A Message from John Scagliotti

"Do you think this tangential connection to Paris Hilton would be more damaging for this woman than his journalism covering radicals in the 60's."

Ouch!

Paris Hilton! Now that's 'rad'. LOL

BondiBeachViews

Al, I read the Barry Crimmins piece and am curious. Just what is a credential these days? Back in '80, I had two different credentials.

First, a government photo ID of some sort that I think I had to get from the Secret Service. It just had my name, photo, and press affiliation.

Second, party-issued credentials for access to the convention floor. I had a "floor pass" both times but I believe there were also "non-floor" passes (there were five of them, one for each day). These passes were basically "bearer documents" -- no name on them -- good for whoever was wearing them as long as you had the Secret Service ID.

Has any of this changed? If not, then these convention passes don't need to be "transferred." She can just give them to you -- as long as you're cleared whatever government agency handles that these days.

Barry may be right about journalists not wanting to touch it, but in reality, will anyone be able to tell that it's the "Deb" pass?

Why should a guy trained by Alinskyites fear Alinsky?

How many people even know who Saul Alinsky was?

This doesn't compute. Some people need to get a grip.

Why does she keep e-mailing people? I just don't understand it.

Ben Smith on the day's campaign finance affray: "He [Obama] came to politics through the community organizing movement, whose radical founder, Saul Alinsky, mocked highbrow reformers, and focused instead on the acquisition and use of power, with the ends often justifying the means."

BondiBeachViews

I owe Andy Kopkind for my first mention in the national lefty press. Reagan and the Soviets agreed to cut back on medium range nukes. Andy caught me perform at the Village Gate, where I said, "I'm moving to a medium range city almost right away."

The next week Kopkind quoted the quip in the lead of a Nation editorial on the treaty. It was a small thing to Andy but it put me on the map with a lot of people.

Barry

Alinksy gets a mention in Ben Smith's story on The Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11211.html

 

Obama's move wasn't out of character. In fact - though he has at times adopted popular reform causes - Obama has never been a traditional reformer. He came to politics through the community organizing movement, whose radical founder, Saul Alinsky, mocked highbrow reformers, and focused instead on the acquisition and use of power, with the ends often justifying the means.

 

Anyway, I am choosing to be amused by all the scare tactics. Good for people like John Scagliotti for speaking truths.

(Al, if you don't want to post this, I fully understand)

I'm not sure what this is, but it's evidently an archived podcast of something called "Liberal Oasis" (12/22/07) with an interview of Deb and someone else at RV.

http://www.liberaloasis.com/podcasts/122207.mp3

The interview part starts at about 11:55. Al's mentioned at around 22:45. I don't know how to clip stuff from audio files, but maybe someone can snip the relevant points.

Al, I saw that Barry did finally reply to that DK email. With a beautiful post complete with J. McCarthy's tombstone, a a very clear notice to Deb on expectations for Denver and clarification of the use of the name "The Field" I still think she is not too bright but I had no idea how devious she was.

And speaking of a less important deception but one that needs to be exposed is Deb's knowledge of rural matters. If there is just one thing this now citified Chicago girl knows it's the lives of rural folks. You can't have grown up on a 200 acre farm with no TV, working in the fields, driving the tractors and baling the hay, feeding the pigs, etc. etc. alongside 11 brothers and sisters 4 miles outside of a town of 358 people (and with the closest "big" city being 20 miles away with a population of 20,000) for 18 years and NOT know rural. So allow me tell you, Deb Kozikowski does NOT know rural by spending summers on her aunt's farm. The way she is portraying her knowledge is deceptive. 

I think Steven H. also expressed similar views of her knowledge on the matter and every discussion I had with her she was flat out wrong.  So she needs to stop claiming to be an expert on rural issues when, from her bio, it appears she has been involved in rural matters since only 2004 with the Kerry campaign. But I could be wrong. Perhaps she has a John Deere riding lawn mower.

"BOK" - Nice try at threadjacking, but no cigar. If you want to talk about something different there's another topic below this one. But you don't get to tell others what we can and can't talk about. That's sort of the point of all this, no?

