By the time the group finally gets around to the platform, everyone just wants to go home.

:shrug: You may be on to something about tired folks wanting to go home.

More of a 'Vilsack for President' and 'we hate Nussle'and 'Ed Fallon vs. the Democrats' event than promoting Culver or any of the other candidates.

Please tell me the reporting was just poor.

sat next to someone that isn't exactly the most mellow democrat on the planet. I could hear the comments said dem was making and they were all negative about everything so I am not surprised that they came away with that take on things.

And they said that the DMR report wasn't exactly what happened at the convention. I'm feeling a little better about it.

His speech was the best I thought and he doesn't pull any punches he says bush lied to go to war in Iraq how refreshing is that?

...and it was poorly planned as far as speeches go. They should've done what they did in 2004: have all the speakers in the morning and/or early afternoon. Instead, it felt somewhat awkward the way it was all planned out.

I never got a 'Fallon vs. the Dems' vibe -- Fallon actually gave a hell of a speech to rouse Dems.

They did do a poor job of promoting Culver, though. Culver should've been the centerpiece of it all, and it didn't feel that way.

I was not impressed by the convention. Hopefully there'll be a source of energy somewhere, because it sure didn't come from that convention.

We couldn't plan our way out of a paper bag. I think a lot more people should have been there to hear Braley, Loebsack and others in the afternoon. I agree on the Culver thing too it just didn't inspire me to much but his speeches almost never do. Why is it that we can't find a candidate that doesn't step all over their applause lines?

the best thing Culver could do is practice his speeches where people will applaud and get used to it happening.

What happened? I damn near fell asleep during his speech.
Fallon really lit it up!
I really hope Culver uses Fallon to help unite the party and get out the vote.
BTW did you see that 'person' who stood with his back to allbut Fallon. Let it go Butthead! Nussle = enemy not Culver.

But I think our Governor is the problem. He dismantled the IDP after the 2004 election and put his Lt. Governor in charge of the Party (who proclaimed that she didn't have time to raise $$ for the Party b/c she was too busy being Lt. Governor!). We didn't have an off-year canvass (b/c we didn't have the money to do one). Now, when the republicans have a big-show convention we fumble ours - all b/c NOBODY remembered that Iowa is the First Caucus state in the nation (we could have had Edwards/Feingold/Bayh/Clark/Gore/Clinton/Biden (oh, God)/Kerry/DEAN/Warner/and anyone else I forgot to mention at the Hall of Fame dinner and having receptions before/around the convention. Instead we have Sally cheering on Tom cheering on Christie and finally, sometime later that guy named Chet.

In my mind it comes down to Vilsack caring more about Vilsack then about the WHOLE STATE of Iowa. (Think about it - his credibility is shot w/Blouin and Terry losing - if we have Governor Culver all the Presidential candidates will be courting him, if we have Governor Numbskull, they will be trying for Miller/Fitzgerald/O'Brien/etc. but Vilsack will have been knocking on their doors much earlier to tie them up.) Yes, it's a crazy theory, but I'm a little crazy! :crazy:

pictures with Vilsack. (During platform discussion time I might add!)

All that I can say is this, That is 40 minutes (Standing, Stuffed In Like Lemmings)I will never get back. :banghead:


I worked a 12 hour day on Friday and drove out to Des Moines on 2 hours sleep, so maybe I my judgment of Vilsack's "I'm not really running for pres, am I"? is a tad bit biased, yet the whole meeting made me want to go medieval on someone.

for a photo op w/Vilsack (But I think it was done in 2004 w/John Edwards who was the keynote at the Hall of Fame Dinner ....I wasn't a delegate so maybe someone else can answer that).

At least in our little get-together, it was a pitch by the Vilsacks.

But it was also interesting. There was more than one group of delegates, and the first couple shifted in tamdem from room to room. I am not sure each group got the same routine. Apparently our group consisted of delegates from what are considered important activist counties. Other groups maybe posed for photos, but we did not.

I was standing in the back, and I guess I don't know why Vilsack was pitching what amounts to his Presidential bid to us. It was an odd setup, as he basically tried out part of a stump speech.

Chet Culver for Governor of Iowa?

