Left In Lowell

Well, ok, it was just in passing in an article about the City Managers new blog, but pretty neat.

I have some stuff to post, but life’s getting in the way. So, talk amongst yourselves for a bit!

(Thanks to paul@01852 for the link to the article!) Oh, and GO PATS!!!!

Well, unexpectedly, Edwards has for all intents and purposes dropped out of the Democratic primary ahead of super-duper Tuesday. This comment sums it up: “Tough to Run Against Two Celebrities…He was running against Yesterday’s Phenomenon, Hillary and Today’s Phenomenon, Barack. John was a great candidate but not a rock star.” But he left his mark very distinctly on this race - to be honest, I think one of the biggest marks, about standing up for the little guy.

This means that on the Democratic side, we are definitely poised for making history. Either a woman or an African-American will become our nominee, with a great shot at the presidency. I’ve already made my serious reservations about Clinton known, how I can’t honestly believe her newly formed “populist” message after years of neoliberal policies and giving in to corporations. I think this election is about populism versus kleptocracy, and I just don’t buy Clinton. She is of an older political generation, one that adopted some of the rhetoric of the economic rightwing in order to survive the political atmosphere of the day. Maybe she’s wised up from her husband’s tenure, but I don’t see that in her more recent voting record. And her tendency to want to “out-tough” the hawkish bullhorn of the Republicans, while understandable (as the first woman with a serious chance at becoming Commander-in-Chief), is abhorrent to me. We’ve had enough of tough talk.

Although I remain still a little skeptical of the shine and shimmer of Barak Obama, I’ll admit…the Ted Kennedy endorsement threw me. Normally, I pay little heed to endorsements. But to have such an institution as Senator Kennedy endorse the phenom rising star - after having worked for a few years with him in the Senate - well, that’s intriguing. I respect what Senator Kennedy has done for just-folks in the Senate during his storied career, and it makes me wonder if maybe there’s hidden substance to that dazzling style of Obama’s. Certainly Obama is a smart, thinking man, regardless of his charisma and charm.

Perhaps all the media comparisons of Obama with JFK are a lot less fanciful than I’ve been thinking.

Glancing through Obama’s issues pages, I know that I am not in agreement with 100% of his proposals. Paul Krugman has criticized his health care plan for not including an individual mandate (though, while I love Paul, I’m not sure I agree with him, as the Mass reform plan screwed a lot of middle class people with the penalties, those neither rich enough to just pay out, nor poor enough to get subsidies). But certainly the general consensus is that Obama’s health care plan doesn’t go as far as either Clinton’s or Edwards.

Then there was the accusations that Obama supports Reaganomics, a meme that the Clintons pounced on as did Paul Krugman. The Clintons, in particular, made political hay with it (to score points with the base, of course) actually misquoting Obama. However, all Obama was pointing out, in context, was that during the previous decades, Democrats had lapsed in being the leaders with ideas, and the Republicans won on having them (except I-feel-your-pain Bill, who adopted several of theirs anyway, like welfare reform). This is another form of the same argument that I’ve made plenty of times…that given a choice between Republican, and Republican Lite, we’ve seen the voters go for the real deal. Good ideas or not!

Though Obama lists it first on his economic page, I don’t subscribe to more immediate tax cuts for anyone, even the middle class (we can’t afford it). It is more important to get the budget deficit under control than to cut taxes right now. Clinton has similar ideas. I also don’t see anything about restoring sanity to our progressive taxation system, which rewards work by taxing the “money making money” effect at a higher rate than the middle or lower classes. Now, I’m not advocating a 90% top tax rate, but I think the pendulum has swung too far towards the wrong end. And I don’t think it would be a bad idea to say it.

However, there’s nothing to suggest that Obama will continue Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and he talks about better trade deals with worker and environmental protections. Clinton, on the other hand, while she mentions that “trade policy must raise our standard of living, and they must have strong protections for workers and the environment,” she was married to the guy who embraced unrestricted “Free Trade” too completely, and I see no evidence she really learned from that. She does spend a long time on a “retraining” plan for workers who lose jobs overseas. Great, until those jobs also head overseas. Leaving us with…say…minimum wage retail jobs.

The biggest question that I’ve had to answer, to feel comfortable with an Obama vote, is…is he a real progressive? After months of hearing his speeches about unity and reaching out to the other side, I wasn’t too sure…but Kennedy and his family seem to be. Obama’s voting record is. The Clintons certainly have been trying to convince us he is not, attacking him where he’s strong with that crucial base, telling us he’s really a hidden Reagan Democrat…but from where I sit, if anyone is a Reagan Democrat, it would be Hillary Clinton. Recent changing of stripes notwithstanding.

So, the time has come. To actually make a decision. And if change and a little optimism is what we need - and I do believe that after 30 years of Capitulation Democrats, we certainly could use a new crop of leaders - count me down for another Obama vote come this Tuesday, February 5th, in the Massachusetts Democratic primary.

