jocelynrockville's Blog

I voted!

2008-11-04T13:19:14Z

I voted this morning in Maryland - outside of DC. I was in line at 7:05 and waited 40+ minutes to vote. I have NEVER waited longer than 5 or 10 minutes before. Maybe it's that I got their earlier than usual. Maybe more people were trying to vote early since rain is expected later in the day. Others in the line were remarking how unusual it was to have a line at our polling place.

More than the simple act of voting was how I felt about it. I've voted in every election (presidential, mid-term - primaries and general) since I was 18 - I'm 43 now. This was the first time that I actually had a thrill about voting. The first time that I was excited to vote - that it felt more like a pleasure and a privilege instead of just a duty or an obligation. Casting my ballot for Obama and Biden was like a weight being lifted, like a big cleansing breath, like the sense of peace that comes after a hard workout. This was simply a joy.

I know my vote won't count as much as that of my sister, who lives in Richmond VA, or those of my cousins who live in Pittsburgh PA. But it was still wonderful.

I'm off now for canvassing in VA.

Canvassed in Virginia Today

2008-09-29T03:38:22Z

I'm 43. I've never volunteered for a political campaign before. The most I've ever done is have a yard sign - and that was for a Congressional race.

Today, I canvassed for the Obama campaign in Northern Virginia - Loudon County. After that experience, I feel that we have a real shot at turning Virgnia blue this year.

Of the people we talked to today - the vast majority were strong or leaning Obama. Granted - this was a very small sample, but finding such a small number of McCain voters in a red state was surprising.

Many of the people were thrilled to find that we were out. One man we talked to said, when we asked him his party, and said he was a strong Democrat, said "I'm a Democrat out here in a sea of Republicans..." I was happy to let him know that he wasn't alone. He brought his elderly mother to the door - she's recently moved in with him, and he's taking her down to the DMV to get her registered. One more for Obama in Virginia!

Superdelegates - They should vote based on their judgement

2008-04-02T22:47:05Z

This expands on a comment I made on the article about Dean saying Superdelegates can vote however they see fit.

Fair disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter.

I don't have any problem with the SD's voting according to their "best judgement" or their conscience. I'm confident they will make the best decision when the time comes. We should also all face facts: Superdelegates will decide the nomination. Neither candidate can gain enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright.

My fellow Obama supporters - I think we should all calm down a little on the superdelegate question for reasons I outline below.

Superdelegates have their own role, and they shouldn't be bound to vote the way their state or their district does. At the same time, they shouldn't be bound to vote by electoral college, popular vote or pledged delegates. They should vote the way the party planned - for the good of the party.

What I find amusing/disturbing is how Clinton supporters automatically assume that SD's will vote for Clinton if they are "free" to vote their conscience or based upon their independent judgement. I just don't think that's the case, especially since we have seen the SDs breaking for Obama in large numbers since Super Tuesday.

I think that SD's will look at the state of the race at the end of the primaries and make a decision - and I'm confident that decision will be for Obama.

Why? Let's remember there are two kinds of SD's - elected officials and party officials.

Elected officials will go for Obama because they want coattails. They don't want to be perceived as "going against the voters". And they have already seen how Obama's grass roots organizing can help them on the ground - See Bill Foster in Illinois (Denny Hastert's seat) and Donna Edwards in MD (beating out incumbent Al Wynn) - so they will look at that as helping them in November. (Not to mention the recent press about the Clinton supporter who would be "stunned" if Obama isn't the nominee and the next president). This sort of grass roots organizing power is bread and butter for Congressional races - particularly House races, state legislature races, gubenatorial elections, etc. Not to mention the fundraising power. Elected officials are looking at Obama's unprecedented ability to raise funds, and hoping to tap into that for their next election. The see the voter registration and turnout numbers and think "coattails". With Obama at the top of the ticket, many elected officials (or challengers) will hope to see their chance improve as well. Many of these same elected officials haven't forgotten how the Clinton administration ended up losing in the midterm elections. While I agree this was not entirely the administrations fault, it still happened on their watch. They also will remember that Hillary Clinton didn't do a lot of campaigning (other than her own) during either the 2004 or 2006 cycles. Obama did - even going to help in other states when he was running for senator in IL. Not to mention helping Bill Foster this year - while he's running for President. (Any other examples folks?)