I see I am the third person who wanted to post about Ben Smith's article. I find that an interesting development myself.

There's an odor of this in the continuing dk behavior on this issue.

I no longer believe there were any "funders" just straw dogs for a purpose not yet entirely played out. Might be time for a simple clear and "no drama" promotion of the petition folks. I think the quote might be "move on nothing to see here, please take a moment to register your demand for justice. I could be wrong but I think there is a cultivation of drama still from its original source in dk. Post as you like my opinion may be way off base since I am reading my instinct.

Here I reveal my ignorance. Barry Crimmins fillets Deb thoroughly and skillfully, but I wonder--is she really that important? Is she more than just another superdelegate with a blog who got her fifteen minutes of fame by refusing to make a decision?

Sorry to be cynical, but I'm not surprised at all that DK tried to throw Al under the bus, not realizing he not only had a Plan B but a little army of helpers to move the bus aside. The Democratic Party I've known lo these many years has never given a crap about the American people unless appearing to do so served them directly. That's why I'll plotz if DK actually gets disciplined by even a portion of the party for her attempts to squelch a movement.

On the other hand I never thought I'd see the name "Paris Hilton" on a Field blog. Bravo, Mr. Scagliotti! Bravo! Indeed, there are more things in heaven and earth...

Robert: The convention committee is credentialing media outlets and blogs, not individuals. This means that those entering the Pepsi Center should be identified by publication, rather than name, as there may be more than one writer per blog. I don't know about the federal government's involvement. I have also heard that a good number of the blogs approved by the committee will only be receiving one credential to the Pepsi Center. So trading between writers will no doubt be happening.

Thanks for sharing, Al. Nice message from John and good post by Barry.

Count me as another who knows something about rural issues and always considered ruralvotes and D.K. to have a vision and impact much narrower than the projected one-stop shop for rural policy. I actually avoided following links to Al's posts from other blogs for a while because I was skeptical of what I saw at the ruralvotes home page. I'm so glad I finally decided to let The Field stand on its own merits.

If Catherine or Steven H. or anyone else is interested in talking about how rural issues may play in the Obama campaign, or just generally, I started a forum topic at the Fieldhands site earlier this week on rural policy.

Deb should care about John Scagliotti's opinion, since he's a lavender man. But is he from San Francisco?

In all seriousness, to suggest that Kopkind was some kind of left-wing radical "terrorist" is asinine. Kopkind wrote for the Washington Post and Time. He had a degree from the London School of Economics for god's sake.

"BOK" - The deal is if you want to make anonymous comments here they had better be interesting and truthful. You've been given my email address. If you don't want to talk about it there, get lost and find another place to troll around. (Everybody else - Please excuse this brief interruption and carry on with your excellent conversations!)

Loved your post, Barry.
_____________________________

If, as has been suggested, Ms. Kozikowski is reading the new Field, this quote from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals on Wikipedia -- a website I find useful for only birth/death dates -- might be of interest.
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.."

If this doesn't define this year, I dont know what does.

Al, I briefly mentioned this on another thread; but today, while searching the homepage of RuralVotes, I saw this quote neatly placed in a little box on the left:
"The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.”
- Judge Louis Brandeis
After my short post, I did more research and found that Justice Brandeis was considered a radical.

"Brandeis practiced law in Boston between 1879 and 1916, acquiring the popular name of the "people's attorney" because he so commonly worked for causes which were in the public interest. Brandeis was particularly interested in the development and growing power of private mass movements, like trade unions. Louis Brandeis saw them as the means by which social power in modern society might gradually be transferred from the few to the man."
"Starting in 1912, Brandeis worked to support Woodrow Wilson's bid for the presidency. Brandeis might have been appointed to a cabinet level post, but he was too radical for the taste of many. While President, Wilson continued to consult Brandeis on matters like labor legislation and, when a vacancy appeared, Wilson appointed him to the position of Associate Justice on the Supreme Court in 1916. Once again, Brandeis' radical views caused problems, resulting in the strongest protest ever lodged against a Supreme Court nominee up to that time."
For more information see:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/political/bldef_brandeislouis.htm

As a past supporter of RuralVotes, does this mean I am a radical? Also, I donated there frequently. Am I in trouble? (Snark)

@Lenore -- The point is that DK is not so important that she should be allowed to monkeywrench the cloolective intent of the Fieldhands. This is a scandal and the DNC should not want scandalous people on the committee. This is doubly true when there is a demonstrable backroom decision to ignore the will of a group of people who spent their own funds to send a representative to the Dem convention as an observer. DK isn't so big but there are large principles at stake.