In case anyone was wondering why I have not posted, I am traveling in Europe this week. On Saturday, I did listen to Shawn Ashe and Warren Shaw on WCAP, courtesy of free wi-fi in the hotel and the CAP’s capability to broadcast through the internet. Shawn, you sound just as conservative in England as you do in the U.S.A.

I am also reading all the bogs and the papers. So it feels like I am at home, except here everyone insists on driving on the wrong side of the road.

I was here a couple of years ago and the biggest difference is that no one is talking about the war. In 2006 when people engaged me in discussion, they only wanted to talk about the war. Now, when they learn I am from the U.S., they ask about the Presidential election and Obama. They are intrigued by the mystique. He certainly is getting good press here.

In spite of a lot of economic and political issues, the English have a high level of optimism regarding their economy. I wish we could say the same.

Another event you can attend to hear more about Barak Obama. I am only getting organizing info from one campaign here, so that’s what I’m posting. This is being held at a downtown loft. It sounds like a nice event.

Next Tuesday Massachusetts will join over twenty other states whose voters will significantly determine our Democratic nominee for the next President of the United States.

We are hosting Thaleia Tsongas Schlesinger, Democratic activist and twin sister of the late, great US Senator Paul Tsongas, in a conversation with you about her support for Barack Obama.

In the two caucuses and two primaries to date, Barack Obama has received the most votes and the most delegates from the most diverse coalition of Americans to vote in decades.

Tomorrow evening please join us to question, listen, consider and draw your conclusions about why so many voters throughout the country who share so many concerns like yours—the war; the economy; matters of equality and issues of justice, civic participation and national stature—have voted Obama.

When: Tomorrow, Wednesday, 30 January, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Where: 30 Market Street U8
Why: Join the conversation with Thaleia Tsongas Schlesinger, supporter, Obama for President
Hosts: Ms. J. Dayne Lamb and Mr. Gardner N. Stratton

30 Market is between the Leo Roy Garage and Centro, just past the Northern Mass Tel Credit Union building, with resident only parking in front of a garden. U8 is on the 2nd floor top of the stairs to the left; there also is an elevator. A coat rack will be in the hall. Lastly, our floors are cork so we ask that you not wear stiletto heels.

Wine, sparkling water, cheese and lively conversation on offer. Please, join us!

From local organizer Monica:

Lowell Massachusetts Women for Obama Hosts a “Barack Brunch” on Sunday, January 27

We’re inviting women to a brunch to learn more about why Obama is the best candidate for women and families.

Life Alive Café
194 Middle Street
Lowell, MA
11:00 AM – 1:00 PM
PLEASE RSVP: Monica Hinojos, monica.hinojos [at] gmail.com (replace [at] and spaces with an @)

I never was really enthusiastic about Clinton, as I don’t really believe she can effect the change we really need in this country…her voting record and her donor list show this. But I have never had so much dislike for her as I do right now. Like diarist dengre, it’s just so hard to believe how quickly the wheels came off the civility and the high level of the debate in the Democratic race, and you can trace most of it to Bill Clinton. Dengre writes:

Look, I’ve made no secret that I think Senator Clinton is our weakest candidate, but I’ve tried to lay out my reasons why I feel that way and I respect folks who disagree with me.

And I have always made it clear that I would support the Democratic Nominee in November and that if Senator Clinton was the Nominee she would have my support.

I felt that way a few weeks ago, but now I’m not sure anymore.

In the last few weeks, I have found my own rhetoric and feelings getting more and more heated. As the race-baiting, dirty-tricks, voter suppression efforts and outright lies have multiplied, I have found myself getting as angry at some Democrats as I have been at most Republicans—and I have been angry at most Republicans since 1964 when I was eight.

One of those Democrats is Bill Clinton.

I can see the political reasons for why Bill Clinton has reduced his wife’s campaign to the stark parameters of race. It is the best way to elect her. Appeals to fear and racism always work better than appeals to hope—especially with an electorate and news media pre-condition to always embrace stereotypes and fear over logic and hope.

It is smart politics to reduce Obama to the “inexperienced black guy” and Edwards to the “angry white guy”. These over-the-top framings of these Candidates are sticking and driving the narrative. If either Edwards or Obama were to win the nomination the damage done by Bill Clinton will follow them into November. If Senator Clinton wins, the damage of her path to “victory” will follow her as well. It is powerful stuff, to unleash super-charged narratives shaped by five-hundred years of American racism. These are framings that will shape the rest of this Election year. They have been released and they can not be stopped.

Then I also listened to this On Point interview, with Clinton backer Lanny Davis ranting like an insane man, trying to defend Bill Clinton’s mud-slinging methods in the last couple weeks.

