On June 13, Democrats in Virginia will be making the important decision on who will represent us in the effort to defeat George Allen in November. Like many others, I have spent a lot of time learning about the two candidates. It has been a difficult decision for me as neither is the perfect candidate. In the end, my decision has come down to who I believe will best represent my interests. I have made up my mind.
I will be casting my vote for Harris Miller. I believe Miller will represent the things that are important to me. Things like finding a way to get out of Iraq, access to education, the great leveler of the playing field, support for increasing the minimum wage, a plan to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, and recognizing that we need transportation alternatives. Equally important is that Miller will joining me and countless others in Voting No in November on the so-called “marriage amendment.”
I have no doubt that I will disagree with Miller in the future on some of his stances. Such is the nature of the relationship between voters and their representatives. Perfect representation is an impossibility. The only one who can perfectly represent me is, well… me. Since I’m not a candidate, I have to settle for the next best thing. I trust Harris Miller to carry through with his representation of me. I trust him to remain a Democrat and to represent the ideals that carrying the D label means.
===========
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Congratulations on your decision. I strongly disagree with you, Vivian, but I respect you.
Thanks, Josh. And after Tuesday, we will all be on the same team: the Beat George Allen team.
I’m voting for Miller, too
African American Voter Awareness Organization Endorses Jim Webb
The Lynchburg Voters League Throws Support Behind Webb
Today, the Lynchburg Voters League endorsed Democratic Senate Candidate Jim Webb for United States Senate. The Lynchburg Voters League is an organization that focuses primarily on the registration, education and participation of African American and minority voters.
“Jim Webb is a principled, well-rounded candidate who can appeal to every voter in Virginia, especially within the African-American community,” said Sherry Diggs, Secretary of the Lynchburg Voters League. “The Lynchburg Voters League urges all registered voters to vote for James Webb because he has the best chance to defeat George Allen in November.”
In addition to the Lynchburg Voters League, Webb has amassed significant support from many African American leaders in Virginia, including Richmond-area Virginia Delegate Donald McEachin, former Chairman of the Virginia unit of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference Milton Reid and Lt. Gen. Frank Petersen, the highest ranking African American in Marine Corps history.
“The work of the Lynchburg Voters League is critical to ensure that all people are represented in our democracy,” said Webb. “I’m honored to have their endorsement.”
I echo Josh’s thoughts
While I cannot support a candidate who calls another Democrat an anti-semite in a Democratic primary, I will certainly work to expose Allen as a fraud for the next few months.
Interesting… Insider is voting in the Democratic primary. I’ll have to remember that one.
http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2971
Read threads carefully: Miller gambit exposed.
I wanted to jump and reply to you right away, but I thought I’d wait a day to collect my thoughts.
I agree with you. I’ll be voting for Harris Miller first thing Tuesday morning.
Harris is clearly not the best candidate, but then neither is Jim. Harris is better prepared, and I believe he will do what it takes to compete against the likes of Allen.
Of course, I see the frantic Webb campaign supporters and staffers sending out repetitive blogs and press releases in a behavior that can only be described as hysteria. I’m not sure what to make of all of that, except that campaign discipline (or lack there of) comes to mind.
By the way, I was at the Arlington JJ dinner last night. To confirm, the loyal cadre of Webb supporters were there in force (they go to all of these events, kind of like deadheads). They were more loud, enthusiastic, and entertaining. But the rest of us (probably 60-70% of the room) who were wearing Miller sitckers kind of felt intimidated into silence. These Webb supporters would look at us as though we were “the enemy.” It was funny, and kind of odd.
I think both candidates gave good speeches, and Harris did run a little too long. But the real highlight of the event was Harris’ cadre of endorsed legislators working the room. All with Miller stickers, all encouraging everyone to vote.
We were all impressed that John Kerry would come and support his newfound political friend. But will that make up the difference? Is this great move just too late? Will all the undecided primary voters wait for the 11pm news and/or open the newpapers first thing in the morning, hoping that one bonus issue will be the tipping point in their decisions? If Kerry had visited a campaign rally this past week, then things may have been different. But I could be wrong, so we will see…
Funny, if there were a straw poll, Jim would have won because most of us would want to get out of there in one piece. If we were going to the polls, I’d presume that 55% would vote for Harris. Of course, I am joking, a little. But I hope this describes a little about the atmosphere we found ourselves in last night. I hate primaries.