@ Alexa-- Thanks so much (and thanks to all who have made generous remarks about my work). You are one of several Fieldhands who has emerged as an important voice on this election. You folks inform, enlighten and entertain. So thanks a lot.

I hope you all keep writing after after the election is over. I further hope you write about issues beyond those directly relating to electoral politics because if all we do is worry about elections, we'll soon forget how to light the fire that all politicians need their feet held to. Barry

Al, at the risk of admitting to some ignorance here, one of the coolest things about this blog is learning about new folks. Last week it was Alinsky and Kopkind, this week Barry Crimmins. Barry's piece regarding DK, aside from being highly entertaining, truly illustrates the level of wacko that runs around in the lower levels of the party (I'm sure that goes for both parties).

Also good to see some commenters here who seem to understand rural issues. I never did make a connection betweeen RV and the ex-Field. Peace.

I read some Hunter S. Thompson books awhile back. Guess that means there's an FBI file on me, and that I can expect my Obama donation to be returned.

I'm still shocked at how this has come down. The Bush Maladministration has proven to me that just when one thinks that one's head cannot explode any further, there is always something around the corner that can another head explosion of even greater magnitude and force. That moment was reading Deb's "Send Al to Chicago" post written a scant three weeks before Al committed the unpardonable sin of mentioning -gasp - Saul Alinsky's principles for organizing. Kaboom.

So this gets me to a couple of questions:
1) Al...How the hell did you and Deb come together to begin with? If you don't want to go there, I understand. Still, it may help to understand this mindboggling unraveling. In retrospect, it seems as if "odd couple" doesn't even begin to touch on the difference in missions.

2) Al...you have eluded on several occasions to DNC folks and other supers reading the Field (along with other blogoscenti and members of the punditocracy. Were these folks garnered through Deb's connections and RV or via your own peripatetic journalistic feats and contacts? Or both?

Myself. I'm like Ferdinand the Bull. I'd prefer to sit under a cork tree and smell flowers and watch the river flow then get involved in the sturm and drung of internecine struggle. At the same time...I can be stung to action. Now, to pull together all the above questions....I would much prefer to try to work toward coming to an accomodation - given that all different wings of the party need to come together under that great and glorious tattered big tent. If there's anything that I've learned from Obama's initial efforts, it's that we don't have to like each other. We can even dislike each other...At the same time, we need each other and our mutual interests are far greater and more important than our differences (no matter how big they seem). Which brings me to ask...is there a possibility that Al and Deb have mutual acquaintances that can mediate the dispute over blogging credentials? Given the unexplicably bizarre behavior of RV's airbrushing Al and The Fieldhands from the RV Kremlin, it strikes me that this may not be possible. Still, if cooler heads could prevail (particularly given Deb's earlier explicit sentiments about the NECESSITY of sending Al), it might be possible to make sure that the one of the best bloggers in history (according to SuperDeb) will make the show and enrich the community at large.

I think one or several field hands filing a case in small claims court is a decent idea. The complaint could then be sent to local press (Deb's post to "Send Al to Denver", Exhibit A; there is a follow-up post of Al's about how much was raised, also on google cache - Exhibit B; Al's "Lessons" post, Exhibit C). Not sure how to do it, since so many donors are out of Deb's and Rural Votes' jurisdiction (assuming they are the same). Let me know, Al, if this is worth researching. I'm sitting here dumbfounded at how badly RV and Deb are >still< continuing to handle the "Al to Denver" donations and credential issue. It appears something more may be needed to spur them on to doing the honorable thing.

