You can’t say that you were never invited.

Anyway enjoy your free time going to Marie Osmond doll jamborees, or whatever it is you gals like to do.

Thanks for yet another sexist remark, though, you predictable, pathetic little racist toad. I’m sure PDD is proud to have you, but I would have thought that a group that takes itself seriously enough to demand that candidates go through a rigorous process to get their endorsement would be a little more discerning about who they let in. I guess not.

Rebecca -

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like a pretty cumbersome process, but that’s just me. I had no idea that organizations sent questionnaires to candidates. I figured they just made their decisions based on published information. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you get it wrong. Speaking of which, did PDD endorse Minner?

John Mackenzie – State Senate – 6th District
Opponent – Michael Terranova
Opponent in General Election – Liane Sorenson

Michael Katz – State Senate – 4th District
Opponent – Dee Durham
Opponent in General Election – winner of Primary between
Rich Abbott, John Clatworthy, and Michael Fleming (Charlie Copeland’s old seat)

Tom Scherer – County Council – 12th District
Opponent – William Bell
Opponent in General Election – Laura Brown

Thank you for your interest and insight into the impact and process of the PDD endorsement committee. I share the following as the thoughts of one committee member.

Our is an imperfect process, but is being regularly examined for improvements, and is being developed and executed by five hard-working, committed, and highly-ethical volunteers (and myself Our process is made all the more challenging given the state’s insane schedule (filing deadlines).

You write “Also disappointing is your inability to voice support for Bill Dunn for Council President. I guess that a no endorsement for this important position from PDDer’s is a vote for Paul Clark even when he is the exemplification of bad government.”

Bill Dunn is a good guy, a good activist, and a good candidate. I don’t however, agree with your guess that a lack of an endorsement is a vote for the incumbent (Paul Clark). It is, instead, a lack of an endorsement. The committee did not, as a whole, find a candidate that meets our (admittedly high) criteria, and the importance of this race will not compel us to adjust our high standards.

We had one survey from another good candidate, who responded very progressively on all questions except a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. We decided to not endorse them, not as a vote for their opponent, but as a statement that that candidate does not pass well enough our PDD litmus tests.

I believe that it is correct to say that the PDD Endorsement committee releases a private recommendation to the PDD Steering Committee with the endorsed candidates identified. It is up the the PDD Steering Committee to accept the recommended endorsements, and to prepare and release (or not) a full statement.

Nancy, again, thanks for your thoughts. I expect that we will have a healthy ‘post-mortem’ (if that is possible) on the 2008 PDD endorsement process, so that it will be new and improved in 2010.

Also disappointing is your inability to voice support for Bill Dunn for Council President. I guess that a no endorsement for this important position fromPDDer’s is a vote for Paul Clark even when he is the exemplification of bad government.

be careful what you wish for!

how can dom do that? She is a republican

You could always join PDD and help get more and better Dems elected- maybe even join the endorsement comittee.

I know that sounds like work, and is not as fun as sitting on the sidelines and carping like a bitter shrew about how everyone not named Hillary Clinton sucks, but it is an option.

All the endorsements we made are on the list.

We have found over the past three election cycles that the exercise of developing a questionnaire helps us identify the issues that are important to our group. Being progressives, we tend to home in on issues that aren’t always mainstream. For example, FOIA for the General Assembly. Our membership takes part in the design of the questionnaire and they get to vote on what issues will be covered. Sometimes the candidate hasn’t taken a public stance on an issue but we want to know where they stand before we pledge our support. When PDD endorses we commit our members’ money and volunteer time.

Many candidates have reported that completing our questionnaire helps them focus and think about the issues. They find it helpful.

This year one candidate told me he/she would not be returning the questionnaire because he/she didn’t want to commit in writing to a certain stance that might prove unpopular to mainstream voters. That’s okay, it was his/her choice. But it means that we aren’t obliged to send him/her a check or turn out to knock on doors for him/her.

Another incumbent candidate returned a questionnaire indicating that he/she supported open government but refused to support it in the General Assembly when the time came. He/she was disqualified from endorsement.

Every Democratic candidate is invited to participate and they self-eliminate when they chose not to send in a questionnaire. It’s part of the process.

While the questionnaire score determines whether a candidate moves on in the endorsement process, it is not the only deciding factor. If a candidate meets a minimum progressive score he/she is invited in to interview with the endorsement committee. Our committee members are all activists with broad knowledge of progressive issues in Delaware. The committee is gender balanced with three men and three women. They spend a lot of their time and talent working on these endorsements. It’s not just a scoring exercise. A candidate’s past performance on the things PDD cares about is factored into the decision. And the candidate is given an opportunity to talk about this.

Dom, if you do a bit of research I think you will find that most organizations use a questionnaire and interview process when considering endorsement. We can’t ask our members to put out their money and time without doing our due diligence and most other organizations work the same way.

Finally, we do it because we can. It’s our time, our money, and our endorsement. We like the process and feel it does a good job of determining who supports the same things we do. There’s no law that says we have to endorse and there’s no law that determines how we endorse. It’s politics Dom! If we like a candidate we endorse them, and vice versa. We developed a process to quantify our “liking”. It’s our process, developed by our members who do all the work it takes. The same members who put up the money and volunteer time for the identified candidates.

PDD is about political action. Those who take the action have the say. That’s how it should be.

I’m sorry, but it just seems crazy to not consider endorsing a candidate simply because you didn’t get a questionnaire back from him/her. For instance, didn’t you endorse Jerry Northington because he was the only one who returned the silly questionnaire??? How does that make any sense?

Don’t get me wrong, I really like Jerry. I think he’s a great guy. This isn’t about him, though. It’s about an endorsement policy that, from where I’m sitting, lacks credibility.