Party officials will go for Obama because they want to build the party for the long term. This means young people. Think of the incredible energy that college students and even some high schoolers (like Casey Knowles) are showing on behalf of Obama. Think of the high turnout, the voter registration drives, the party switching going on. This are the metrics that the party looks at. In addition, the party is interested in recruiting new faces to run for elected office. Some of the younger people may become the next group of leaders. In 2012, we may see an Obama precinct captain running for state legislature. (or more than one). The experience that these volunteers are gaining in how to run a campaign is crucial - building networks, understanding how fundraising works, learning how to put on an event. All of this is critical to building for the future.

These are all reasons why I've never had a problem with the super delegates. After all, they will make their decision based on self interest. And, I think they will see that their interests are best served by Obama as the nominee. Some people commented when I posted before that the Superdelegates have been corrupted/coerced by the Clinton machine. I think Carville killed that single-handedly when he called Richardson "Judas". In private - sure - no problem. But you don't go on TV, calling a senior member of your party a traitor, since he picked the other candidate. And you certainly don't keep defending it.

So - relax Obama supporters. The superdelegates are watching, and we will prevail.

Obama blogs about Wright at Huffington Post

2008-03-14T20:43:33Z

I believe the blog answers the questions that have been raised regarding Obama and Wright. In specific he categorically rejects/denounces/renounces/repudiates the offensive statements

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

Congressional Earmarks

2008-03-12T22:25:58Z

My first blog post, please be kind.
I was listening to NPR on my way home from work and heard a story about reform in the Congressional earmark "system".
Currently, members of Congress can add earmarks to spending bills to get $$$ for their districts. These could range from $100K to study cheese making, or fund a small local museam to something like Ted Stevens "Bridge to Nowhere"
While I'm not sure all earmarks are bad - the idea of a Congressperson putting several million dollars into a spending bill for a pet project strikes most people as kind of scandalous. Not to mention the lobbying that goes on for this type of thing. On the other hand, sometimes, small earmarks can do good things, like preserve local landmarks or special industries / crafts, etc.
Here is my proposal for reform of the earmark system:Each member of congress gets $500K in "earmark money" on an annual basis. That creates a (roughly) $220 million budget line item. Members should have some discretion in how they spend their earmark, but there should be some auditing (e.g. checks to see that the money actually goes to the place they say it's going and that the organization they give it to actually exists) and accountability (e.g. they can't use it for campaigning for themselves or others).
If a member wants to go over the $500K limit - they will need to team up with another member of congress to fund their project. For example, members of congress from around the DC area (reps from Montgomery County and PG County in MD, plus Fairfax and Arlington County in VA) could get together to fund a $2M project to help clean up the Potomac River.
This sort of teamwork would force members of Congress to work together, and would help make sure that the larger projects were realistic and worthy.
Here's the other wrinkle - if a Congressperson doesn't use their money in a given year, it doesn't carry over. So, you can't "save up" for 2 years to fund a big project.
Similarly, it's not "use it or lose it". One of the big problems with Federal budgeting is "use it or lose it". Agencies get a certain amount in budget dollars, and divvy it up among various departments, and so forth. The problem is that if the department or group doesn't use their budget allocation in a given year, the next year, their overall budget allocation is reduced - so there is NO incentive to save. For example, let's say I have a $1M budget for 2007, and by the end of the budget cycle (September, since the fiscal year starts October 1), I've spend $850K of it. That means I have to spend $150K before October 1, or my budget gets reduced. (This is where you end up with a lot of waste - people spending their remaining budget, so they don't get cut later).Anyway, back to the point. If a member of congress spends $400K of their earmark money in one budget year, the next budget year, they still get $500K.
I'm sure there are a lot of ways that this system could work better - different allocations of money, more auditing and accountability, etc. However, I think this sort of system will take infrastructure projects (roads, bridges) out of earmarks, and into rational budgeting, while still preserving the ability for Congresspeople to give something back to their districts. In addition, I think it might create opportunities for congresspeople to work together on projects (hopefully for the greater good). Similarly, since the discretionary dollars are small, it might reduce the impact of lobbyists.
Anyway, I'm sure there are a lot of intelligent people out their who might have ideas on how to create a rational system that preserves some sort of "congressionally directed funding" without breaking the bank.
Again - this is my first blog, so please be nice.