as they did not receive the Help they were hoping for, when they voted for Obama.

Romanoff is the peoples choice. Bennet is the corporatist choice.

[Qutzupalotl]

21. The DNC should focus on matching the donation to keep it competitive.

Level the playing field. It would prove that they trust us to decide, and not let monied interests seize that power for themselves.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Voting for a Democrat doesn't work. Voting for the right kind of Democrat is what works!

Obama is supporting Spector in Pennsylvania. It would be foolish to vote for that POS.

I fear Obama is just another tool of the Washington establishment. We should vote for those Democrats that deserve our vote. As the health care debate, and the Blue Dogs, have shown, having a "D" after a name does not indicate that person is our friend or deserves our support.

[Autumn]

25. Kudos for your last

sentence. Absolute truth.

[bvar22]

27. If you Work for a Living...

...never,EVER, donate to the DCCC or the DSCC.
They will use your money AGAINST your economic interests by rigging Democratic Primary Elections to favor Corporate Big Money candidates.




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[ProSense]

29. Remember Lieberman vs. Lamont?

There are some people in this thread who were talking crap then, taking the exact opposite position on DC's support of Lieberman.

Just goes to show: hypocrisy is a tool of convenience for opportunists.

[paulk]

31. or perhaps some people learn from their mistakes

[ProSense]

33. Were you one of them? n/t

[paulk]

34. I supported DC's endorsement of Lieberman

because it seemed obvious that Lieberman could run as an independent and win anyway - and that would also result in pushing Lieberman more to the right. Which is what happened, but, in retrospect, I think I was wrong and I think the party establishment was wrong to endorse Lieberman in the primary.

The political calculation isn't the same for Bennet, and I don't understand why Obama is endorsing him. It could even backfire, since westerners are notorious for not liking politicians from 'back east' telling us who we should vote for. Romanoff is very popular here and it's going to be a tight primary and likely a tight race for the Senate seat.
Romanoff would be an excellent Senator and I don't see what Obama gains by an endorsement of Bennet, especially considering the timing (right after Romanoff announces). It smacks of coercion and, once again, that won't go over well here.

[GivePeaceAchance]

30. +1 Better no Demcrat at all than faux one. n/t

[dflprincess]

32. Good luck.

In 2006 the DSCC and the national party came into Minnesota and we wound up stuck with Amy Klobuchar, closet Blue Dog. They really did everything they could to shut the progressive candidate out completely.

I truly hope this doesn't happen to Colorado as well.