You got the combined Caucus-Ward Convention (in Ward 5, I think).  You moved from the 
caucus-level to the ward convention since there were so few caucus attendees (relative 
to the number of ward convention delegate slots).  At the Ward convention level, you 
were among the subcaucuses choosing City Convention delegates (and alternates).  Those 
slots, as you found out, are usually filled.  The credentials committee at the City 
Convention usually does very brisk business in upgrading alternates since there are 
endorsements to be had.  And many people do go to that convention uncommitted (despite 
the efforts of those all-powerful "insiders").

I understand the frustration of those that advocate for "Good Democrat" lists over 
endorsing one candidate per post.  These fights pit friends against each other and can 
cause deep ruptures in the party.  But "DFL Endorsed" carries more than just the right 
to put those words on your campaign literature.  There is an organization (no, really) 
and a network of volunteers that are available only to the endorsed candidate.  
Candidates campaign to win the endorsement and then they campaign to win the primary.  
These test runs conducted mostly among friends are often useful in assessing how a 
candidate will do in the general election.

Candidates are questioned by any group before an endorsement is given.  These groups 
expect that the answers given reflect a candidate's position and will reflect actions 
taken in office.  Candidates being asked to respect the endorsement is no different.  
The only thing is, you can tell within days if he or she meant it.

Michael Lewis
Mac-Groveland 
Ward 3 DFL Chair

Or maybe Bush could explain how insulting our allies is supposed to help us win 
against terrorists.  Or maybe Bush could explain why, after seeing the PDB entitled 
Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. he immediately sprang into . . . VACATION   
..........   Oops, sorry, out of time.  

   





Bob T wrote:

I don't agree with your analogy that an endorsement is like a marriage.  
I think a candidate has a right to ask for support from a particular
group, but in the end the candidate, if elected, has to serve and
represent all of the people, all of the different groups that supported
her/him.   The candidate should not be expected to maintain an allegiance
to any small group, no matter how early or eagerly they supported him.  
If a candidate, prior to the caucuses, feels they have support from a
large portion of citizens, but not so large a portion of caucus goers,
that candidate should not abandon their general supporters just because
the caucus-goers are smitten with someone else.


________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!
_____________________________________________
To Join:   St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul

Archive Address:
   http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/

Reply via email to