My faith in the primary process has been shaken by what I’ve seen over the years. When Democrats (and Republicans) made the switch from mostly conventions to mostly primaries in the 1970s, like most lefties I applauded what I saw then as more diversity, more democracy.
Since then I’ve seen that primaries usually seem to pull both parties toward their fringes. And, I’ve seen how primaries, especially in presidential races, have exaggerated the role that fundraising plays. That’s hardly a good thing. So, I suspect conventions, run fairly, would probably produce better candidates for the general elections more often than not.
Meanwhile, Webb’s campaign has been surprisingly amateurish. Some of his bloggers have probably hurt him, whether they want to accept that or not. Nonetheless, I remain a Webb supporter. His potential to bring new voters to the Democratic Party is worth considering.
However, if he wins on Tuesday, Webb will surely need to start all over with his staff and his approach, in order to have even a long-shot of beating George Allen.
But the question is how to run conventions fairly? In a convention setting, an outsider has virtually no chance. It is only by taking his or her case to the people that we have outsiders compete. Or perhaps I do not understand the convention process as well as I should.
Fundraising has become the biggest issue as far as I am concerned. Outside of public financing of campaigns, which I support, how do we deal with the issue of increasingly expensive campaigns? Do we put a cap on spending, perhaps? Or will that drive the campaign spending to third parties, lile MoveOn.org?
Conventions can be as divisive as primaries, I am old enough to have participated in both processes. You kind of have to have lived through a fight over accepting credentials to understand how poisonous they can be. In a state that does not have registration by party, primaries give us some idea of who the Democrats are.
Given the very small numbers of people involved in a convention, primaries actually offer more protection for incumbents. I think that is a good thing. Not everyone agrees.
Primaries offer more protection for incumbents? I thought it was the other way around.
Most people do. Most people haven’t thought about how much primaries cost or how much it costs to get your name in front of people. In a caucus-convention process very small numbers of people are needed. If you are an insurgent candidate, you only need a small group within the established structure, enough to brief others on procedures of floor fights and strategy & tactics, and then just bring in enough new people to win. In a caucus-convention system just bringing in 1,000 new people statewide could shift the nomination. (Of course, manipulation of the rules in another tactic, sometimes the richer crowd, lawyers and other self-employed types, can employ delaying tactics and keep the meeting going late in the knowledge that they can afford to arrive at work at 10 AM the next day if they need extra sleep, but the mill worker who has to be at the 7 AM shift does not have that luxury, you have no idea how poisonous this can get)
In any case, the larger the number you need to get to victory, the more expensive it is to get the word out. Of course, if you are the incumbent, you have built in name recognition among those who vote in primaries. Thus, primaries favor incumbents.
As far as I’m concerned the more Democrats think about the process of how they select candidates the better. I think we all tend to focus on personalities more than we should.
In Richmond, after 25 years of everyone blaming the personalities on City Council for its lack of direction and endless bickering, Richmonders wised up. The process of selecting our leadership was fatally flawed; there was no accountability.
With a 2004 referendum we rewrote the City Charter. Now there’s a strong mayor who will rise or fall on his/her merits. Richmonders know who to blame.
Whether Mayor Doug Wilder does a great job or not, Richmond will still be better off for a long time for this change he helped to spearhead.
Process is important.
Alice – I’m thinking of primaries versus conventions at the local level. I agree that primaries are expensive. And I often think it is money wasted. At the same time, my own, admittedly limited, experience with conventions has been that it is very difficult for a challenger to win a convention due to the party mechanisms which 1) discourage challengers and 2) provide little avenues for challengers to builld a groundswell of support.
Terry – here in Norfolk we have (once again) followed the lead of Richmond on a directly elected mayor, albeit not a strong mayor. Our process here in Norfolk is not as transparent as Richmond’s so we are generally not privy to the bickering that occurs between council members. Outside observers see the 7-0 votes and think all is well. Honestly, I don’t expect that to change.