@mak If you don't read books that provoke thought and challenge your point of view, then you're doomed to a small life. It would be interesting to get from field hands what such books have been those world-breakers in their own life. I'd put in my much-beloved Tristam Shandy, from that sort-of-accidental satirist Laurence Sterne, that turned all conventions of literature on their heads (and he was a "radical" -- his previous work A Political Romance had forced him out of the church and saw the work burned because the church orthodoxy couldn't take it). When I first read Tristam Shandy, I couldn't believe that it had been written in 1759.

@ Laura Dew

Great idea. Definitely Howard Zinn's "Declarations of Independence" is the top of my list. I love this guy, for what he has to say and teach but also for his cockeyed optimism and faith in people. His sense of humor rocks, too, I was lucky to see him at Shoreline Community College a few years back. (No doubt Deb considers Zinn a scary radical - but tickets to this event sold out in a heartbeat - in the burbs!) Also "Five Smooth Stones", a novel by Ann Fairbairn, first read in the 70s - I just purchased the reprint last week to read a second time. I want to see if it still has the impact it did back then. Seems the right year for the re-read.

Steven (Mayan) - Regarding your first question: "How the hell did you and Deb come together to begin with? If you don't want to go there, I understand. Still, it may help to understand this mindboggling unraveling. In retrospect, it seems as if "odd couple" doesn't even begin to touch on the difference in missions."

I was asked that question by a DKos blogger that wants to diary about this and gave him this statement, which I don't mind sharing with y'all:

RuralVotes' chairperson wrote me last December asking for advice and help on how to get more viewers for their website. I suggested she get one of her people to do a blog covering the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. She asked me for a proposal to do it myself and said she would be willing to toss me a few bucks to do it.

At the time RuralVotes had almost no readers (it's daily hit count was 300 including Internet search engines), very little activity, the organization really seemed to be just a few people, and as a favor to them I made a three week commitment: mid-December to the January 8 New Hampshire primary.

But by then the site had taken off almost overnight, with tens of thousands of readers who wanted to send me to Nevada and then Texas to cover the caucuses and primaries and, later, to the convention, and it was for them that I remained.

There was an early conflict last winter when Ms. Kozikowski of that organization objected to my mentioning the words "Abbie Hoffman" - another well known community organizer - and I told her that if she felt that strongly about it I would be happy to leave. She begged me to stay and promised not to tell me what I could or couldn't write about. If you read her June 11 emails to me in that context, you'll see that not only was a ridiculous act of censorship undertaken, but she had broken her word to me in doing so. Based on long experience, I don't collaborate with people who have broken their sacred word to me, because people like that will do it again and again to anyone that continues to let them, and that's the story in a nutshell.

At least half the readers of the Ex-Field now know the new address and are visiting daily. That's the result of self-organizing by the "Field Hands" networking group - http://fieldhands.ning.com/ - and the generosity of Kos and others who offered people the new link. But there are still some folks out there probably scratching their heads wondering where to find it or if it even exists anymore, so to the extent your diary alerts them I'll be appreciative.

best,

Al Giordano

Regarding your second question about some kind of mediation, I can't imagine anybody wanting to play that role, but the problem would not be on my end if someone did. The problem is that if someone has already spent money donated for one explicit purpose on something else, or committed a "press credential" to somebody else, perhaps someone that is not even a blogger, there's nothing to negotiate with, right?

Add to that the dramatics of "wounded animal syndrome" reflected in extremely contradictory emails one party has sent to those that have written her - some expressing remorse, others expressing revenge and libelous claims - and the continued selective dicking around of some that want their contributions back while granting others easily, and I'm not sure that anyone over there is emotionally stable enough to conduct a serious mediation or negotiation. I get the impression that the overriding principle is "take the money and run."

However, there are very interesting legal issues raised by soliciting funds for one purpose and spending them on another. My layman's understanding of the law is that it is iron-clad strict on that matter. But that is up to donors - the aggrieved party, legally speaking - to pursue if they wish. And, after all, the germ of this whole dust-up involves the principle of self-organization. I'm sure that Field Hands will come to some organic solution without needing me to propose it.