I never heard them talk about anyone who didn't have the last name of Vilsack while I was in the room.

:shrug: I thought that GovVil did support all the candidates fairly well during his speech to the whole convention upstairs.

I don't really understand the point of it all. He asked for advice and criticism, and then when we gave some he'd counter it all. After the meeting was over I walked up to Vilsack and said that he doesn't really rile up a crowd and that working on charisma like that could help, and he said that he didn't need to do that because, "nobody speaks to the heart better than I can."

Let's see if voters agree...

you may be smarter than him (or if he thinks it) He'll have you removed from the room. He has always operated on alienation and intimidation. As for riling up a crowd, he'd rather pull at your heart-strings and make you cry. That gets him votes (unless you've heard his speech for the last decade, then you wonder if he even has a soul). :(

The Gov also mentioned that many folks had echoed your sentiments about him not being a rah rah crowd pleaser.

Unfortunately for Vilsack, people respond better to the rah-rah stuff (John Edwards, Bill Clinton) -- people are going to view Vilsack along the lines of Al Gore.

I've gotten the fact that you dislike Vilsack because you believe he is somehow trying to dismantle our first in the nation status. I even get the dislike for him (and the state establishment as a whole) due to their attempted black-ball of Culver. I do believe it is a mistake, however, to disparage the entire convention based on your views of one man.

The IDP staff worked their asses off to bring us all together at this convention... a convention which, if I'm not mistaken, you didn't even attend. And if you are a staffer for the IDP, what are you going to do when the Governor of your state requests personal time with the different county delegations? Turn him down?

Yes, there was a request from Vilsack for the counties to meet him at different times during the Convention. There was, however, no gun to anyone's head to do so. I attended maybe 10 minutes of the Linn Co. time and left to take care of other, more pressing, business. Others stayed because they wanted to hear what Vilsack had to say. Further, it might surprise you to know that the vast majority of those "Vilsack talks" held throughout the day were overwhelmingly positive toward him, Christie, their management of Iowa *and* his possible run for the White House. (I was present off-and-on at at least 5 such talks and did not hear one negative spoken. More than once, however, I heard "Run, Tom! We've got your back!")

I do not believe this Convention was perfect. For instance, I think the treatment of Loebsack was appalling to say the least. That being said, at least I was there to experience it first hand and am not reacting to second-hand reports.

The fact of the matter is that we have a hell of a lot more to be upset about than Vilsack. Here's a list for future reference:

1. How many collective hours were spent drafting and perfecting our state platform? Why is it then that not one of our candidates have to subscribe to anything it contains?
   
2. Why do the most active Democratic individuals in the state disagree on the need for verifiable elections?
   
3. Why do so many of our county and district activists sign up to attend the state convention yet not show? What can we collectively do to remedy that situation? (Live feeds through the ICN? No-cost or low-cost boarding at the Union Halls? Chartered buses? On-site, no-cost childcare?)
   
4. Why was the push for a Progressive Caucus shot down? Why don't the state's most active Democrats not know how to define a 'progressive'?
   
5. Why is it considered appropriate for those who spend the most money on the Hall of Fame to keep those who spend the least money waiting for roughly 45 minutes before starting the show?
   
6. Why, when there is any controversial issue before us, is it construed in the press as "dividing"? Why is that same controversial issue construed as "discussion" when it happens to the GOP?
   
7. Why can't we work the day so that most delegates can be in the hall when our candidates and officials speak? Why isn't the platform debated on and off throughout the day instead of being saved for the end? (Probably because it doesn't really matter?)
   

BTW, in addition to all the bad things you've heard about the convention, you should also know that you missed one hell of a rousing speech by former Rep. Berkley Bedell (that man is amazing at 85 -- hard to imagine what a spit-fire he was 20-30 years ago); a really healthy debate on eminent domain; a convention where you could hear the speakers throughout the entire hall; the GLBT Caucus asserting itself; tours of the CSPAN bus; one-on-one time with our state officials and candidates (not one of them - including Vilsack, Christie, Harkin and Culver - hesitated to spend a few minutes chatting with my low ass on the totem pole); incredible information from both the Rural and Disabilities caucuses; and the 'meetings-after-the-meetings'.