No one is asking for the candidates to nod and agree amicably. Of course there will be differences of opinion, on issues and even on methodology, even strong words bandied around. But this dirty invocation of racism in our country, despite the fact we know that Bill and Hillary are anything but, this suppression of voter’s enthusiasm for going out and voting, it can’t be good for our party or our democracy. Does Hillary Clinton really want to ride into the White House on this platform of division and anger, does Bill really want to destroy his status as a respected ex-president in order to get them back in? It’s enough to make you want to stay home on election day with the covers over your eyes.

[Hat tip to BMG for the On Point interview.]

Dick has an interesting proposal on his blog regarding the applicant screening process, a sort of compromise, which I wanted to bring attention to:

Here’s a possibility: The critical portion of the screening committee work will be the interviews conducted by that committee and the debate about which of those interviewed should be passed on to the school committee as the five finalists. It is the interviews conducted by the screening committee and their subsequent deliberations that must be made public. Less important is the full roster of applicants. If we do, by some miracle, receive thirty applications, learning the identities of the bottom twenty is far less important than scrutinizing the top ten.

One of the things I wonder is that will keeping everything closed really help all that much to attract many more candidates, when there seems to be so few applicants regardless? It seems the first problem is (as Lobster Man said in comments) our timing, starting this process in the middle of the winter. If that’s the case, no amount of confidentiality will greatly increase that number. It might provide a couple more than what we would already have had, perhaps, but will a truly stellar administrator let public screening interviews stop them from applying in the first place? Seems to me, a bigger impediment would be how Baehr was treated by our politicians in this city, and there ain’t much that can done about that now, can it?

(Edited after publishing to add last sentence.)

I haven’t decided on a candidate, but if you have and it’s Barak Obama, there is a local Obama informational/organizational meeting this Friday, Jan. 25th from 6:30pm-7:30pm in downtown Lowell. It will be held at BAMS Family Salon, 11 Central Street (Off of Merrimack Street, across from the Dunkin Donuts). I am told that “Representatives of the Obama campaign will be there to speak about upcoming events, ways to get involved and to have discussions about why Obama is the best choice for President. We hope you can make it out and join us in supporting Obama. Please spread the word.”

You can contact Alex Buck at aebuck [at] comcast.net (replace the [at] and spaces with an @ sign). He’s asking people to RSVP if they can make it, so he knows how much refreshments to have, and he promises it’ll be only a one-hour meeting.

I admit to knowing very little about the process of hiring a superintendent. I wasn’t able to go last night, but there are very thorough reports from Dick Howe and Jackie. They disagree on one major component to the screening process: whether to have it open to the public, or closed. (The dispute is summarized here by the Sun.)

Dick points out that the screening process was open last time and resulted in the selection of Baehr (which, by most accounts, was a great decision). The School Committee’s four to three vote against an open screening process, he says, “ensured that the work of that committee, no matter how noble and well meaning, will always be vulnerable to accusations of backroom dealing, and will always lack the full confidence of the public.”

On the other side, Jackie argues for her vote to close the process, stating that “we absolutely must attract the best candidates. I sought advice from several credible sources who all told me it was imperative we ensure the confidentiality of the applicants if we were to attract experienced candidates.” She is worried that an open process, with such a shortage of supers in the state right now, might limit those who would be willing to apply if they are already employed by school districts elsewhere. She states:

Just hours before last night’s meeting, I spoke to Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Mass. Assoc. of School Committees, about the process, the shortage of superintendents statewide, and the lack of candidates (we have only five applicants so far). Mr. Koocher was adamant about the confidentiality piece. I also discussed it with Supt. Baehr, who noted that we may get assistant superintendents to apply, but without confidentiality, we will limit the pool of sitting superintendents.

It seems both sides have credible arguments here, and I personally like to err on the side of transparency. But experts apparently agree with Jackie that exposing applicants to the open at the beginning of the process will cause some otherwise qualified applicants to opt against sending their resume. I respect both Jackie and Dick greatly and I think they’ve debated this dispute admirably, and in the best interests of our kids. But this is a case, for me, of no clear right choice.

Regardless, the final five finalists, like with the City Manager hiring process, will be revealed and interviewed in public before the final decision is reached.

So, what do you think?

I thought last nightduring their discussion of the Transitional Living Center (Middlesex Street Shelter), the City Council could have been a bit more compassionate. CC Rita Mercier was the only one who was charitable in her comments regarding the plight of these homeless people. For the most part, the tone of the discussion was strictly from a business point of view.

It was in late October that the same type of motion was fully discussed by the CC. I think we should give the Administration a little bit more time to work something out with the management and staff of that facility. (They just hired a new Executive Director.) I am not sure why this motion was introduced and discussed before the CM had an opportunity to bring back his findings. As I had previously written, the entire City has a major investment in the urban revitalization of that area, the half billion dollar JAM Plan, but shipping these people out to Tewksbury is not a viable solution. (more…)