Al - Since the DKos diarist will, in all likelihood, be sending more people to your original post on the contretemps, you will want to correct the spelling of Mr. Sifry's name. There were two mentions of him in the paragraph and only one was corrected. Sorry to be so late with this. I posted it on the wrong thread by mistake.

@Al Giordano, 10:29

Got it re self-organization, LOL. I'll do some looking around on "The Google" today and report what I find out about the rules for possible small claims court filing in Deb's/RV's jurisdiction.... It will be fun!

Thanks, JoAnn. Will do! (From one blogger that is always appreciative when readers donate editing talents like that!)

I've gotten a strange response after forwarding my PayPal receipt to Deb along with a courteous request for a refund.

I spent a few sentences letting her know that I'm probably the sort of reader she thinks she represents -- I'm a 50-something woman who works deep within state, federal, and local systems to ensure health care access to underserved regions and populations.

I wanted her to understand that someone like me disagrees with what she did, that I want my donation returned, and that I intend to continue to support Al however I can.

Her reply was odd. She made it sound as though she's concerned about Al and his association with this awful narcosphere site, etc. She concluded with a high-minded declaration about her dedication to doing what's right.

But she never responded to my two main points about how I shouldn't have had to find out by accident that Al's blog was officially no longer on ruralvotes...and that I shouldn't have to wonder whether the $5000 raised to send him to Denver would be used for that purpose.

And I still don't have a refund.

It feels like she was trying to spin me, and the lack of refund is annoying as hell.

I'm not one to idly threaten actions like small court claims, but I'm looking into it now.

Editing and proofreading would be my job if I wanted to work (which I don't since I am retired and lazy). You have my e-mail address. If anyone ever needs assistance in that direction, I would be glad to help.

See
http://www.masmallclaims.org/en/node/16

Last saturday, I asked RV to either refund my $ 25 to my credit card or transfer to Al / The Fund for Authentic Journalism. Between many back and forth, Deb kept saying as per "policy" she will refund by check (which would take weeks to clear since I am in India). I didn't get a proper reply to my query on what kind of policy takes in money by credit card but refunds by check.

Two days before, I mailed directly to groundspring and they replied today saying that my May donation has already been sent to RV but Deb says she hasn't received it yet.

When I questioned them both on what is happening, Deb said "They pay it out by check end date last day of the month, the grant check is mailed within 21 days. Today is the 20th, we expect it to arrive and have been checking our PO Box daily. Nothing is going on beyond process."

Getting a refund from RV seems so Clintonistic !

I really don't know what happened to them in my last post.

I wholeheartedly agree that her actions are alarming, not because of small-potato Deb, but because the party needs to make sure its supporters are supported, so to speak.

One issue I'm sure others have considered is that now that Obama's base has gotten him the nomination, he and the DNC have to walk a line; they need to retain our organizing and financial support, but they also can't appear to be nakedly capitalizing on the desperation of the voters in order to slip a collectivist agenda past big business; even with grassroots support, the establishment could kill Democratic hopes, or at the least paralyze an administration and Congress. The last thing we need is to get Bill Clinton redux, where business interests bought the first midterm election.

So I could see that the conservative wing of the DNC would be jittery about folks like us. "Revolution" is a loaded term, and if more than a fringe of Democrats support it the party is toast. I've never actively been in the fringe before; like many bums I've just bitched quietly in my corner. I want authentic journalism and community activism to be at the center of our country's politics. In the past these ideas were relegated to specialized rags that were considered a voice in the wilderness. Nowadays, where the wilderness is a keystroke away on the Innertoobz, the DNC and Obama are going to have to answer for us.

What response will we have? Will we turn away from Obama because he's going to support pro-choice or otherwise conservative downticket Dems and minimize his so-called radical roots? Has the rejection of the Wright and Ayers meme inoculated the public against a new Red scare? Only time will tell.

Al, don't encourage us! I'm a grammar nazi, but have restrained myself to avoid being banned for sheer obnoxiousness. I'll pipe up if I find a significant typo. But if I start having strong urges about errant apostrophes or such I'll go back into my corner for quiet time.

I have emailed Deb twice and have received no response. My guess is that she has already spent the funds donated for Al and, other than some previously small amounts already refunded, she has no more funds to refund the rest of us. My guess is that she is hoping we all will just quietly go away. Well, that isn't going to happen. I'm all for press coverage, petitions, small claims courts and other methods to make this misuse of funds a public matter that has the proper resolution.

Really? She tried to censor your post that mentioned Abbie Hoffman?

 

Oy.

 

You know, my husband has been reading Todd Gitlin's Letters to a Young Activist, and out of the discussion we've been having, I've come to some conclusions: First, that activists like Saul Alinsky, Abbie Hoffman, and Gitlin are progressive heroes; that they, and the grassroots movements inspired by them, are the only reason that we have moved past political inertia toward progress. Without activism, would civil rights legislation EVER have been passed? Would slavery have been abolished? Would women have won the right to vote? All of those moments of progress, along with countless others, came to us as a direct result of progressive agitation.

It seems to me that the Democratic Party establishment--mostly comprised of cowards and opportunists--rides the historical legacy of agitation, espousing belief in the core values of activism, while the reality couldn't be further from the truth. In truth, the party establishment fears activists in the same way conservatives fear activists. Agitation threatens their money and power, both of which depend on mealy-mouthed centrism and powerful stagnation. So during election years, a few of them throw the activists a bone, tossing out the name of one of our progressive heroes to inspire our collective memories while simultaneously disassociating themselves from the activist movement through their tangible political actions. Look, for example, at how the party establishment treats the rare activist in its own party--Kucinich, say, whose action to introduce the Articles of Impeachment has been largely met with radio silence, scorn, and ridicule rather than praise--the reason given that "this is an election year," as though political bravery can or should wait, lest it offend.

I've got news for the party brass. Those names that they bandy about so casually, those memories they hope to invoke, those legacies to which they would attach their carts for political expediency--Martin Luther King; Rosa Parks; Robert Kennedy; Cesar Chavez--they were all agitators, and all, in their way, were "radicals" considered dangerous by the status quo. Their legacies are watered down during election years into soundbytes and sentimental video montages--but make no mistake. These heroes were agitators, radicals, activists. And they are our heroes precisely because of what they were and the movements they represented--movements that made people like Deb Kozikowski squirm with discomfort.

 

As Gitlin says, "Activism as such is not suffiecient for improvement, but damned if it isn't necessary."

 

And that's what our own party is running from--agitation. Movement. Progress. Change. I'm pretty ashamed of my own party right now. For if the Democratic party does not believe in agitation, activism, fighting for the principles it espouses--then what, if anything but a vague centrism, separates our party values from those of our opponents?

This year, change cannot wait. It can't wait for the party brass to catch on, it can't wait for the outcome of the election--it can't even wait for Obama, though he represents this movement. No, I think this is bigger than Obama. We're finding our voices. We're learning, after being told that being "radical" is a negative, that we've been duped by party insiders. We're discovering that being "radical" is excellent; that pissing people off drives change; that the party brass are wrong; that collectively our voice is louder than theirs. This is our moment.

Forgot to enter my name.

Lenore, If you get a co-publisher account, you don't have to keep re-entering your name (in addition to a few other nice toys to use on this site).

I haven't thought this through...But if the cause of action is Massachusetts (I know that's where Deb is located...don't know where RV is incorporated), then it may be possible for folks to assert a consumer protection claim under C.93A of the Massachusetts laws. 93A is particularly effective because:

1. It covers bait and switch situations (you bargain for one thing...you get another);

2. Under the right circumstances (and if you fulfill all jurisdictional requirements...including a formal 93A demand letter) you may get treble damages and attorneys fees. (It's like getting a camel through the eye of a needle but I've seen it done.)

Now, granted...most folks don't live in Massachusetts and it would be a hassle to consider initiating this kind of action. Still, that should not prevent people from raising the specter of an action via a formal 93A demand. Unfortunately, I am not in the position to be advising people regarding what they need to do. Suffice it to say that there is ample information available through Google etc. that should furnish a plethora of information on Massachusetts consumer protection and give sample demand letters.

I hate to go this route. At the same time...I hate to see promises reneged and people giving hard to part with money for one purpose (to see Al blog the convention) only to get something entirely different.

(Thanks, Al for your above response. I can take further discussion off line regarding my questions re: mediation.)

Hi Field Hands!

When I checked early this morning, there were almost 140 signatures in about 8 hours! Wow!

If you haven't done so yet, please sign the petition (you can remain anonymous)link and send everywhere you can!

I'm shutting this down next Saturday in order to have time to send it.

Let's have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of signatures!!

Thanks!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/credential-al-giordano.html

Should post a diary on Kos about the petition drive.  I did so yesterday but will not have time to do so today.  Thanks!

From your mouth to God's ears. Sorry about the G word, but that's what I'm praying for. Most who are desperate for change also fear it; if we're to have radical change now, the fear will have to be beaten down by hope and/or anger. It's touchy. There will be change; the only question is what kind. To quote Saul: says not that our voice is louder than the party's, but must be understood and accepted by those whose power we want to awaken: "If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."

I find it curious the wide swing of responses from RV regarding refunds.

Some received immediately, some are chatted with, some are promised, and some (like me) have had no response at all.

She/they appear to be picking and choosing, I'm assuming on what they perceived as the 'political weight' of the donor. Apparently, I got no cred :) but will pursue.

This thread seems to have turned into "what now?"

I've done a little research my self.

FRUAD - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
“In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services unjustly. [1] Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.”

[My megar bank account has been damaged when I gave to Send Al to Denver and my money is not going to do that.]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-fraud.htm
“.....Fraud is not easily proven in a court of law....”
“...........The element of fraud which tends to stymie successful prosecution is the obligation to investigate. It falls on potential investors or customers to fully investigate a proposal before any money exchanges hands. Failure to take appropriate measures at the time of the proposal can seriously weaken a fraud case in court later. The accused can claim that the alleged victim had every opportunity to discover the potential for fraud and failed to investigate the matter thoroughly. Once a party enters into a legally binding contract, remorse over the terms of the deal is not the same as fraud.”

As much as I do not like it, it appears to me I am suffering from a huge case of buyers remorse. At the same time I feel violated in the way DK has not been honest on a equal footing with all of us in the same boat.

What to do?

1] Snail mail, call or email RV from the info on RV website?
Address:
PO Box 108
Chesterfield
MA 01012
Telephone: 413-296-0118
matt@ruralvotes.com

2] Rural Votes shows Senator Blanche Lincoln on the front page. Let her know what us happening?

Senator Blanche L. Lincoln (D-AR). Democratic Rural Outreach Chair.
Washington D.C. Office
355 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510-0404
Phone: (202)224-4843
Fax: (202)228-1371

Is there no one who can convince Deb the prudent thing to do would be to send the money left in the special project to Al when she recoups whatever else she may have used it for in the interium?

In this whole mess, I DO NOT want to lose, what I thought, was our primary aim: blogging on the presidential election. I think that is staying focused on facts and wisdom to reach success in November.

Hugs to anyone who wants one.

Maybe I should have included some commentary about The Field instead of a straight refund request, she seems to be responding to those emails fastest. I work in customer support so I know what it's like to be overwhelmed with a lot of negative feedback and requests, and I'm willing to cut some slack, but I would appreciate the courtesy of a response, even if it is to decline my request.

Nice post Al.

 

Will comments every be capable of being posted in 'real time'--as oppsed to being mediated/monitered?  Monitering posts takes away much of the vibrancy of this blog--and it disinclines me to this forum.

Even if I get ripped-off by Deb, I WILL donate money on a regular basis for the type of forum you had over at rural votes (real-time comments, regularly updated information and analysis, etc.).

 

I just asked the folks at Rural Votes to give me back the $55.00 that I donated toward the Denver trip.  Can I get the money that I donated previous to that point?

 

Anyway, I know that it will take a little time to sort out the kinks, but I really liked what you had going at Rural Votes before the heavy hand of fear and censorship came down from above.

 

Keep well.  You've shown yourself to be an excellent journalist--and it would be nice if you could develop something through which you can improve upon your well honed skills and political insightfulness.