First, the Green-Rainbow Party announced their “slate” of candidates this year. True to form, the “party” is eschewing the actual work of building up a party by fielding a wide slate of local candidates to carry the banner and build an activist network. Rather, they continue their also-ran tradition by fielding a tiny group. At this point, the party has four members endorsed — only one running for state legislature. Jill Stein was endorsed with a running mate to lose for governor & lt. governor, and a loser for the auditorship was also chosen. A bronze medalist was also picked in the race for Delahunt’s Congressional seat.
It’s a shame that in a heavily anti-incumbent year, the Green-Rainbow party could seek to leverage that sentiment into gains, the way that many minor parties get to relevance. Instead, the party will plow resources into much of their energies into a repeat of her 2002 campaign that garnered almost 3.5% of the votes cast. Many left-wing voters sick of Democratic incompetence and corruption will have to choose between the Republican or more of the same. Too bad.
Speaking of people who won’t be governor…Grace Ross, a newly minted Democrat running for governor whose high-water mark will likely be making the ballot by winning 15% of delegates’ votes at the summer convention. Under-funded, under-organized, and too often under-interested, Ross is putting her effort into having Deval Patrick answer to his political party. I don’t believe he is obligated to give her publicity or debate her, but an Orwellian approach to pretend she doesn’t exist makes him look foolish. Things such as the official youth wing of the Democratic Party blasting an email referring to “both of the Governor’s opponents”, or when the Phoenix caught Governor Patrick taking a similar strategy. Man up and don’t act afraid of some primary opposition, Deval.
A hint: when John Kerry decided to condescend to voters about his annoying primary opponent, he got slapped in the face. You and your party need to do better.
Remainders:
*As I wrote about a while ago, Belgium’s slow dissolution continues today. The country is nigh-ungovernable.
*After watching the attempt by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to meddle in Bay State politics, check out this massive gaffe by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, running for re-election in the UK. His odds of dealing with a hung parliament just went up notably:
I think it’s way too early to start the harsh back and forth that will most likely take place once she is in place as a candidate. I don’t know about you but I have campaign fatigue. After the fight for Hillary Clinton, Ed O’reilly and Mike Capuano, with the hateful arguing and constant name calling, I know that I am not anxious to begin the fight.
<
p>I think it is possible that the fight for Grace Ross will not take place on BMG.
…but I just haven’t seen the energetic campaign that she’d need to run.
She does need to step it up quite a bit. But as you say, she doesn’t have a huge campaign fund. Maybe she’s waiting until she gets on the ballot before she starts spending. The convention is only 5 weeks away. Yikes!
<
p>She is probably out and about visiting towns but very much under the media radar.
for someone with limited resources……..
<
p>
While the 15% convention threshold looms in June, Grace must have collected 10,000 certified signatures to qualify prior to the convention.
<
p>One step at a time.
She came to our Town Dem Dinner and chatted with everyone. I walked around with her papers. Only one person refused to sign. Some signed but said they were supporting Governor Patrick. Some were happy to see a primary challenger.
…he’s been nothing but respectful of Grace Ross and her effort. I think it’s entirely appropriate for the Young Dems to refer to Cahill and Baker as “both” his opponents. Realistically he is going to be renominated, but I would also caution against blaming the Governor for a YD press release as you seem to imply.
<
p>Also, video of Gordon Brown didn’t load; what did he say?
The YD release refers to “both of his opponents” implying two. Deval’s got more than two. And frankly, I can offer the governor a little more understanding for the political act of ignoring an opponent — classless thought it is — than I can an organ of the party that’s supposed to be running an impartial contest.
<
p>As for the video, Prime Minister Brown had a 40-minute conversation with a Labour voter before getting into a car and, with his mike still live, calling the conversation “a disaster” and the woman “bigoted”. The last thing his wobbly campaign needs.
But as I’ve ranted before, the Young Democrats aren’t Democrats under the age of 35. They’re the Democratic Cocktail Circuit for under 35ers — pressed shirts, business suits, jobs on Beacon Hill. Virtually no blue collar (union or otherwise), virtually nobody with less than a college degree, virtually nobody who makes an hourly salary. They are “young professionals” and they aim to keep their club that way.
<
p>I could see how the YDs would have a hard time acknowledging that somebody like Grace Ross — a boots-on-the-ground hard working advocate for fair housing, labor, anti-pollution, and other issues directly impacting the less advantaged — even exists. After all, Grace Ross is a lot of things, but a hit on the local cocktail circuit she is not.
<
p>
<
p>Yeah, I’ll take flak for this post. I’ve been to about 8 YD events in Boston metro, and left every single one with the same awful taste in my mouth.
…and we also do in legislative races fairly regularly. No, not all of us have jobs on Beacon Hill, and yes, we do have labor membership. Grace Ross spoke at our post-convention social event and was well received.
and I don’t have a problem with YD endorsing in the primary at all. I think it’s a good thing. I do have a problem with issuing a press release that completely ignores the other Democrat in the race, as if she didn’t exist at all.
<
p>And look, I didn’t write that there was no labor membership. What I did write is that of the 8 or so events I’ve attended in the past five years, I sure as hell haven’t seen any grease under fingernails. Everyone I spoke with worked an office job and had a college degree.
<
p>I don’t have a problem with people like that — I’m writing this from an office and I’ve got a college degree or two. My point is simply that YD doesn’t come anywhere near representing the breadth of Democrats under 35, and frankly, I’ve always felt that they like it that way… an easy example is the constant use of “young professional” in their event literature. It’s pretty clear that they don’t mean young professional tin bangers or young professional baristas or young professional medical receptionists or young professional pallet jockeys.
I would agree that, yes, the YDs generally bill themselves as a young professional organization, but hopefully without being too elitist. We have made more of an effort very recently to reach out to labor members and have been working on a Labor Caucus.
…which is well-documented here? The YDs are under no obligation to stay neutral. I also don’t know what you want the Governor to do? He has in my hearing acknowledged her candidacy and has even thanked her publicly for making this a race. I’m not aware of her calling for debates with him, but I do think that would be appropriate sometime between convention and primary. The Governor is the first to say he’s in no way entitled to renomination, but you also can’t fault him for any strategy that assumes he’s the heavy favorite.
<
p>My question about Gordon Brown is was the person bigoted? Seems to me that if Barack Obama got into a conversation with a Tea Partier and then muttered the person was bigoted into a live mike, I’d be cheering him on.
First of all, the YDs can endorse, of course. They certainly did, rushing to get out their statement well before the filing deadline even passed and the field was set. I find it ridiculous when people endorse without even knowing who else is in a field. However, if Young Democrats want to go on and pretend that Grace Ross doesn’t exist, they just look amateurish and insular.
<
p>Regarding the Brown thing, yes this person was bigoted, but in a Sarah Palin kind of way — it’s pretty obvious she doesn’t like non-whites, but there’s no way to point to any one thing she said. Worse still, though, was that this woman was planning on voting for Gordon Brown…she said she was a historic Labor supporter. Calling your own supporters bigoted on a live mike is a very bad thing.
…you’re so on board with a person that you basically decide that it doesn’t matter who else gets in eventually. However, the deadline for submitting a letter to John Walsh indicating you plan to seek nomination for statewide office passed weeks ago. They endorsed with the full knowledge of Grace Ross’ candidacy and I wouldn’t be surprised if they got out there early BECAUSE there was another Democrat.
and if they don’t.
<
p>Green Rainbow has indeed failed to develop a bench of legislative candidates.
<
p>That’s too bad, because it wouldn’t be that hard for them to become the Bay State’s opposition party. I’d welcome that, because constructive opposition is good, and the other guys are just bankrupt.
<
p>But think for a minute about what that would mean. Suppose you were Green Rainbow. You’d want to run in every district, sure, but your real opportunities would not be in places that elect Republicans. It would be in progressive districts that elect Democrats. So you make your real push there.
<
p>All well and good if the Republicans or tea partiers have not fielded candidates of their own. But in at least some of the districts that have a 3-candidate race, there’s a darned good chance Green Rainbow and the Democrat split the progressive vote and enable the conservative to win the seat.
<
p>What is sabutai’s hypothetical response to that?
<
p>So be careful what you wish for.
Green-Rainbows would be smart to run against conservative Democrats who would be Republicans in other states — two conservatives versus one progressive is a win. Progressive people in those districts want a choice, and aren’t getting one.
They don’t run those races. Or they run bad candidates in districts with good Dems. Scott Laugenour, the one GRP Leg candidate they endorsed, is in my district.
<
p>My Rep, Smitty Pignatelli, is a mainline Democrat. More conservative than I’d like on a few things, but had the balls to vote against the casino bill. If a GRP candidate who had realistic policy proposals (instead of being mad at Dennis Kucinich for voting for HCR because it’s not single payer) ran against Smitty, I might vote for them. I ran against him in 2006, so I’m all for progressive opposition. He voted wrong on the Wall Street tax just recently (although he seems to be doing the right thing more often as his career goes on).
<
p> But Smitty’s predecessor was Chris Hodgkins, who managed to have no power and make the 4th Berkshire district a laughing stock by consistently pissing off his colleagues. I can see Mr. Laugenour doing the same thing. His unrealistic view of how legislating works, and his environmentally destructive NIMBYism (opposes windmills because the state’s approach to building them is unfair to rich communities that don’t want them) guarantee that I’m voting for Smitty Pignatelli this November.
<
p>However, if I lived in Bob Deleo’s district and Laugenour ran there, I’d vote Green.
Hello, Mr. Long
<
p>CASINO
I’m glad that the incumbent voted against the casino bill, too. He didn’t vote against it in committee the week before. The only committee members in the Berkshire delegation who voted against it in committee were the two incumbents not seeking re-election. I called attention to our district’s inaction quickly and the press asked him to clarify it, probably to his surprise. Who’s to know for sure, but the Ellen Story story might have been repeated in this district had the incumbent not been facing opposition from me. Rep. Story cared more about pleasing DeLeo than in standing firm in her 17-year opposition to casino gambling, which she flip-flopped on, as I am sure you are aware.
<
p>WIND ENERGY SITING
Please note that our district’s Democratic Party incumbent’s position on Wind Energy Siting, judging from the Green Berkshires petition he signed as an individual (on the front page of http://www.greenberkshires.com) would indicate that his is much more of a NIMBYist position than mine. I would allow the state to override zoning if there were no local pro-active responsible environmental plans in place. I don’t believe your post is accurate. I serve on the Lenox Environmental Committee and we have worked hard to advance the study of wind energy here in these rich Lenox hills. My position on this parallels in the issue of affordable housing development; if a community does not have pro-active plans to meet the state guidelines for housing affordability within it, local zoning can and should be be overridden.
Point taken on the environment. You’re both wrong for tilting at windmills and Smitty’s position is somewhat worse.
<
p>Casinos: no dice. Unless you can give me a definite, less than admirable reason for his failure to vote against it in committee, you’re not playing the insinuation game. You make it sound like he voted for it, which is disingenuous. He voted against it on the House floor. That took courage. Or perhaps fear of you. I’m not saying your candidacy is entirely without value.
<
p>But as long as you keep allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good (I’m with you that single payer is better than MA or US HCR that actually passed, but I’d take what we got over status quo ante), Smitty is a better Rep than you can be.
Percentagewise, the people who voted no on the floor were a smaller minority than the ones who voted no in committee.
if you are sabutai (or me). But if Green Rainbow is going to embrace the
<
p>
<
p>then they will run candidates in progressive districts. Places where people might actually vote Green Rainbow.
<
p>I can imagine the howls here if that actually came to pass.
as mentioned upthread, most of them are already represented by progressive Dems. So those might not actually be the best district to siphon off voters and win a seat.
<
p>I do think that going for the conservadems might be a good strategy. I shudder to think the bind I’d be in if a GRP backed candidate ran against my state Rep…
Can I ask you what relevance Deval “Texaco CocaCola AmeriQuest” Patrick had in Massachusetts before running as a fake progressive candidate for governor? The man had money, and the ability to fundraise, and so he was automatically relevant. You might want to think that through a bit — the implications of only supporting candidates (or political parties) who are snuggled up enough to the establishment that it’s a pretty safe bet that they won’t upset the status quo. And in Patrick’s case — putting in that phone call for predatory lender AmeriQuest, appointing developers and their lawyers to key positions in his administration, working his magic for coal gasification, going all out for casinos, etc. — he has done nothing but protect and even further the status quo. I admit I overuse this example, but his answer of “the liberal thing” to the question of what the greatest misconception of him was, before he even took office, should have alerted all Massachusetts progressives that this guy was a fake. Surprised he dismantled his Together We Can grassroots apparatus once elected? You shouldn’t have been. Inspired that he’s hitting the ground and trying to rally the troops again? You shouldn’t be.
<
p>The one hard-hitting question he got asked during the 2006 campaign was about his involvement on behalf of Texaco and Chevron to screw over the people of Equador and he really couldn’t defend himself.
<
p>You clearly have no idea just how hard it is to organize a new political party — completely outside the corporate system — in a nation with such an entrenched and corrupted two-party politics, or the entrenched and corrupted one-party system in MA. Your blanket dismissal of the Green-Rainbow Party slate is really small-minded. If you want to pretend that we don’t live in a democracy, then go right ahead. If you want to actually live in one, then you should be open to at least listening to the ideas of the candidates who are running to be your elected officials, your public servants. Writing off someone as talented and thoughtful as Nat Fortune as an also-ran is ridiculous. I guarantee you will be hearing more from him as the election season heats up, and you will be impressed. He and his wife have put in hard work at the municipal level and they are both shining examples of what the Green-Rainbow Party is doing right. Knocking Nat for running for State Auditor is nothing more than anti-democratic, but that’s what I’ve come to expect from big-d Democratic apologists. As far as relevance to Massachusetts, why don’t you go ask someone who lives in Whately? And then pay some attention to his campaign. The fact that he won’t be funded by the establishment should open you up even more to his campaign, if you care about good government, that is.
<
p>We also have two great candidates taking on half the state rep. seats in the Berkshires. I envy the voters in those Berkshire districts because they’ll actually have an option this November for candidates who are trying to transform the politics of Massachusetts so that they are actually responsive to the enormous challenges we face, and not so quick to slap band-aid after band-aid on systemic ruptures springing up left and right.
<
p>I’ll turn this on you. Are you satisfied with our political system? What ideas do you have for changing it? For taking Beacon Hill back so that it works for the people instead of the powerful?
<
p>What are you doing to “get real”?
*You seem to see me as a diehard defender of Deval Patrick. A commentator upthread tries to dismiss what I write because he sees me as notably unenthusiastic about him. Frankly, he’s closer to the truth than you.
<
p>*As somebody who spent quite some time ground organizing the Canadian Alliance on the ground in Quebec, I could give you lesson on organizing a political party, friend — our candidate received fewer votes than the Marxist-Leninist Party candidate.
<
p>*You reinforce what I say by pointing out that the Green-Rainbows thrive in the liberal Berkshires, and remain afraid of urban areas. Thanks.
<
p>*Of course I’m not satisfied with the current political system. I’ll repeat many of my previous remarks on how to change this system: a revitalized Republican Party, a smarter Green Rainbow that doesn’t get whiny as soon as somebody points out how self-defeatist they are, copious primaries within the Democratic Party, voting system reform, voting access reform, and Clean Elections. For starters.
Part of it is that I’m tired. I’m tired of fighting for the soul of a teeny, irrelevant party that was self-satisfied enough with pristine statements on the Sudan or Iraq, without being serious enough to organize a political party capable of influencing state or national issues (let alone global ones).
<
p>I’m tired of fighting on a playing field that is slanted so steeply against us that every step forward is met with the recognition that the playing field hasn’t changed one measly degree.
<
p>I’m tired of the countless millions of volunteer hours and small contributions that drive and fund the machinery of corporate politics, not to mention the consumer dollars and tax dollars that fund the corporations doing this to us.
<
p>I’m tired of not calling things out for what they are, or supporting any single politician who was in power to allow Clean Elections to be thrown out on an unrecorded voice vote.
<
p>To be perfectly honest, the Green-Rainbow Party is not really thriving anywhere. I would say we hit bottom in 2008 — after a years-long slide where we found ways of driving good, thoughtful, and serious people away. Our U-shaped recovery has been slow and tedious these past 2 years. That we still exist at all is an accomplishment — not a particularly thrilling one, but meaningful nonetheless. And finally, FINALLY! the party has found a way to start growing again. The flow of volunteers has started to move in the right direction. The sense of vision and mission in this little party runs circles around Patrick and the establishment Dems — the real deal grassroots force that Patrick and then Obama hijacked for their own purposes and corporate agendas.
<
p>My prediction is that 2010 will be the year of the Green-Rainbow Party. We are finally focusing outwards instead of our own navels. The times have shifted so dramatically from 2002 and 2006, and even 2008, and there is a perfect storm lining up for political breakthroughs that will make your 3.5% prediction a quaint reminder of how things used to be.
<
p>I’m surprised you want a revitalized Republican Party. That party has demonstrated itself to be a defeated ideology wrapped up in corporate money and the basest, most fraudulent divide-and-conquer politics imaginable.
<
p>We seem to agree on voting system reform. Supporting Voter Choice seems to be a no-brainer. I miss the days of a strong grassroots effort behind Clean Elections, which disastrously dissolved itself thinking that the MA Legislature would keep its word, that they were in good, caring hands. But really, there’s only one candidate for governor, and one political party, that will tirelessly stump for these reforms, and they ain’t blue…
From somebody. Somewhere. Preferably the Green-Rainbows, or the media. But so far I don’t have high hopes of either; hence Republicans left as an option. Mind, I don’t want them to control a chamber or anything, but I’d like to see them have enough resources to make some noise if/when Democrats do something wrong.
This is the latest name for instant-run-off voting? (Itself a rebranding of “preferential voting.”)
<
p>It seems to me that those on this site who berate Green Rainbow for failure to thrive (with some justification), but who would be the first to cry “spoiler” if Green Rainbow candidates started to break out of the box, should embrace this wholeheartedly.
No sugar coating there either.
<
p>I think that lots of progressives want a stronger G-R party. Heck, I’m personally friendly with two members of the G-R M administrative committee. What many of us Big-d Dems find frustrating is to see folks with whom we share lots of ideals spending a lot of time generating few results.
<
p>It’s certainly hard work, and to be frank, the big-D Democratic legislature hasn’t made it any easier with the rules for ballot access, voter reg, etc.
<
p>Personally, I’d love to see the G-R win some more seats at city and state levels. According to wiki (which cites feinstein.org),
<
p>
<
p>You’ve got a Boston city councilor. As far as I know, that’s the only local executive branch member, including Board of Selectmen. Yet the G-R runs for governor every four years.
<
p>
<
p>Running against only a D in a statewide office is clever, since it gets ballot access for future elections. I get that.
<
p>What I don’t get is investing tremendous resources running a race where you won’t get more than 2%-3% of the vote, namely governor. If the G-R party could get a few more folks elected Selectmen or city councilors, heck even Town Meeting members, you’d gain credibility over time. It’s slow growth to be sure, but it’s solid growth. Instead, every four years I see a bunch of folks who are energetic but inexperienced wave handmade signs. It ain’t getting it done.
<
p>Were it my G-R party to persuade, I’d try to do the following:
1. Run for one statewide every 4x+2 in order to get ballot access. No more than that — focus on maximizing voter share.
2. Find a few state rep or state senate seats which will only have a D or an R candidate. Run there, run clean, run hard, and try to get a percentage north of 40%.
3. Get every single one of my members active in local government. Get them elected to representative Town Meeting, get them to always show up to open Town Meeting.
4. Find a local election or two to get behind — Selectman or City Councilor. Pound it, and pound it hard. Make sure my G-R folks are well trained on voter outreach, phone banking, GOTV, and messaging. Raise some funds.
<
p>You’ll gain credibility as you gain elected seats. Instead of spending all this energy and funds on an unwinnable race (governor), why not instead focus on races where the candidate will be a competitive candidate, and focus on growing your skill set by getting folks elected in much smaller elections? In the mean time, keeping your volunteers working on races more frequently (every two years in the fall for statewide, every spring for local) you’ll keep your people “in the game” and keep them well trained to maximize their results.
I can’t agree more — except that I don’t see this as a contradiction with running for governor. Here’s what I don’t like about the timidity of the approach being advocated here — we are continually being asked to silence ourselves, to keep our voices out of the most critical and urgent debates over our future, because we have not done decades of work building up from the ground to be admitted to the circus.
<
p>There is absolutely no doubt in my mind — and I’ll eat my words if I’m wrong — that the Green-Rainbow Party will field more local candidates in 2011 than it ever has before.
<
p>In order for people to make that level of commitment or sacrifice, and to add a quirky “Green-Rainbow Party” logo to their literature, there needs to be a damn good reason to do it. In my memory, 2009 was the first year that Chuck Turner even put mention of the Green-Rainbow Party on his campaign website. The GRP doesn’t have much in the way of resources to support its candidates — so people who throw in with us know that they’ll be doing this almost alone. Our local chapters have all dried up save a few inspired groups. Building locally is what it’s all about, and the current GRP knows that well. We identified State Rep. races as the best strategy for doing that, but then started to see a governor’s race with such a strong business-as-usual lineup that we couldn’t resist. I’m happy to say that we’ll be giving the voters of Massachusetts something to vote for, instead of figuring out who they hate the least.
<
p>It remains to be seen how Jill Stein and Rick Purcell will be received by a Massachusetts electorate that is so broken down and tired by an endless barrage of political and economic nonsense and upheaval. There will be one choice on the ballot that will be the people’s voice. A voice against endless war, against subsidies for bad corporate behavior and profiteering.
A voice for sanity and compassion, for people, peace, and the planet. A voice for the commonwealth and our common future. Please don’t write them off so quickly.
<
p>Think about this way. When Jill challenged incumbent Galvin for Secretary of the Commonwealth in 2006 — a straight up contest between a Democrat and a Green — BMG went Green and endorsed her. Why not consider supporting her again and saying that between Deval Patrick and Jill Stein, the best voice for our dreams and our values is the good doctor from Lexington? Then throw your weight behind her as you did for Deval in 2006. And see what magic you can work.
First you write
<
p>
<
p>and then
<
p>
<
p>So, here’s my thought: the investment in money and volunteer hours for Jill Stein will not result in a G-R governor. Maybe if you used those resources supporting candidates in winnable elections, your limited resources would be used more effectively. You guys are the Eddie “The Eagle” Edwards of the governors race. Entitled to be there, interesting, and courageous, with no chance of winning but a good chance of a disastrous result.
but then you talk about them — the investment in money and volunteer hours for Jill Stein — as though they are.
<
p>I agree with you that they’re not finite. I think some resources can be generated out of thin air, or are regenerative, or infinite. The goal has to be to put energy and resources into pursuits that help to generate more energy and more resources.
<
p>You start with an assumption that I challenge — that Jill can’t win. She can indeed win, and there are thousands of people across the Commonwealth who could be inspired to make that happen. I think that Baker, Cahill, and Patrick are the candidates that seem to have an entitlement problem — that because they have millions of dollars at their disposal, they are entitled to be deemed credible or viable. Equating money with viability is a very damaging concession. Do you not want the governor with the best ideas for the Commonwealth, with the clearest and most comprehensive vision for our future? Do you not want the governor with their hands in the earth, who is most responsive to the many interlocking crises that face us, and most thoughtful, realistic, and common-sense solutions? Do you not want the governor who has more deep-seated respect for the voice of the people of this Commonwealth than all of the other candidates put together? Don’t you want to be respected by your next governor? Spurred to action? Incorporated into the decentralized problem-solving that we desperately need?
<
p>I understand why you write her off, but just as in 2002, when all the well-intentioned people who liked what she had to say — MORE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES — refused to publicly support her or vote for her because of the early and misguided assumption that she can not possibly win… they each played a role in self-fulfilling prophecy. And that is the whole point. We can not and will not break out of that permanent bind until we see our own individual and collective power to break through, to change the playing field, to change the system. At some point soon, the well-intentioned people of the Commonwealth and the world need to draw a line in the sand, and take action that will permanently alter the systems that are destroying ourselves and the planet.
<
p>In Massachusetts, the path to a permanent political breakthrough is pretty straightforward. There are 6 full months before election day. There is one candidate who is organizing an inspired campaign with an incredible sense of urgency combined with a long-term, coherent vision for change. We are the people who impossibly made Howard Dean a frontrunner candidate for President, who built up organizations like MoveOn.org from the grassroots, who got Deval Patrick elected through impassioned activism, and who mobilized record numbers of people to elect Barack Obama. We have the power to determine who wins and who loses elections. We have the power to demand inspiring candidates and campaigns (see above) at the same time we have the power to remain uninspired and let our friends stay home or even vote for people who don’t have our interests at heart (see Martha Coakley).
<
p>I guarantee you that the Green-Rainbow Party will have more resources at the end of 2010 than at the beginning. And we can funnel the energy and excitement into grassroots campaigns for municipal office in 2011. And that can happen whether or not Jill wins. Either way, we are taking steps in the right direction and refusing to shackle up our dreams for the future and silence ourselves when we’ve got some really important things to say.
<
p>Yes We Can!