Wow. Really.
Wow. Pretty impressive this whole
Rice activism you've been doing in the Senate. It's really too bad that your names both lend themselves to puns. Some of the headlines have been pretty painful. And that "shrill" word. So sorry. Talk about misogynistic. When was the last time you hear a man referred to as "shrill." Never, right? Okay. Maybe not never. I can't even think of a last time I heard it, is what I'm saying.
And this Boxer for President, thing. Out of control, that. That's not your plan. I'm sure of it. I do like to the good cop/bad cop act you're playing out with Senator Feinstein. One way to make sure that California doesn't get completely written off. Make sure there's room for a dealmaker. She sure got the short end of the straw. At least, judging by the letters to the editor in the San Francisco Chronicle. You do have that nice joint statement.
I've realized, and this isn't a bad thing, that you've taken me on as an advisor. The statement on your
Pac for Change. Pretty close to the text in some of the
30-odd letters I've sent over the last 6 months. I'm sure you must have sent me more than the "this-was-auto-generated-and-poorly"
response I received. Maybe my spamcatcher. Sometimes it gets a little overactive. I never exactly know why.
Anyway.
I'm please as punch to be an ad hoc advisor. As such, I think we need to make sure the current strategy is defined and then we need to think about the steps going forward. This one turned out well.
So, here's how I'm seeing the current efforts, in a strategic way.
- Open up a national dialogue. You've been successful there on both the Ohio vote and the Rice confirmation hearings. And good on you. Even though part of the debate concerned your partisan nature, you made sure that these questions received national airtime and at least some level of attention from someone high up in the administration food chain. People are talking about it. Based on newspaper headlines they are.
- Push the national conversation to the left. I've long maintained that the left/democrats/progressives needed someone doing much what the Christian Right has been doing for the Republican party, providing a view far out of the mainstream so that other, previously very conservative voices, seemed more reasonable. I'm not suggesting, of course, that you aren't reasonable. But by asking unanswerable questions and pushing the conversation leftward you are opening the way for someone with some progressive sentiments to take office and seem, by comparison, not so much. It's like they say about the civil rights movement: Malcolm X made Martin Luther King an acceptable choice. Without Malcolm X, King wouldn't have gotten any attention.
- Pave the road for a (relatively) progressive presidential candidate in 2008. It's not going to be you. "Shrill" (deserved or not), woman, Marin County, California. The wife of a trial lawyer. None of that is going to buy you national office. But, again by comparison, it can pave the way and deflect criticisms from other candidates. Taking one for the team, as it were. How many people are going to apply those kinds of criticisms to Hilary Clinton, for example, with you taking the heat in these early rounds?
It's a good strategy and I'm pleased to see it. So, how does it get implemented moving forward? By continuing to force issues. Here are some of the ones you should consider:
- Marriage equality. I know. You've come out against. But we need to rethink that. Separate but equal isn't a very good policy and I think history backs me on that.
- Abortion rights. You're already golden on this issue. Without doubt, it's the thing with which you are the most closely associated. You can play it up. Especially with the anticipated Supreme Court appointments that will be made in the next four years.
- Social security. That whole ownership society didn't work before. No reason, with our current savings rate, to think it's going to work now. You can be a voice for FDR.
- National Health Insurance. I remember, when I was a kid, people saying Ted Kennedy would never get elected because he was a socialist and this was the issue that they pointed to. Take it on. And with a vengeance.
There are more, sure, but I think those are the biggies. Still issues in the next presidential race, starting to push them leftward now helps to create the space for, I'm saying it again, a reasonable alternative.
More on all of this later. I think we should attack them one issue at a time. Don't you?
Onward,
Marnie Webb
Oakland, CA