No, it wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot more than a Vilsack and Christie show.

And did you support it?

They have a couple posts about the Progressive Caucus at http://www.blogforiowa.com.

Just because someone's a Democrat doesn't mean they're a progressive. See Zell Miller as an example.

I wasn't there (so maybe I shouldn't even have an opinion on it w/out all the information).

But if we create a 'Progressive Caucus' wouldn't we then need to create a 'Centrist Caucus' and the rest of the Democrats would be somewhere in the middle - somehow dividing our 'big tent' party into three separate groups that may have different agendas? All the other caucuses start out as Democrats, then define individuality but adhere to the Party Platform (at least that's what is supposed to happen - insuring representation for a minority group within the larger Democratic Party). Being a Democrat who is a member of the GLBT Caucus doesn't differ the goals of the individual from their neighbor who is a Democrat and a member of the Disability Caucus - just allows their specific issues to be addressed. Would that unity remain if the two individuals were the Democrat/Progressive Caucus member and the Democrat/Centrist Caucus member? And when did being a Progressive mean being a minority in the Democratic Party? It seems that creating that Caucus would actually further divide the Party, rather than uniting it.

Didn't think of it in that aspect. We seem divided enough as it is (see this thread as proof positive).

but if it is correct, why does the United States House of Representatives feel the need to have a Progressive Caucus?

I am a Progressive, and I do not feel that my positions are well represented within the party much of the time. I continue to work for and support our Democrat Party because I would rather work from within to get the reform that I believe this country needs (election reform, universal healthcare, gay marriage, anti-death penalty, etc). Many of my friends have become disenfranchised and left the party. I will not do so.

In order to advance Progressive agendas, like-minded delegates need to have formal representation within the Democrat party, and to be afforded the opportunity to gather at conventions and decide how to, for example, approach platform planks with a unified position.

Without recognition as a Progressive Caucus, and with the term "Progressive" being thrown around so loosely lately, we feel like we do not have a voice at all.

We are the activists, the agitators, the angry left(at times). And we are yours, if you will keep us.

(Even Joe Lieberman!!! :wow:)

Plus, who am I to say that I am the Party if I don't (at times) feel accepted into it.

But, instead of creating a separate branch of the Party (Like the Blue Dog Dems or the New Dems did which encouraged the Progressive Dems to form in the US Congress) why not get more Progressives to attend Caucus - County Convention - District Convention (getting elected to County, District, State Central Committees) and progressively (hehe) take control of the very Party structure?. It truly is what is happening (Thanks to Kucinich and Dean in 2004 and Fallon in 2006 - wait for Feingold in 2008 there will be more!). It's just that it's in the middle of the process right now.

:shrug:

Just as the Party has moved (too much) to the center under the direction of Clinton and Vilsack supporters I believe the Party can be moved back to the left (and I believe more toward the main-stream) by us.

d.

Would Dennis Kucinich get booted from the progressive caucus for supporting the ridiculous flag burning amendment?

Debi didn't deserve to feel the brunt of my frustrations. I used her as punching bag and that wasn't fair. I've apologized to her privately as well.

Always be first!

:hi:

I should be called out when I get to pissy x(

My opinion isn't the governing opinion of this board. We all have the right to disagree :thumbsup:

:hug: I'm glad you are here :hug:

He isn't going to run. He could have came and spoke. It would have raised a bunch of money and Dean could have assured Iowa that it would first in the nation.

Dean has to follow what the final DNC vote is. He can't guarantee we'll stay first (he could have stated that he wanted IA/NH to remain, but he didn't which was a disappointment to everyone who supported him in 2004 and for Chair of the DNC).

saw me and came over to chat. Really glad I had the opportunity to get to know him over his campaign. I thanked him for his positive and issue oriented campaign. He returned some compliments. Good heavens, he saw me and called me by name. Astounded me since I am sure he met literally thousands on people in the last year.
Iowa needs this guy someplace in it's government, just for his integrity.

That swill outside of the convention room was worse than my cooking.

Maybe he got the brat there before he was tossed out.

:rofl: