Draft Shaheen, Part II

Kathy (4.00 / 1)

feel free to come and join the conversation in the comments section some time.  You can start a new thread by clicking 'post a comment', or reply to another comment by clicking 'reply'.

Also, I was wondering if you had a good response to my concerns about her early support of the Iraq War.  I didn't seem to get one in the other thread.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:35:50 PM CDT

Thanks! (4.00 / 2)

Thanks for the advice and the question!
I can't speak on behalf of Governor Shaheen; I hope she runs so you will have the opportunity to ask her all your questions!
I will say that, as you know, there were a number of elected Democratic officials at the time who had the opportunity (unlike Governor Shaheen) to read or be briefed on the national intelligence reports who supported Bush's resolution (and a number who did not, to be fair). I am confident that she would have required a heck of a lot more oversight and accountability over all aspects of the Bush administration and its policies (both domestic and foreign) than John E. Sununu.
 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 14:20:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a very salient issue for me too (0.00 / 0)

The Iraq war thing is more than an Iraq war thing. I've never voted for a Senator before, but foreign policy considerations, because of the impact a Senator can have through the advise and consent process and the treaty ratification power, sit heavily with me as a voter.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 18:11:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The three concerns I hear (4.00 / 3)

about a Shaheen candidacy from people I consider hardheaded Democratic partisans who want to win this seat are:

1. The Iraq War. Gov. Shaheen is no neocon, but in 2002 she favored the AUMF (like most Senate Democrats). How would she address this in the campaign? The war is deeply unpopular;  we need a candidate and campaign that can attack Sununu on this issue.
   
2. School funding. Gov. Shaheen just announced that she and several other prominent people in the state will be working to ensure education gets attention in the Presidential primaries. But it's more an issue at the state level. It isn't fair to attack Shaheen for the current school funding mess, or ask her to solve it. But if the big issue in the 2008 New Hampshire election is what to do about school funding, it would seem to hurt her (and every other Democrat, for that matter -- but she would be attacked, perhaps unfairly, for having not solved it during her term).
   
3. Party hierarchy. Those aren't the right words; let me explain. There's a suspicion of Washington insiders acting to shortcut the primary process. That's partly the result of campaigns outside New Hampshire, partly the result of the NH-01 race. I'm not endorsing the notion that the national party should keep its nose out of candidate recruitment -- as I've said elsewhere, we have suffered from a lack of strong candidates in the past. But that suspicion is in the air. The pledge or suggestion by other candidates that they would bow out if Jeanne enters the race -- something she never requested -- makes this  more of a sore point. Kathy, consider making it part of the "Draft Shaheen" movement that the Governor ask candidates to drop those pledges and feel completely free to compete in a friendly, healthy primary.
   

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 13:57:52 PM CDT

On "party hierarchy" (4.00 / 1)

I do not mean, the draft movement you are promoting comes from Washington. I fully believe that it is locally-grown. (When I compared you to Tiger Woods it was a compliment.)

But a local movement will still need to defuse any unfair perception of DSCC "overlords."

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 14:31:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope we don't hear the word "electability" (4.00 / 2)

John Kerry was "electable" - all the people in the know said so.  (Leave out whether or not the election, especially in Ohio, was stolen - if it hadn't been so close that wouldn't be an issue.)  Carol Shea Porter was not "electable."  I hope we are not jumping to Jeanne because we don't think the candidates we have now are "electable."  But I think I am hearing that, under the rubric of needed someone who can beat Sununu.  We should be able to beat Sununu with any decent person that people can believe in, if we really work at it.  Go back and look at how Carol won.  That can be reproduced, IF the volunteer force believes in their candidate.  It can't be reproduced if the candidate is picked by a group perceived as "the establishment." 


We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 14:41:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've got a current diary on the subject (0.00 / 0)

Any Democrat who dismisses concerns about electability is ignoring history.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 14:48:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Forget the word electability, try responsibility instead... (0.00 / 0)

The more important you believe you political goals are, the more important it is to be responsible enough to them to win.

Winning state wide is a job that is better performed with experience.  It is a very large job.  Jeanne Shaheen is a campaign guru.  She's one of the best in the country, and she dwarfs almost all other politicos in the state, from both parties, in campaign skill.

That matters.  It matters if you are responsible enough to do what it takes to win.

Carol Shea Porter is an aberration.  She is not politically stable.  To use her remarkable luck as some sort of an assumption to depend upon as likely to occur in the future is very risky business.  She?s not going to be a challenger this time around, and neither will the national Democrats.  That?s a huge difference from 2006.

Democrats will be more likely to win with a seasoned, competent, very, very, experienced person with a track record of electoral success.

She doesn?t just have a plan to win.  She?s won state wide over and over and over again, for herself, and for others.

Why people on this board would prefer to reject this dimension of the discussion amazes me.

---

by: nhpoliticscom @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 16:36:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Carol Shea Porter was lucky? (4.00 / 1)

Thanks!  So all the work I and hundreds of others did had nothing to do with it?  I will remember that, and I guess if Jeanne is the candidate, I will wish her luck, since obviously there is no need of people like me in her campaign.

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 17:00:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Porter will be lucky to be reelected.... (0.00 / 0)

It's going to take everything you and everyone else did and more, including Jeanne Shaheen's coattails, and especially her coattails with Independents.

I'm sorry you find that offensive.  But your job is not done making Porter a stable, safe, Congressperson.  You got her elected, and you got her elected now owing anybody anything. And that is really, really cool.  Now you have to stabilize her.  That job is as big as getting her elected in the first place.  It might be a bigger job.

---

by: nhpoliticscom @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 17:17:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um, it's Shea-Porter, not Porter. (0.00 / 0)

Persistently referring to her by the wrong name sort of undercuts your arguments with regard to her.

That said, I actually agree that her election involved a large measure of what could loosely be called luck - an opponent who never went negative on her, an incredibly good political atmosphere - and that she faces a tough re-election battle and will need everything perfectly in order to prevail.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 13:46:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Laura, Laura. (4.00 / 1)

You think that somebody has the right to tell us what his or her name is.

But nhpoliticscom is in love with the Nanny Party. The Last Name Czar will tell us what to call her.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 14:14:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

People are needed (0.00 / 0)

I don't think he was saying that hundreds of people didn't help elect CSP.

---

by: itstime @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 17:19:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ha! Something we agree on (0.00 / 0)

I agree -- if you don't look at electability, you're crazy.

I'm glad for Carol's win obviously, and I did my own bit to promote her back on the old blog -- but if I hear one more time how "Carol's election changed the rules" I'm going to choke on my own tongue in the seizure that follows.

It takes money. It takes the right person. It takes the right staff.

So although I'm gad for Carol's win, those that think it proves some Peter Pan version of politics are wrong.

But I think your also wrong that people on this board ignore that. On the contrary this board if anything is noted for it's realism in such matters.

So here's my thought, in hyper-realism land. The big thing is Swett is not the best candidate (but can raise money) and Steve is potentially a good candidate (but can't raise money). And Shaheen has both bases covered and starts with high name rec. So yeah, it's a good idea.

But please, before you dismiss a whole site maybe read it for a week or two -- equating the majority of us with CSP idealists is so wrong it's laughable.
 

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 17:12:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My appologies. (0.00 / 0)

I'm used to the NH Insider discussion board.  I get to edit my posts on there when I phrase something really, really, stupid.  Needless to say, I do a lot of editing.

Yes.  How I phrased that was pretty stupid.

---

by: nhpoliticscom @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 17:20:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another note (0.00 / 0)

People may jump on board, if they think Jeanne is the only candidate.  Most people are only starting to pay attention and may not realize we have other viable candidates. 


We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 14:46:14 PM CDT

You do not have other viable candidates.... (0.00 / 0)

you merely have other candidates who have never won a significant election - EVER!

---

by: nhpoliticscom @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 16:39:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Residents of Portsmouth (0.00 / 0)

may disagree with your implication that their mayoral elections are insignificant.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 17:48:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you Kathy (0.00 / 0)

Jeanne Shaheen is clearly the best candidate to face Sununu in 2008. We need to show her that we want her and we'll have her back should she decide to get in the race.

---

by: itstime @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 17:25:02 PM CDT

The rulles will be different in 2008 (0.00 / 0)

  Aside from the the disruptions associated with the phone jamming, Sununu ( and every other republican candidate in the last 50 years)benefitted mightily from a tilting of the eloctoral playing field. He, and every other republican, got to go first on every single ballot in the state. This alone is worth a minimum of 2% and pehaps more. (in the 2000 election in California, where they rotate ballot position, Bush did 9% better when he went first compared to when he went last). The historical for all NH candidates in primaries has been almost three percent. In 2008, Sununu will go first only as often as does the democrat.
  Another significant change is that he will not longer get the benefit of the confusion engendered by the bizarre straight ticket rules that are being eliminated.This is probably worth about a half a percent in the average election.
  Together these two changes alone probably will result in a swing greater than the 20,000 vote margin in 2000.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 20:00:59 PM CDT

Shaheen's loss in 2002 (4.00 / 1)

Marchand and Swett are also fine candidates, but I think Kathy Sullivan's years of intelligent service to the NHDP should earn her the right to a listen-up now.

Just my two cents, and  acknowledging that I grew up in NH but don't live there now--my ongoing connection to NH politics has been investigating the phone-jamming follies since early 2003.

BTW, in 2002 Bush had a 65% popularity rating and some major-league coattails--GOPs swept the nation: http://edition.cnn.c...

Even so, John DiStaso was so worried that he put out a special Sunday bulletin on Nov. 3, 2002 begging NH to turn out for Bush even if they realized Shaheen would be a better Senator than Sununu (now you have to pay to see the whole thing, but I quote some):

"You know what's at stake. Control of the U.S. Senate. Whether George W. Bush's agenda moves forward or is stalled -- if not blocked -- by Congress.
With that in mind, this reporter believes when you go to the polls, you won't simply be thinking about whether Jeanne Shaheen or John E. Sununu would be a better senator, or which one you like better or dislike less."

The phone-jamming, that last-minute cash from Abramoff's Indian tribes--these are parts of Sununu's 2002 victory that we know about. And I agree--the phone-jamming all by itself didn't defeat Shaheen.

But the picture will be very different in 2008--no matter what dirty tricks may get thrown our way. So let's not talk trash against Shaheen about 2002. And let's not talk trash against Marchand or Swett about anything! Any and all would be better than Sununu Junior.

"Making trouble today for a better tomorrow" http://BetsyDevine.com/blog

---

by: Betsy Devine @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 17:50:49 PM CDT

It goes to show (4.00 / 1)

re: Bush's 65% popularity rating in '02, down to 28% (if he's lucky)today. No one should rest on popularity ratings.

But I think I was too harsh about the Shaheens in my earlier post. I'm just kind of tired of people from the past. This isn't to disparage them or what they've accomplished, which in Shaheen's case is quite a lot. But I wonder if her time as an actual politician has come and gone. Maybe academia is better.

By all means if people want to draft her or ask her to run, they should. I won't be joining them, and while I'm impressed with Marchand so far, I'd like to see more of Buckey.

I really feel that it's about the future right now rather than the past. While it's good to be shrewd and strategic and all that, we shouldn't outsmart ourselves in the process.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 19:21:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]